Shall China exist?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

If I do, will you take up your arms and avenge the Uyghurs and Hong Kong-ers?

I think they are Sinostatist.

Sinostatism is a pretty serious cancer to the point that even China-born people who hates China usually remain Sinostatist in a mutated manner in the same sense that communism and humanism are still related to Christianity.

When someone who is brainwashed by Sinostatism begins to hate China they often propose that all Chinese get genocided simply because there is no solution with nuances and individual rights to complex problems in the Sinostatist mind which tends to treat social problems as problems in animal husbandry or engineering.

Yo whats good East Kekistan/Neko Koku?

[Feline Goetland]

I already explained it. European countries are at least good towards Europeans of the same ethnicity. Ideally a state should be nice to everyone. If this can not be achieved at least a state should be nice towards its ruling ethnic group (and that everyone needs to get an ethnostate to ensure good treatment). China is even worse since it does not even treat its own supposed ruling ethnic group well, let alone minorities such as Uyghurs.

European states nice to their own? Soviet Russia would like a word.

Actually most of Eastern Europe would like a word

Any iteration of Russia is another major political cancer on this planet. However even Russia treats ethnic Russians better than how China treats Han Chinese.

In East Europe Russia is an exception, not the rule though. Poland is nice to Poles. Lithuania is nice to Lithuanians. Hungary is nice to Hungarians. Bulgaria is nice to Bulgarians. This is why ethnostates work in East Europe: the region is way too tribal to be safely multiethnic but has enough social unity within ethnic groups for ethnostates to flourish.

[Feline Goetland]

I think they are Sinostatist.

Sinostatism is a pretty serious cancer to the point that even China-born people who hates China usually remain Sinostatist in a mutated manner in the same sense that communism and humanism are still related to Christianity.

When someone who is brainwashed by Sinostatism begins to hate China they often propose that all Chinese get genocided simply because there is no solution with nuances and individual rights to complex problems in the Sinostatist mind which tends to treat social problems as problems in animal husbandry or engineering.

East Kekistan is a reason why even someone as anti-Sinostatist as me should not actually participate in politics everywhere outside places heavily polluted by Sinostatism.
Yo whats good East Kekistan/Neko Koku?

[Feline Goetland]

I think they are Sinostatist.

Sinostatism is a pretty serious cancer to the point that even China-born people who hates China usually remain Sinostatist in a mutated manner in the same sense that communism and humanism are still related to Christianity.

When someone who is brainwashed by Sinostatism begins to hate China they often propose that all Chinese get genocided simply because there is no solution with nuances and individual rights to complex problems in the Sinostatist mind which tends to treat social problems as problems in animal husbandry or engineering.

East Kekistan is a reason why even someone as anti-Sinostatist as me should not actually participate in politics anywhere outside places heavily polluted by Sinostatism. China-born people are just way too heavy-handed on everything. For example if a China-born person, even an anti-CCP one, is put in charge of COVID quarantines they might actually order all border breachers to be shot or something. Exemptions, special circumstances etc don’t tend to exist in policies made by China-born people. Note that this isn’t just true for communist China. Any China in history is like that. Sinostatism is very heavy on social engineering, is entirely top down and completely disregards human cost of policies. Sinostatist policies of a given Sinostatist can be considered left-wing, right-wing or neither but no matter which one is true it is usually so heavy-handed that it is disgusting to anyone not familiar with Sinostatism.

Of course that’s another reason why China as a state and its statist tradition needs to be abolished. One to two generations of freedom and human rights (just like what exists in Hong Kong and Taiwan) are necessary to detoxify the minds of the average Chinese and cure Sinostatism.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

European states nice to their own? Soviet Russia would like a word.

Actually most of Eastern Europe would like a word

Any iteration of Russia is another major political cancer on this planet. However even Russia treats ethnic Russians better than how China treats Han Chinese.

In East Europe Russia is an exception, not the rule though. Poland is nice to Poles. Lithuania is nice to Lithuanians. Hungary is nice to Hungarians. Bulgaria is nice to Bulgarians. This is why ethnostates work in East Europe: the region is way too tribal to be safely multiethnic but has enough social unity within ethnic groups for ethnostates to flourish.

Albanians aren't nice to albanians. I live around many and if two albanians just look at each other the wrong way, one of them is going down.

So do you think Chinese people are like genetically tyrannical or just culturally?

[Bienenhalde]

Exemptions, special circumstances etc don’t tend to exist in policies made by China-born people.

Arguably that could be a good thing because it would prevent corruption, hypocrisy, and discrimination.

[Feline Goetland]

Any iteration of Russia is another major political cancer on this planet. However even Russia treats ethnic Russians better than how China treats Han Chinese.

In East Europe Russia is an exception, not the rule though. Poland is nice to Poles. Lithuania is nice to Lithuanians. Hungary is nice to Hungarians. Bulgaria is nice to Bulgarians. This is why ethnostates work in East Europe: the region is way too tribal to be safely multiethnic but has enough social unity within ethnic groups for ethnostates to flourish.

Albanians aren't nice to albanians. I live around many and if two albanians just look at each other the wrong way, one of them is going down.

So do you think Chinese people are like genetically tyrannical or just culturally?

I think it is a cultural problem instead of a genetic one as Sinostatism doesn’t seem to be a problem in Hong Kong before Xi or Taiwan. Moreover the word “Chinese” needs to be unpacked. At least commerce-minded southern Chinese do not seem to be genetically tyrannical. As for northern Chinese there is no evidence that they are either genetically tyrannical or not because we don’t have evidence of them having either independent liberal or tyrannical regimes in modern history nor do we have enough adult second generation members from northern China outside China to observe whether they are genetically tyrannical. Likely not.

Culturally China is like an upside down version of the United States. Mandarin-speakers in northern China are like Dixies while non-Mandarin speakers in coastal southern China are like New Englanders, Jews and Italians. It is northern Chinese who serve in the military and support traditionalism & socialism while people in my region like to make money and don’t like to serve in the military.

[Bienenhalde]

I support China's right to exist as a nation-state, but I also support its Balkanization and the independence of many smaller countries such as Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. I pray for the CCP's demise every single day. I support the creation of a smaller, freer, more democratic China of which Hong Kong is not a constituent part. Only then can I say I'm proud to be Chinese without lying.

What makes you think China ought to be a nation-state, as opposed to a multi-ethnic federation?

[Liriena]

I'm a bit of a simp for Sun-Yat Sen and the whole "Five Races Under One Union" thing the Xinhai Revolution had going on. It'd be nice if someday we could have a unified democratic socialist China, though at this point I feel like the PRC's dominance is bordering on a foregone conclusion.

[Feline Goetland]

Exemptions, special circumstances etc don’t tend to exist in policies made by China-born people.

Arguably that could be a good thing because it would prevent corruption, hypocrisy, and discrimination.

Having different interest groups promote their interests as opposed to having a centralized state imposing some policies on everyone promotes self-government among the people and make them politically active and hopefully mature.

For example there are people all the way from Andrew Anglin to Malcolm X in America. It looks like the racial question in America is highly chaotic. However this allows people to fight for their own shares in the world as opposed to waiting for Washington to establish laws to control everyone. The seemingly chaos in America is similar to the seeming weakness of Ancient Greece, Yugoslavia and Iraq. When China, Russia or some other entity actually attacks the United States all these seemingly warring groups in America will actually show up and fight together.

[Kiu Ghesik]

As we all know, China exists. However shall it really happen? Any iteration of China in history has been a brutal entity that treats its own subjects as well as foreign peoples like shit. A typical regime change in China tends to be accompanied by a major depopulation. Moreover China historically conducted genocides that are so thorough that not enough survivors were left to condemn, let alone punish the perpetrators. Since China is so awful shall it be abolished and replaced by Korea-sized successor states that can ensure the existence of human rights and international norms?

Magic Realpolitik-Ball says "Outlook Not So Good". Currently, it doesn't matter if China is awful, it has the power to make itself exist. That's the only legitimacy it needs.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Republic of China established and at the least Tibet and Inner Mongolia returned to their respective owners, but realistically I doubt that'll ever happen, at least in my lifetime.

[Feline Goetland]

As we all know, China exists. However shall it really happen? Any iteration of China in history has been a brutal entity that treats its own subjects as well as foreign peoples like shit. A typical regime change in China tends to be accompanied by a major depopulation. Moreover China historically conducted genocides that are so thorough that not enough survivors were left to condemn, let alone punish the perpetrators. Since China is so awful shall it be abolished and replaced by Korea-sized successor states that can ensure the existence of human rights and international norms?

Magic Realpolitik-Ball says "Outlook Not So Good". Currently, it doesn't matter if China is awful, it has the power to make itself exist. That's the only legitimacy it needs.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Republic of China established and at the least Tibet and Inner Mongolia returned to their respective owners, but realistically I doubt that'll ever happen, at least in my lifetime.

Now you know why the Sinostate has always been amoral and completely disregards any foreign country. China historically could actually get away with being extremely immoral and violating all international agreements without ceasing to exist (since it is so large and populous that even if you do conquer China you will become the new China..)

[Kiu Ghesik]

Magic Realpolitik-Ball says "Outlook Not So Good". Currently, it doesn't matter if China is awful, it has the power to make itself exist. That's the only legitimacy it needs.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Republic of China established and at the least Tibet and Inner Mongolia returned to their respective owners, but realistically I doubt that'll ever happen, at least in my lifetime.

Now you know why the Sinostate has always been amoral and completely disregards any foreign country. China historically could actually get away with being extremely immoral and violating all international agreements without ceasing to exist (since it is so large and populous that even if you do conquer China you will become the new China..)

For once, the big power is actually too big to fall. If only the same thing was true for the banks.

[Bienenhalde]

Arguably that could be a good thing because it would prevent corruption, hypocrisy, and discrimination.

Having different interest groups promote their interests as opposed to having a centralized state imposing some policies on everyone promotes self-government among the people and make them politically active and hopefully mature.

For example there are people all the way from Andrew Anglin to Malcolm X in America. It looks like the racial question in America is highly chaotic. However this allows people to fight for their own shares in the world as opposed to waiting for Washington to establish laws to control everyone. The seemingly chaos in America is similar to the seeming weakness of Ancient Greece, Yugoslavia and Iraq. When China, Russia or some other entity actually attacks the United States all these seemingly warring groups in America will actually show up and fight together.

I am not so sure about that. People here in the US are pretty divided. How do you know that there wouldn't be substantial number of Americans collaborating with Russia or China to defeat their enemies?

[Nanshe]

Advocating for imperialism especially that which seeks to subdue China to achieve an unipolar global economy (re: to expand capital) is out of the question. The west got rid of the Soviet Union at the expense of an insecure future that would later be troubled by terrorism from U.S.-trained mujahideen.The pivot to Asia after the 2008 financial crisis has further created turmoil for Hawaiians, Guamanians, Filipinos, and Ryukyuans who have to bare the fasces of U.S. militarism. Although comforting to think about for neoliberals, eliminating China is not only illiberal, but it also is illogical economically. Questioning whether China should exist is also against international law, has white supremacist vibes, and disregards the cost of "transitional democracies" that way too often end up with fascist autocratic leaders (Putin is the best example for this).

One should also look to China's colonial history, much like Africa, that has experience with being carved up for extraction by the majority of European colonial powers. India is being used as a U.S. pawn under ethnocentric Narenda Modi to fan the flames of border disputes introduced by colonial powers that never once mattered. We also have to be very mindful of our language and how this might legitimize a neo cold war.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Can we just give it all to Mongolia so we can MMGA?

Make Mongolia Great Again. They'll be throat singing in glee for weeks.

[Feline Goetland]

Advocating for imperialism especially that which seeks to subdue China to achieve an unipolar global economy (re: to expand capital) is out of the question. The west got rid of the Soviet Union at the expense of an insecure future that would later be troubled by terrorism from U.S.-trained mujahideen.The pivot to Asia after the 2008 financial crisis has further created turmoil for Hawaiians, Guamanians, Filipinos, and Ryukyuans who have to bare the fasces of U.S. militarism. Although comforting to think about for neoliberals, eliminating China is not only illiberal, but it also is illogical economically. Questioning whether China should exist is also against international law, has white supremacist vibes, and disregards the cost of "transitional democracies" that way too often end up with fascist autocratic leaders (Putin is the best example for this).

One should also look to China's colonial history, much like Africa, that has experience with being carved up for extraction by the majority of European colonial powers. India is being used as a U.S. pawn under ethnocentric Narenda Modi to fan the flames of border disputes introduced by colonial powers that never once mattered. We also have to be very mindful of our language and how this might legitimize a neo cold war.

It’s pretty funny that you think China actually has a colonial history.

Ok. What percentage of China was actually colonized by Europeans? Outside Hong Kong, Macau and Dalian which part of China with significant ethnic Han Chinese population was annexed by any European power? There were also a few concessions but again these were isolated places in China without much territory. I mean, India was actually colonized by the British and Vietnam was actually colonized by the French. But colonization of China? Lol. 99%+ of China was never touched by European powers.

I know the nature of Northeast Asia enough to know that it is inherently not colonizable lol.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Advocating for imperialism especially that which seeks to subdue China to achieve an unipolar global economy (re: to expand capital) is out of the question. The west got rid of the Soviet Union at the expense of an insecure future that would later be troubled by terrorism from U.S.-trained mujahideen.The pivot to Asia after the 2008 financial crisis has further created turmoil for Hawaiians, Guamanians, Filipinos, and Ryukyuans who have to bare the fasces of U.S. militarism. Although comforting to think about for neoliberals, eliminating China is not only illiberal, but it also is illogical economically. Questioning whether China should exist is also against international law, has white supremacist vibes, and disregards the cost of "transitional democracies" that way too often end up with fascist autocratic leaders (Putin is the best example for this).

Let's dissect this bit by bit, shall we?

Advocating for imperialism especially that which seeks to subdue China to achieve an unipolar global economy (re: to expand capital) is out of the question

Not the objective being discussed here. Goetland proposed the dissolving of China- while a fanciful concept at best- as being based on that state's record of human rights abuses and imperialism. In this context it is not "to expand capital".

The west got rid of the Soviet Union at the expense of an insecure future that would later be troubled by terrorism from U.S.-trained mujahideen.

The Soviet Union choked itself to death. The clutter and clogging of the apparatchik, coupled with Gorbachev's policies, led to the collapse of the system. It was doomed in the sixties, everything after that was its death spiral.

Also, are you literally saying that the fall of the Soviet Union led to the terrorism problem of today? Because the west and the east sowed that problem back in, well, the fifties, and have been feeding it ever since.

The pivot to Asia after the 2008 financial crisis has further created turmoil for Hawaiians, Guamanians, Filipinos, and Ryukyuans who have to bare the fasces of U.S. militarism.

Those two points do not follow. How has an economic pivot towards the east led to Pacific peoples bearing the "fasces" of US militarism?

Although comforting to think about for neoliberals, eliminating China is not only illiberal, but it also is illogical economically.

Correct, though I get the sense "neoliberal" is a dirty word in this context.

Questioning whether China should exist is also against international law, has white supremacist vibes, and disregards the cost of "transitional democracies" that way too often end up with fascist autocratic leaders (Putin is the best example for this).

Hoo boy. Questioning whether or not a state should exist is a pure hypothetical, not an actionable or criminal thing. Not to mention, international law has about as many (real) teeth as a centenarian in a nursing home. And how the fuck does questioning whether or not a state should exist have white supremacist vibes? We're talking about a nation here, not a people group or a race. And where did you get transitional democracies from? The conversation hasn't even progressed to the point where the discussion of what should follow China is being considered. Though yes, Putin and what he did to Russia is an example of a weak democracy being co-opted by a strongman, though I would point out anyone could have seen it coming, given the power the intelligence community held in the USSR and Putin's role in it.

In summary:
Warning: The above content is composed of 85% ideology, which has been shown in the state of California to be harmful to one's health. Exercise caution when consuming the above post.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Advocating for imperialism especially that which seeks to subdue China to achieve an unipolar global economy (re: to expand capital) is out of the question. The west got rid of the Soviet Union at the expense of an insecure future that would later be troubled by terrorism from U.S.-trained mujahideen.The pivot to Asia after the 2008 financial crisis has further created turmoil for Hawaiians, Guamanians, Filipinos, and Ryukyuans who have to bare the fasces of U.S. militarism. Although comforting to think about for neoliberals, eliminating China is not only illiberal, but it also is illogical economically. Questioning whether China should exist is also against international law, has white supremacist vibes, and disregards the cost of "transitional democracies" that way too often end up with fascist autocratic leaders (Putin is the best example for this).

One should also look to China's colonial history, much like Africa, that has experience with being carved up for extraction by the majority of European colonial powers. India is being used as a U.S. pawn under ethnocentric Narenda Modi to fan the flames of border disputes introduced by colonial powers that never once mattered. We also have to be very mindful of our language and how this might legitimize a neo cold war.

It’s pretty funny that you think China actually has a colonial history.

Ok. What percentage of China was actually colonized by Europeans?

Well, China wasn't actually colonized, but it was Europe's sub for about a hundred years. "Exclusive" ports, the Boxer Rebellion, any of that ring a bell?

[Feline Goetland]

It’s pretty funny that you think China actually has a colonial history.

Ok. What percentage of China was actually colonized by Europeans?

Well, China wasn't actually colonized, but it was Europe's sub for about a hundred years. "Exclusive" ports, the Boxer Rebellion, any of that ring a bell?

How was that different from Sweden controlling a part of Pomerania in the past? The power of states and peoples increase and decrease over time. How is what you described different from Poland occupying Moscow in 1612 and Russia occupying Poland in 1910?

There is enough balance of power in Eurasia that the typical New World-style racial problems don’t really exist. Northern Eurasia used to be dominated by Indo-Europeans, then steppe coalitions that were often mixed race such as Huns, Avars, etc.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Well, China wasn't actually colonized, but it was Europe's sub for about a hundred years. "Exclusive" ports, the Boxer Rebellion, any of that ring a bell?

How was that different from Sweden controlling a part of Pomerania in the past? The power of states and peoples increase and decrease over time. How is what you described different from Poland occupying Moscow in 1612 and Russia occupying Poland in 1910?

It was prolonged economic exploitation, compared to short, years-long-at-longest events. Poland didn't occupy Moscow for a hundred years. Though I will concur that imperialism and colonialism are fundamentally alike.

There is enough balance of power in Eurasia that the typical New World-style racial problems don’t really exist.

Eh, China has some racism problems of its own, and there's that whole matter of lots of Asian nations valuing "whiteness" over "blackness".

[Feline Goetland]

How was that different from Sweden controlling a part of Pomerania in the past? The power of states and peoples increase and decrease over time. How is what you described different from Poland occupying Moscow in 1612 and Russia occupying Poland in 1910?

It was prolonged economic exploitation, compared to short, years-long-at-longest events. Poland didn't occupy Moscow for a hundred years. Though I will concur that imperialism and colonialism are fundamentally alike.

There is enough balance of power in Eurasia that the typical New World-style racial problems don’t really exist.

Eh, China has some racism problems of its own, and there's that whole matter of lots of Asian nations valuing "whiteness" over "blackness".

People are racist. That’s fine as long as there is balance of power. It doesn’t really matter how much the French and Germans or Japanese and Koreans hate each other for such hatred leads to intense competition that ends up causing everyone to improve themselves even more. Even the PRC, disgusting and insane as it is, does not simply claim that white racism is responsible for everything wrong in China, that effects of such racism can never be overcome and not do anything about issues in China.

New World-style racial problems only exist when the power imbalance between tribes is way too much to the point that one group really does not have any chance to defeat the other but instead has to ask them for mercy. That’s when widespread discussions of racism as some great social evil begins. If there is any kind of power balance no such discussion is necessary as people are either sufficiently close in status to intermarry or separate into ethnostates with roughly comparable levels of strength and prosperity (e.g. Serbia and Croatia, Turkey and Greece).

[Kiu Ghesik]

It was prolonged economic exploitation, compared to short, years-long-at-longest events. Poland didn't occupy Moscow for a hundred years. Though I will concur that imperialism and colonialism are fundamentally alike.


Eh, China has some racism problems of its own, and there's that whole matter of lots of Asian nations valuing "whiteness" over "blackness".

People are racist. That’s fine as long as there is balance of power. It doesn’t really matter how much the French and Germans or Japanese and Koreans hate each other for such hatred leads to intense competition that ends up causing everyone to improve themselves even more. Even the PRC, disgusting and insane as it is, does not simply claim that white racism is responsible for everything wrong in China, that effects of such racism can never be overcome and not do anything about issues in China.

I don't know anyone that claims that. Any exploitation that occurred was predominantly economic rather than racial.

[Bienenhalde]

The main problem with having a huge China is that it is essentially impossible for outside forces to really enforce any kind of norm there. Hence ethnic cleansing and other atrocities are impossible to stop without a World War unlike atrocities in Uganda or Central African Republic for example. Same for Russia. The existence of the United States isn’t a problem though because there is federalism and that America itself is already sufficiently complex that different forces within it balances each other out.

So why couldn't China have a federal system like the United States?

[Kiu Ghesik]

The main problem with having a huge China is that it is essentially impossible for outside forces to really enforce any kind of norm there. Hence ethnic cleansing and other atrocities are impossible to stop without a World War unlike atrocities in Uganda or Central African Republic for example. Same for Russia. The existence of the United States isn’t a problem though because there is federalism and that America itself is already sufficiently complex that different forces within it balances each other out.

So why couldn't China have a federal system like the United States?

Goetland's talking about ethnic homogeneity, I think.

The premise of the statement, from that lens, is kinda shaky, I gotta say.