Would Taiwan Independence cause the PRC to collapse?

[GuyInTaiwan]

I really don't know enough to say whether I think China would try to annex North Korea, though I suspect it's unlikely simply because other powers would object so much.

Agreed. Keep in mind that this system predated democracy, and with the exception of Athens, no democracy existed in the entire world for a very long time. The first democracy since then was established during the Qing dynasty.

Aside from the obvious example of the evolution of democracy in Britain, you also have the following:

Althing (Iceland), Logting (Faroe Islands), Tynwald (Isle of Man), and the Iroquois, with other somewhat democratic organisations elsewhere. Still a fairly long time between drinks, though not as long as commonly thought.

[ABC]

So the point that's been said a couple of times is that the Chinese government will have a huge problem with its people due to nationalism, if not collapse altegether, if China is to lose Taiwan. Frankly, I don't see how China can even "lose" something it doesn't control in the first place. And lets say Taiwan does get recognition as an independent country, why would the Chinese people be angry at their government? Surely the Chinese people will be pissed, but it'll be at the countries/organizations that decideded to extend Taiwan such recognition, not at the Chinese government.

So what's this saying that China will have problem with its people or even collapse if it were to lose Taiwan? That's like saying Chinese people would be mad at the Chinese government for the US selling arms to Taiwan, like it's China that decided to have the US sell arms to Taiwan or something.

IceEage: How would the above assertion fit in with your wild scenarios? Clearly in the first scenario the Chinese people would have endorsed Taiwan independence(thus electing a pro-TI government in a democratic election). For the rest of the scenarios the status of Taiwan would seem to be the last thing on people's mind then.

[IceEagle]

The point is that the average peasant had a say in who ruled over .

Like in a democracy, regime change if the current leaders were unbearable was possible. The Mandate of Heaven was not as easily invoked, and had a higher cost in blood, and change was slower as a result. But it was possible, and forced the emperor to listen to the needs of his subjects... or else.

No mate, the commoners NEVER had a say in China's history. If they had a say, there wouldn't be bloodshed. If they had a say, they wouldn't have to attempt to kill the emperor just to change things.

I don't know about that. My understanding is that in times of peace, the magistrates were generally fair and respectable and made wise decisions concerning the people they watched over. And provincial officials had to listen to the needs of the people, or else a petition could be made to the Imperial Court to have the officials removed from their posts.

So I think the peasants did have some measure of control over their local governments. The central government, perhaps not so much (unless the Mandate of Heaven gets invoked).

Even today, the Chinese are very tactful with their words especially when talking to someone of power or wealth so as not to offend the wrong person. It has become a part of Chinese culture.

1) This is universal. It's not limited only to "Chinese culture".

2) I know a few "Chinese" that would disprove your generalization.

The emperor is always the highest authority and cannot be questioned. As a commoner, if the emperor wanted your head to roll for whatever reason, your head will roll. He justs has to write a letter to you and you would obediently bow your head and follow his officials to have your head chopped off. That was how it was back then. You have got no say.

One on one, I agree. But one emperor verus the entire population of the Middle Kingdom...

If you are lucky, you get a good emperor to lord over you and life is a bit more tolerable. If you are unlucky, well you can take part in the uprising (there is always one plotting to overthrow the emperor!) or just ride it out.

A good emperor would do more than just make life tolerable. He'd listen to the people.

Democracy would obviously be a better solution to all these infightings and bloodshed but somehow they never thought of implementing it!

Democracy only removes the bloodshed. We'd still have plenty of infighting to go around.

[IceEagle]

So the point that's been said a couple of times is that the Chinese government will have a huge problem with its people due to nationalism, if not collapse altegether, if China is to lose Taiwan.
Frankly, I don't see how China can even "lose" something it doesn't control in the first place.

I think the consensus was that the PRC would not collapse if it were forced to acknowledge that Taiwan was independent.

I object to your wording, "China is to lose Taiwan", as it implies that I have said that Taiwan is a part of China right now.

And lets say Taiwan does get recognition as an independent country, why would the Chinese people be angry at their government? Surely the Chinese people will be pissed, but it'll be at the countries/organizations that decideded to extend Taiwan such recognition, not at the Chinese government.

Because it's the Chinese government that would have decided to extend Taiwan such recognition....

So what's this saying that China will have problem with its people or even collapse if it were to lose Taiwan? That's like saying Chinese people would be mad at the Chinese government for the US selling arms to Taiwan, like it's China that decided to have the US sell arms to Taiwan or something.

1) Because it's the Chinese government that would have decided to extend Taiwan such recognition....

2) Because of all the arguments I've read (and cited in this thread in earlier posts) saying that if 1) happened then China would collapse.

IceEage: How would the above assertion fit in with your wild scenarios? Clearly in the first scenario the Chinese people would have endorsed Taiwan independence(thus electing a pro-TI government in a democratic election). For the rest of the scenarios the status of Taiwan would seem to be the last thing on people's mind then.

1) Agreed with you. If this actually happened, it would contradict the PRC's current stance.

2) PRC collapse causes formal Taiwan independence. Not the other way around.

3B) This one is the most ironic. Formal Taiwan independence SAVES the PRC from collapsing! Ha!

I think 3A) is the only scenario that comes close to having formal Taiwan independence, defined as the PRC recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, causing the PRC to collapse. But in this scenario, such recognition is just a spoil of war, a side effect rather than a direct cause of PRC collapse.

[GuyInTaiwan]

So the point that's been said a couple of times is that the Chinese government will have a huge problem with its people due to nationalism, if not collapse altegether, if China is to lose Taiwan. Frankly, I don't see how China can even "lose" something it doesn't control in the first place. And lets say Taiwan does get recognition as an independent country, why would the Chinese people be angry at their government? Surely the Chinese people will be pissed, but it'll be at the countries/organizations that decideded to extend Taiwan such recognition, not at the Chinese government.

So what's this saying that China will have problem with its people or even collapse if it were to lose Taiwan? That's like saying Chinese people would be mad at the Chinese government for the US selling arms to Taiwan, like it's China that decided to have the US sell arms to Taiwan or something.

IceEage: How would the above assertion fit in with your wild scenarios? Clearly in the first scenario the Chinese people would have endorsed Taiwan independence(thus electing a pro-TI government in a democratic election). For the rest of the scenarios the status of Taiwan would seem to be the last thing on people's mind then.

You're missing the point. It's not really whether the PRC control Taiwan or not (though I'm sure they claim some level of bullshit that they have some level of influence). It's a matter of not openly saying that Taiwan has independence. As to why this would piss people off, that's what nationalism is all about. It's a sense of what is one group's rather than another's, usually land. Nationalism is a funny thing. That's why both Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) and Anwar Sadat (Egypt) were assassinated. Indeed it's why half the shit that goes on in the Middle East goes on.

Another crazy example of nationalism is seen in this movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387926/. I saw the movie, Whose Song is this?, at a film festival in Europe. The director (who was at the screening), a Bulgarian, was having a dinner party with friends of various ethnicities (Turkish, Greek and Serbian) and they all claimed that a song in the background was from their country. So, she decided to try to get to the bottom of it. Over the course of the movie, she travels through the Balkans playing the song for different people, in the hope that it will somehow unite them culturally, but often encounters the opposite. In several scenes, some of her listeners get extremely nationalistic and at least one point in the movie, when she tells the listeners another ethnic group claim the song as theirs, she is threatened with violence.

[IceEagle]

I really don't know enough to say whether I think China would try to annex North Korea, though I suspect it's unlikely simply because other powers would object so much.

It's a big enough possibility that it has some Korea Hands (e.g. Joshua Stanton at onefreekorea.us and the folks at DailyNK) worried about it.

I don't see Russia objecting and Japan is a wildcard (although the Tokyo governor has said he is in favor of China annexing North Korea). That just leaves South Korea (and the US which would get sucked into the dispute).

Agreed. Keep in mind that this system predated democracy, and with the exception of Athens, no democracy existed in the entire world for a very long time. The first democracy since then was established during the Qing dynasty.

Aside from the obvious example of the evolution of democracy in Britain

This evolved from a struggle between the King, nobility, and the Church. But the King still have far greater powers as Soverign of the United Kingdom of Greater Britian in the era of the American Revolution than the Queen (basically a figurehead) does today.

I think an argument can be made that the UK didn't become a complete democracy until after America did (but to be far, America also had a huge advantage by inheriting the earlier parts of the evolution of democracy from Britian).

you also have the following:

Althing (Iceland), Logting (Faroe Islands), Tynwald (Isle of Man), and the Iroquois, with other somewhat democratic organisations elsewhere. Still a fairly long time between drinks, though not as long as commonly thought.

I forgot about the Iroquois. That is a good point. I'm not familiar with the other examples. I find it discouraging that out of all of them, only Iceland today is still independent.

There is also the matter of distance. Aside from the Iroquois, all those instances of democracy happened on the other side of the world, as far away from China as possible.

[GuyInTaiwan]

IceEagle: The roots of democracy in England actually go back to the Anglo-Saxons, who themselves came from modern Germany. As far back as Roman times, the Teutonic people they encountered in modern day Germany had very democratic traditions (which is actually quite a common thing in tribal societies). The Romans never conquered what is modern Germany, and so those traditions persisted into the Middle Ages and were taken to the British Isles.

However, unless they have terrain advantages that prevent them from being conquered by outside forces (be they other tribes or empires), tribal systems of governance will eventually give way to stronger, more centralised states. Outside of these areas with terrain advantages, it makes much better sense to have a very strong division of labour to the point of having (semi-)professional armies. Peasant militias simply weren't equipped (think of the costs involved with, and the advantages conferred by, owning armour, forged metal weapons of a non agricultural nature and horses) or trained well enough to fight any kind of (semi-)professional army.

Maintaining large states that were also democratic was also very difficult, hence the move towards being slowly absorbed into other systems of governance or the other route to monarchies via the concentration of power and wealth within an expansionistic tribe (which would almost certainly class captured peoples/slaves as outside the normal democratic system of governance within their tribe). Any kind of (semi-)professional army is quickly going to organise itself as a de-facto governing force/land owners, either choosing from amongst their own for a leader, or for one leader to emerge of his own accord. Incredibly wealthy trading groups were also able to do this, though they did it largely by the use of mercenaries. Power (in this case economic) was still concentrated though. Individuals (peasants) rarely had the ability to quickly and decisively concentrate power, especially of a military nature, to resist these forces.

In short, it doesn't surprise me at all that democracy wasn't mainstream for a very long time. It's a very unnatural form of government and takes quite an odd alignment of cultural factors to emerge in a large civilisation.

[ABC]

1) Because it's the Chinese government that would have decided to extend Taiwan such recognition....

Right, so if China is forced to recognize TI by another country, Chinese people would be angry at their own government and not at the country that forced China to accept TI. That's ridiculous. It would be one thing if China could have prevented TI but didn't do so. But if China did what it could to oppose it and Taiwan achieved TI anyway, the ire of the Chinese people will be directed at the external factor that made it happen, not at their own government.

2) PRC collapse causes formal Taiwan independence. Not the other way around.

If you just look at the title of this thread, it says "Would Taiwan Independence cause the PRC to collapse?" Which is also the point of the assertion people's been making, that if Taiwan becomes independent, people in China will go into a nationalistic rage and cause the PRC to collapse. Which is just false.

But you know what, you are right about this point. The PRC will need to collapse for Taiwan to achieve independence. Because the PRC simply isn't going to agree to TI if it's still there.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Any leader responsible for losing a piece of the Motherland or making similar concessions would quickly find himself in very hot water and would go down poorly in history. This has happened many times before. See my points about Rabin and Sadat.

[ABC]

Any leader responsible for losing a piece of the Motherland or making similar concessions would quickly find himself in very hot water and would go down poorly in history. This has happened many times before. See my points about Rabin and Sadat.

Right, which is why Taiwan will never get China's recognition for formal independence. What Taiwan needs is for the PRC to collapse altegether, because the PRC will never agree to TI, even under IceEagle's scenarios.