I'm saying we should do an experiment allowing people to move freely to wherever they want between the two countries. I'm not saying anything else. I'm not making any assortations about quality of life, because it's not up to me it's about the people who live there.
Modifying the countries, or anything else is not my place, cuz I don't live there
Well thats not how real life works, and wondering about such experiments is a waste of time, its never going to happen. The situation with Korea is only resolved through war as long as the US is involved.
So you're saying South Korea does not have a right to exist?
Yes
Any other countries on your hit list?
The West in general, atleast in its current form.
What counts as the West?
What is commonly refered to the political West. The political bloc based on Western imperialism, im not going to list every country.
Okay. What gives a group of people the right to have self-determination? The right to form their own country?
Fiji is a country aligned with the West, I think. Does Fiji have a right to exist? Under what circumstances would Fiji have the right to exist? I want to understand the criteria
I did specify "in its current form" (meaning economically and politically, not statehood itself) for the West in general. Im a staunch defender of self-determination of nations, but self-determination doesn't include the oppresion and exploitation of other nations.
Korea being a split nation the only rightfull outcome is unifying the North and South, and obviously i prefer unifying them under the socialist North, rather than the imperialist South.
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?
I'm saying we should do an experiment allowing people to move freely to wherever they want between the two countries. I'm not saying anything else. I'm not making any assortations about quality of life, because it's not up to me it's about the people who live there.
Modifying the countries, or anything else is not my place, cuz I don't live there
Well thats not how real life works, and wondering about such experiments is a waste of time, its never going to happen. The situation with Korea is only resolved through war as long as the US is involved.
So you're saying South Korea does not have a right to exist?
Yes
Any other countries on your hit list?
The West in general, atleast in its current form.
What counts as the West?
What is commonly refered to the political West. The political bloc based on Western imperialism, im not going to list every country.
Okay. What gives a group of people the right to have self-determination? The right to form their own country?
Fiji is a country aligned with the West, I think. Does Fiji have a right to exist? Under what circumstances would Fiji have the right to exist? I want to understand the criteria
I did specify "in its current form" (meaning economically and politically, not statehood itself) for the West in general. Im a staunch defender of self-determination of nations, but self-determination doesn't include the oppresion and exploitation of other nations.
Korea being a split nation the only rightfull outcome is unifying the North and South, and obviously i prefer unifying them under the socialist North, rather than the imperialist South.
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?