I say all nations (nation being seperate from state, not all nations have states currently) have the right to self-determination through their own state. But self-determination doesn’t cover the exploitation and oppression of others, im sure you’d agree. The imperialist West is based on the imperialist exploitation of the global South, mainly through economic measures, although sometimes through direct military measures too.
I’m against this imperialism and wish to see Western nations overthrow their imperialist governments in favour of self-sustaining or atleast non-exploitative governments (global trade is possible without exploitation afterall).
I agree that imperialism is bad. Self-determination is paramount.
But now we come back to South Korea, they’re not exerting force externally, they’re not economically influencing other countries, they’re not invading anybody. Why don’t they have a right to exist, why don’t the South Korean people have a right to self-determination?
South Korea takes part in Western imperialism through the Western market. One can think of it as South Korea knowingly buying stolen goods from a shady dealer because its cheaper.
And there is no “South Korean people”, Korea is a nation, currently split due to political reasons. It goes against national self-determination to keep the Korean nation split. Were east-Germans a seperate people from west-Germans? Was it against their “right to exist” when Germany was united?
So any country that trades with Western countries doesn’t have a right to exist?
I will point out that both China and Russia trade with the United States.
The argument that there’s no such thing as the South Korean people because they used to be in the same country is interesting. Globally were one human race, but we have a variety of countries determined by who can defend their borders.
I wonder and under what circumstances in your philosophy would a group of people be allowed just to separate from their parent country?
So any country that trades with Western countries doesn’t have a right to exist?
I will point out that both China and Russia trade with the United States.
Indeed, but do China and Russia import or export with the West? Mainly export, Russian and Chinese economy is based on domestic production and exporting it along with resources to the West, they don’t get raw resources from the global South through the West (not in any significant way anyway), they don’t enforce the comprador regimes in the global South. The West on the other hand relies on importing resources and production from the global South for half free. Cut the West from the global South and the West starves, do the same with China or Russia and, while not a fun time, they will manage.
It isn’t just about trading with the West, but rather if one takes part in the imperialist exploitation of the global South.
Globally were one human race, but we have a variety of countries determined by who can defend their borders.
This cosmopolitanism is baseless. If all humans are the same people divided by arbitrary borders, why not go strike up a conversation with lets say a Mandarin chinese person? Surely an arbitrary border won’t limit your communication with your fellow human? I’ll use the German example again, did East Germans become a seperate people from West Germans when Germany was split? Korea has been split just little longer than Germany was.
I wonder and under what circumstances in your philosophy would a group of people be allowed just to separate from their parent country?
“Parent country” is a nebulous term, as a country isn’t necessarily a nation, and a nation might not necessarily even have a country.
Okay. So people who speak the same language should be in the same country?
That is an oversimplification. Language along with ethnicity is the most obvious divider between peoples, but not the only one. I simply used it as an example due to its obviousnes, the definition of nation i find to be the most based on reality is: “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”
Or is it possible for people who speak the same language to be in different countries?
It is possible and happens, most notably with the Anglos, although there is a debate to be had whether the anglo states should unify under a common state, seeing as they pretty much are the same nation. An Englishman can easily move to Australia, understand everyone, and be indistinguishable from other Australians fairly quick. But were the same Englishman to move to Nigeria for example, he couldn’t communicate with anyone, and would never assimilate into the nation.
You said all Western countries don’t have the right to exist.
Fiji is a Western country.
Are you now saying Fiji has a right to exist?
Is your position that all countries have a right to exist but not a right to influence other countries?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy behind your statements please help me
I say all nations (nation being seperate from state, not all nations have states currently) have the right to self-determination through their own state. But self-determination doesn’t cover the exploitation and oppression of others, im sure you’d agree. The imperialist West is based on the imperialist exploitation of the global South, mainly through economic measures, although sometimes through direct military measures too.
I’m against this imperialism and wish to see Western nations overthrow their imperialist governments in favour of self-sustaining or atleast non-exploitative governments (global trade is possible without exploitation afterall).
I agree that imperialism is bad. Self-determination is paramount.
But now we come back to South Korea, they’re not exerting force externally, they’re not economically influencing other countries, they’re not invading anybody. Why don’t they have a right to exist, why don’t the South Korean people have a right to self-determination?
South Korea takes part in Western imperialism through the Western market. One can think of it as South Korea knowingly buying stolen goods from a shady dealer because its cheaper.
And there is no “South Korean people”, Korea is a nation, currently split due to political reasons. It goes against national self-determination to keep the Korean nation split. Were east-Germans a seperate people from west-Germans? Was it against their “right to exist” when Germany was united?
So any country that trades with Western countries doesn’t have a right to exist?
I will point out that both China and Russia trade with the United States.
The argument that there’s no such thing as the South Korean people because they used to be in the same country is interesting. Globally were one human race, but we have a variety of countries determined by who can defend their borders.
I wonder and under what circumstances in your philosophy would a group of people be allowed just to separate from their parent country?
Indeed, but do China and Russia import or export with the West? Mainly export, Russian and Chinese economy is based on domestic production and exporting it along with resources to the West, they don’t get raw resources from the global South through the West (not in any significant way anyway), they don’t enforce the comprador regimes in the global South. The West on the other hand relies on importing resources and production from the global South for half free. Cut the West from the global South and the West starves, do the same with China or Russia and, while not a fun time, they will manage.
It isn’t just about trading with the West, but rather if one takes part in the imperialist exploitation of the global South.
This cosmopolitanism is baseless. If all humans are the same people divided by arbitrary borders, why not go strike up a conversation with lets say a Mandarin chinese person? Surely an arbitrary border won’t limit your communication with your fellow human? I’ll use the German example again, did East Germans become a seperate people from West Germans when Germany was split? Korea has been split just little longer than Germany was.
“Parent country” is a nebulous term, as a country isn’t necessarily a nation, and a nation might not necessarily even have a country.
Okay. So people who speak the same language should be in the same country?
Or is it possible for people who speak the same language to be in different countries?
That is an oversimplification. Language along with ethnicity is the most obvious divider between peoples, but not the only one. I simply used it as an example due to its obviousnes, the definition of nation i find to be the most based on reality is: “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”
It is possible and happens, most notably with the Anglos, although there is a debate to be had whether the anglo states should unify under a common state, seeing as they pretty much are the same nation. An Englishman can easily move to Australia, understand everyone, and be indistinguishable from other Australians fairly quick. But were the same Englishman to move to Nigeria for example, he couldn’t communicate with anyone, and would never assimilate into the nation.