A Second Sunrise: Taiwan of 2020 Sent Back to 1911

What would be a good name for the rewrite?

  • Children of Heaven

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • A Hundred Years' Difference

    Votes: 6 60.0%
  • Sun and Stars

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • The Second Sunrise

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • (Just call it Second Sunrise but make sure nobody refers to it as "SS")

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
It occurs to me that 2.5D shooter games could make a big comeback given that it would take Taiwan a little bit to rebuild the transistor and processor manufacturing industries. As such, they might have to make inferior models to make the superior models here and there…

Ultimately, there will always be Doom, is what I'm saying.
 
It occurs to me that 2.5D shooter games could make a big comeback given that it would take Taiwan a little bit to rebuild the transistor and processor manufacturing industries. As such, they might have to make inferior models to make the superior models here and there…

Ultimately, there will always be Doom, is what I'm saying.
Yeah, lower-requirement games will probably have an appeal as personal computer ownership becomes more-widespread. That and Free to Play games.

I remember going to the only internet cafe in my mother's hometown in the Philippines where my cousin and I would play Ragnarok Online because it was F2P.

That's actually where a lot of the inspiration for the sections on the spread of the internet came from. That, and growing up during the spread of PC ownership in America.
 
Yeah, lower-requirement games will probably have an appeal as personal computer ownership becomes more-widespread. That and Free to Play games.

I remember going to the only internet cafe in my mother's hometown in the Philippines where my cousin and I would play Ragnarok Online because it was F2P.
The payment infrastructure for subscription-based games would be a nightmare to set up in that kind of situation.
 
Happy New Year!

Sorry I don't really have anything to post right now. I had this whole big piece planned to celebrate the holidays and another thing like two paragraphs down, but then I caught some kind of virus, got really sick, and I'm out of action.

Feeling better by the day, though. Sore throat is my excuse to eat ice cream.

On the bright side, A Hundred Years' Difference is now out on Amazon in paperback and ebook versions! It'll also be out on Nook whenever Barnes and Noble gets around to processing my paperwork.

The bad news is I realized that the Epoch Times has a presence in Taiwan, which means it got sent back in time to 1911.
 
Last edited:
How much asset do they have there? They might have a bit of a problem bouncing back if they rely on cloud services and corporate servers hosted in the US and if they haven't been self-financing already.
Good point. Minimal assets and a lack of a PRC mean Taipei isn't motivated to bail them out.

I take it back. The bad news is that I'm bedridden with a throat infection.
 
What happened to Cryptocurrency?
"The Fall and Rise and Further Falls of Cryptocurrency," by Dr. Martin Li, Popular Science, December 1943

It was the "new thing" on the rise when Taiwan was sent back during the Great Journey. But the Second Sunrise that would led to China's rise would also lead to crypto's fall.

The main reason was just how power-intensive it was. Taiwan can produce a lot of things, but we've always imported energy. When we got sent back in time, we had to ration what we had until supply chains were set up.

Crypto was one of the first on the chopping block. It was pretty energy-intensive, and crypto is pretty much useless when the rest of the world doesn't even have computers. Fortunes were wiped out overnight, but the miners made some good money selling off their now-finite GPUs once the government started buying them up for recycling.

Some proponents tried to bring it back after the Revolution as a "stablecoin," a cryptocurrency that was pegged to the Chinese Yuan. It was called "Sanmin," and many of its backers were members of the pre-revolutionary crypto community.

Nanjing shut that down within a month. Like Taiwan, the mainland was being electrified, and the government wasn't willing to "waste what little power we have on an experimental money printer," as Wang Jingwei called it.

The decision to tie Sanmin to the Yuan was a direct response to the old cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum becoming next to worthless once we got sent back in time. But the fact that it was tied to the Yuan meant that new coins could be "minted" by somebody who was neither the government nor accountable to it.

And while it wasn't exactly counterfeiting, Nanjing sure thought it was. Cease and Desist orders were issued by the end of 1912, and the Ministry of Finance ordered raids against those who didn't comply.

That would be the end of Revolution and, by extension, the beginning of the end of cryptocurrency in China. There have been other attempts to create new cryptocurrencies as energy became less scarce and computer use spread to the mainland. However, most would tend to be niche outside of the subculture and dark web transactions. The latter would eventually lead to Nanjing banning it in 1916.

Similar attempts around the world met similar success, despite the global adoption of computers. France and Russia's leftward shifts in the early 1910s would lead to it banning cryptocurrency in early 1917, and this would be followed by much of Europe after it was occupied by France the two nations after the Great War.

The two nations where cryptocurrency had any success were the United States and Russia. This could be attributed to the rapid adoption of computers, a more/individualistic culture, and a guaranteed energy security once miniature nuclear reactors were deployed in both nations.

There, cryptocurrency reached a wider, more-receptive audience that was willing to invest in the futuristic currency. While it had its critics, cryptocurrencies like Atlas would be bought and sold for over a decade by more than just enthusiasts and the dark web.

That would change with the Russian Civil War and the Second American Civil War. According to forensic accountants, Atlas was used to covertly fund the buildup of far-right terrorist groups in the previous decade. In response, both nations' provisional governments have drafted legislation for full band on cryptocurrencies.

What had once been held up as the currency of the future died after a life of lost fortunes, accusations of counterfeiting, bans, second chances, and funding extremists. It is a niche subculture in the few countries it isn't banned for counterfeiting, wasting energy, or funding extremists.

That is what happened to cryptocurrency.
 
I've still got writer's block for Chapter 100, and it's probably bad taste to have
right now.

So I figured I could go explore different aspects of this world, like what happened to crypto or how anarchism led to nationwide co-ops that are slowly turning into worker-owned megacorps.

Figure it's kinda fun to look into, plus I couldn't really get into that too much when I wrote A Hundred Years' Difference.

Which, coincidentally, is now on Barnes and Noble!

Figured I'd get it out there for Nook users, Barnes and Noble customers, and people who don't like Amazon or Jeff Bezos.

Nice to see your story is out and published. I can't wait to see it on Nook and hopefully buy it.

Figured you'd want to hear about this.
 
Last edited:
Could you post a link for the Nook site please, thanks?
www.barnesandnoble.com

A Hundred Years' Difference|eBook

They called it the "Second Sunrise." That was their name for the supernatural event that sent Taiwan and Hainan back to 1911. Now the two islands face crisis after crisis, be it impending starvation, decades-long rivalries, an imminent Imperial Japanese armada, or a dying Chinese Empire...
 
"The Fall and Rise and Further Falls of Cryptocurrency," by Dr. Martin Li, Popular Science, December 1943

It was the "new thing" on the rise when Taiwan was sent back during the Great Journey. But the Second Sunrise that would led to China's rise would also lead to crypto's fall.

The main reason was just how power-intensive it was. Taiwan can produce a lot of things, but we've always imported energy. When we got sent back in time, we had to ration what we had until supply chains were set up.

Crypto was one of the first on the chopping block. It was pretty energy-intensive, and crypto is pretty much useless when the rest of the world doesn't even have computers. Fortunes were wiped out overnight, but the miners made some good money selling off their now-finite GPUs once the government started buying them up for recycling.

Some proponents tried to bring it back after the Revolution as a "stablecoin," a cryptocurrency that was pegged to the Chinese Yuan. It was called "Sanmin," and many of its backers were members of the pre-revolutionary crypto community.

Nanjing shut that down within a month. Like Taiwan, the mainland was being electrified, and the government wasn't willing to "waste what little power we have on an experimental money printer," as Wang Jingwei called it.

The decision to tie Sanmin to the Yuan was a direct response to the old cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum becoming next to worthless once we got sent back in time. But the fact that it was tied to the Yuan meant that new coins could be "minted" by somebody who was neither the government nor accountable to it.

And while it wasn't exactly counterfeiting, Nanjing sure thought it was. Cease and Desist orders were issued by the end of 1912, and the Ministry of Finance ordered raids against those who didn't comply.

That would be the end of Revolution and, by extension, the beginning of the end of cryptocurrency in China. There have been other attempts to create new cryptocurrencies as energy became less scarce and computer use spread to the mainland. However, most would tend to be niche outside of the subculture and dark web transactions. The latter would eventually lead to Nanjing banning it in 1916.

Similar attempts around the world met similar success, despite the global adoption of computers. France and Russia's leftward shifts in the early 1910s would lead to it banning cryptocurrency in early 1917, and this would be followed by much of Europe after it was occupied by France the two nations after the Great War.

The two nations where cryptocurrency had any success were the United States and Russia. This could be attributed to the rapid adoption of computers, a more/individualistic culture, and a guaranteed energy security once miniature nuclear reactors were deployed in both nations.

There, cryptocurrency reached a wider, more-receptive audience that was willing to invest in the futuristic currency. While it had its critics, cryptocurrencies like Atlas would be bought and sold for over a decade by more than just enthusiasts and the dark web.

That would change with the Russian Civil War and the Second American Civil War. According to forensic accountants, Atlas was used to covertly fund the buildup of far-right terrorist groups in the previous decade. In response, both nations' provisional governments have drafted legislation for full band on cryptocurrencies.

What had once been held up as the currency of the future died after a life of lost fortunes, accusations of counterfeiting, bans, second chances, and funding extremists. It is a niche subculture in the few countries it isn't banned for counterfeiting, wasting energy, or funding extremists.

That is what happened to cryptocurrency.

So, a little author's commentary:

I'm not the biggest fan of crypto. It strikes me as something easy to manipulate and a lot of its biggest proponents are douchebags.

But I really, really tried to give them the best chance in this little sidestory. Problem is, pretty much the entire deck is stacked against them.

Get sent back in time? Congratulations, your coins are basically worthless. Also, the government's going to shut you down because mining for bitcoin is wasting energy.

Start it after the revolution? Still wasting energy.

Use a stablecoin that's tied to the Yuan to give it value? Well, it's actually worth something now (assuming people think it is), but the authorities aren't going to like having a second currency tied to their own where people can basically "print money."

Throw in a lot of socialists and radicals in Europe who obviously aren't going to like it, and the only place it could work is the US and Russia. And both of those countries are not going to be happy when it turns out bad actors keep running pump and dump schemes and/or funding extremists.

The best case scenario is that it gets regulated to no end, which kinda ruins a lot of the appeal.
 
Last edited:
I'm not dead. Just wanted to let everyone know that.

Just trying to think up how I'll write the sidestory on anarchism.
 
No Gods, No Masters, Lots of Bureaucracy New
"The Dominant Schools of Libertarianism and Anarchism," by Elise Brodeur, l'Humanité, January 1944

When the phrase "Libertarian" is used, the Islanders from the future had a joke that the next sentence involved the words "abolish" and "age of consent."

But in our world, the phrase is synonymous with "Anarchist," and both are used both interchangeably and in a purely leftist sense. What the Islanders would call "Libertarian" is what we would call "Objectivist," and it is far from any of the flavors of what we would call Libertarianism.

In light of of the American Civil War (and on account of the ongoing nuclear cleanup of Washington DC), we begin with Agrarian Libertarianism, the more-dominant type in the United States. This flavor of anarchism is the epitome of Nestor Makhno's ideal: agrarian communes that cooperate with one another while maintaining a sense of independence and self-sufficiency.

It was these two traits that also allowed the communes to quickly resist the Nationalist forces and their aligned militias during the first days of the Second American Civil War. The communes, who were already producing their own food and providing their own defense, were well-positioned to begin guerrilla attacks against the Nationalists almost immediately despite the frontlines being a confused mess of various shades of grey.

The successes of these attacks, coupled with their previous experience fighting Nationalist whenwe homesteader militias, effectively validated the Libertarian movement in the Americas as a viable, if rough-and-tumble, alternative to the usual American lifestyle in the cities and suburbs.

Then there is the Integrated Libertarianism that is more common in Europe, particularly the Ukrainian oblasts of the Eurasian Republic. Whereas the Agrarians of the Americas tend to organize themselves as parallel self-sufficient rural communes, the "Integrationists" of Europe operate as an interconnected network of communes that encompass everything from resource extraction to refinement to manufacturing, with everything in between. In doing so, Integrated Libertarianism provides a viable alternative to modern society that is able to provide a similar standard of living through a cooperative network of supply chains and cooperatives.

Ironically, Integrated Libertarianism got its start from the agrarian communes organized by Nestor Makhno in the 1910s. However, the complexities that came with organizing communes throughout the Ukrainian governorates demanded that the Libertarians of what is now Eurasia expand their focus from simply rural agriculture to the rest of the supply chain and the cities. This initially took the form of a cooperative fertilizer plant in the city of Kyiv and a tractor factory in Kharkiv, but it quickly expanded to non-agrarian cooperatives until they organized themselves into the massive Eurasian Cooperative.

What had once been a network of rural subsistence farming communities is now one of the largest corporations in the world and the largest workers' cooperative. Despite its massive size and its all-encompassing nature, the EC maintains its commitment to direct democracy, with elections being as commonplace as tractors rolling off the assembly line.

While both schools of Libertarianism acknowledge the validity of one another, this has not stopped their members from having disagreements and arguments. Agrarians have been known to call the Integrationists "red and black bourgeois," and even Makhno himself has expressed concerns that the increasingly-bureaucratic Integrationists were "forgetting their roots in the land." Meanwhile, the Integrationists see themselves as the natural evolution of the rural agrarian commune and point to their higher quality of life in their communities, often joking that the Agrarians are "too stupid to understand supply chains."

Nevertheless, this rivalry is largely ideological for the most part, and both schools of Libertarianism regularly cooperate with one another. Agrarians tend to seek out Integrationist cooperatives as their first choice for goods they can't produce on their rural communes, while Integrationists flocked to the Americas to fight alongside their Agrarian brothers and sisters and everyone in between.

While it is likely that both schools will continue their disagreements and friendly rivalries, their participation in the Russian and American Civil Wars has vindicated both as viable alternatives to modern society. Come what may, Libertarianism is here to stay.
 
Last edited:
So, this one has been on the backburner for years, but there are two main inspirations:

1. I remember reading some Twitter thread from some anarchists who really sucked at trying to convince anybody who didn't already agree with them when they were asked how they'd manufacture complex goods like insulin on a commune. Hence the "too stupid to understand supply chains" joke.

2. I wanted to see how a successful anarchistic society would be able to manufacture things like insulin, and the answer I got involves cooperatives basically operating a parallel supply chain and employing an army of volunteer/elected bureaucrats who keep everything running.
 
Last edited:
No reason why you couldn't have both schools coexist in the same place, with small farms being run along Agrarian lines, major country-spanning infrastructure being run along Integrationist lines, etc. with the Agrarians being ready to step up if the Integrationists get too bureaucratic, kind of like what happens in Le Guin's The Dispossessed or even in Malê Rising, when the workers' cooperatives that made Tolstoyan Russia turned into all-encompassing monopolies.

About the Integrationist bureaucracy, rather than direct volunteerism or election you could have those with the know-how necessary to run and work in a specialized field be assigned by lot to their post, for a certain period of time, out of a pool of either volunteers, or of those who are eligible due to their skills (an engineer shouldn't be one of the names in the insulin manufacture lot, for example, but a doctor or nurse could). This might prevent informal elites from developing, even though it's not a sure bet.
 
No reason why you couldn't have both schools coexist in the same place, with small farms being run along Agrarian lines, major country-spanning infrastructure being run along Integrationist lines, etc. with the Agrarians being ready to step up if the Integrationists get too bureaucratic, kind of like what happens in Le Guin's The Dispossessed or even in Malê Rising, when the workers' cooperatives that made Tolstoyan Russia turned into all-encompassing monopolies.

I think I can work with that.

One of the main differences I wanted to go with were the issue of scale and the end goal, at least when it comes to providing parallel systems as a viable alternative to modern society. Agrarians would see the communes as the ideal to strive for, while the Integrationists see the communes as a step towards the cooperative model that is more industry/heavy. There's also probably a bit of culture in there, too, since the Agrarian ideal of a self-reliant commune can resonate with the American tradition of homesteading.

At the same time, there is room for further cooperation, as you said. Smaller farms can operate under Agrarian philosophies, while the Integrationists handle the supply chains and organization. Each side balances out the other, since the Integrationists run the risk of creating a hierarchy, while the Agrarians' focus on communes limits their abilities to handle economies of scale.

The one issue I can see is that the Integrationist system requires an expansion of the Libertarian/Anarchist system to non-agrarian sectors like manufacturing and resource refining, which isn't as prevalent in America as it is in Eurasia. Most of the Libertarians in America are concentrated on communes, and they were just getting into cooperative-owned manufacturing when the Second American Civil War hit.

Of course, that probably changed with the end of the 2ACW. People are still picking up the pieces and Washington DC got nuked, so there is plenty of space for worker-controlled cooperatives in the meantime. We could see more Integrationist-Agrarian cooperation as that happens where both form a cooperative, almost symbiotic, relationship.

Though at the same time, there are going to be those who idealize or romanticize the rural commune, and they are likely to be more resistant. Not necessarily hostile, but they'll probably keep the Integrationists at arm's length.
 
I wonder what the communists think of the two strains of anarchism. Like, the OTL response of "we can be friends until the revolution, after which things get complicated" probably doesn't hold true in cases such as this where the anarchists have too many guns to make it easy to purge them and the commies are similarly not inclined to smash the purge button for a variety of reasons including "that would make the Chinese enormously angry".
 
I wonder what the communists think of the two strains of anarchism. Like, the OTL response of "we can be friends until the revolution, after which things get complicated" probably doesn't hold true in cases such as this where the anarchists have too many guns to make it easy to purge them and the commies are similarly not inclined to smash the purge button for a variety of reasons including "that would make the Chinese enormously angry".
One of the main problems for the communists (particularly the Bolsheviks) is that the Russians basically did the whole preemptive murder thing, killing everyone from Lenin and Trotsky to a young Beria. The dominant strain of socialism instead came from France, and the Radical-Socialist alliance over there ensured that it's a more democratic version in the setting.

For their part, the RadSocs are mostly on a live and let live kind of relationship with the anarchists where the former is more than willing to cooperate with them in areas of mutual interest like defense and supply chains.

This is more of an issue in Eurasia and Eastern Europe, though, since it's more prevalent over there compared to the more technocratic Ventral and Western European socialism that adopted ideas from Allende's Cybersyn program.

As for the "Let's not piss off China" thing, the Chinese (and by extension most of the Accord) is a pretty big stickler about respecting sovereignty, since they still remember all the Unequal Treaties.

Military Intelligence Bureau shenanigans notwithstanding, of course.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top