• TwilightLoki [he/him,any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    As someone who was born and raised in Hong Kong I just have to say that I did a poopie this morning

  • Civility [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Justifying imperialist proxy wars with nationalism to own the libs.

    The Hong Kong independence movement has absolutely been hijacked and fostered by the CIA and opposing US imperisalism is cool and good but recognising a "soveriegn" claim of the PRC to Hong Kong is an incredibly bad take. It requires either recognising the Qing Empire's ownership of the land and people of Hong Kong which the PRC somehow inherited by overthrowing them, the British Empire's ownership of the land and people of Hong Kong and their right to give it away to a state they've never been a part of without their consent or a sovereign claim of the PRC to govern states which are majority ethnically Han which is either imperialism, imperialism, or fascism respectively.

    • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      The Qing Empire? Hong Kong has been a part of China for literally more than 2000 years. You're parroting imperialist, colonialist propaganda by denying the fact that Hong Kong is and always has been a part of the Chinese nation.

      And they will never and could never have independence under conditions of global imperialist hegemony. An "independent" Hong Kong would just be a puppet state of Western imperial powers.

      • Civility [none/use name]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        There hasn't been a concept of "nations" for 2000 years.

        You don't need to use right wing rhetoric to justify opposition to US imperisalism.

        • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          Let me rephrase it: as long as there has been a Hong Kong there has been a China, and Hong Kong has been a part of it, except when the British violently seized it during the Second Opium War.

          Concern for the sovereignty of colonized nations isn't right wing.

          And nations have existed for a long, long time. Nation-states are a different matter, but nations can be real old.

          Here's an explainer.

          • Civility [none/use name]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            Are you saying that the PRC has a right to govern all people who self identify as "Chinese"?

            • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 years ago

              Not literally any Chinese person anywhere, but within the historical boundaries of China, yes. And also everyone else who happens to live there.

              • Civility [none/use name]
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                Why should "historical boundaries" determined by bloody imperialist wars matter more than the consent of the governed?

                • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  Well, for starters we need to clarify our terminology. By imperialist I'm not talking about ancient empires; I'm using Lenin's definition of the term :

                  (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

                  Just taking control of territory or expanding or exerting influence aren't what I or other Marxist-Leninists mean by imperialism. America qualifies as imperialist in the Marxist sense in that it developed and behaves in the way Lenin describes; China, I believe, doesn't, but either way regaining Hong Kong still wouldn't be imperialist because it's within the national borders of China.

                  And it's not so much that Hong Kong was a part of ancient Chinese empires that makes it a part of China, but that Hong Kong has always been Chinese. It doesn't mean every part of any ancient empire belongs to the same nation; Chinese empires have historically controlled parts of Korea and Vietnam at a couple points, for example, but they have distinct national identities that separate them from China.

                  The people of Hong Kong, along with the other parts of China, largely possess a common language (or family of closely related languages), history, culture, and so on, binding them together in a common nationality. National self-determination and territorial integrity are essential for fighting off imperialism and colonialism, and thus in defeating capitalism overall.

                  Also, you should read Lenin's Imperialism. It's good shit.