Everybody knows about the backstory, there was a civil war, KMT fled to Taiwan creating two Chinas sort of, maybe, neither recognises the other, whole thing. ROC (Taiwan) ended up transitioning from military rule to a multi-party democracy, while the PRC (mainland China) didn’t do that (they did reform economically, “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and all that, but still a one-party state, not a multi-party democracy). The status quo right now is that Taiwan is in the grey area of statehood where they function pretty much independently but aren’t properly recognised, and both sides of the strait are feeling pretty tense right now.
Taiwan’s stance on the issue is that they would like to remain politically and economically independent of mainland China, retaining their multi-party democracy, political connections to its allies, economic trade connections, etc. Also, a majority of the people in Taiwan do not support reunification with China.
China’s stance on the issue is that Taiwan should be reunified with the mainland at all costs, ideally peacefully, but war is not ruled out. They argue that Taiwan was unfairly separated from the mainland by imperial powers in their “century of humiliation”. Strategically, taking Taiwan would be beneficial to China as they would have better control of the sea.
Is it even possible for both sides to agree to a peaceful solution? Personally, I can only see two ways this could go about that has the consent of both parties. One, a reformist leader takes power in the mainland and gives up on Taiwan, and the two exist as separate independent nations. Or two, the mainland gets a super-reformist leader that transitions the mainland to a multi-party democracy, and maybe then reunification could be on the table, with Taiwan keeping an autonomous status given the large cultural difference (similar to Hong Kong or Macau’s current status). Both options are, unfortunately, very unlikely to occur in the near future.
A third option (?) would be a pseudo-unification, where Taiwan remains as a separate country, but there can be free movement of people between the mainland and Taiwan, free trade, that sort of stuff (sort of like the EU? Maybe?). Not sure if the PRC would accept that.
What are your thoughts on a peaceful solution to the crisis that both sides could agree on?
Imperialism? How is this imperialism?
World power attempting to subordinate annd subsume its neighbor by threats of invasion? How is it not imperialism?
Are you unaware of the history of Taiwan? How it became “independent”?
I am familiar. How is that relevant here?
Because imperialism isn’t when invasion. You really should learn what words mean before you use them. Imperialism is a capitalist phenomena where high stage capitalist powers enforce(through force or other means) unequal exchange and super exploitation upon subordinate nations to extract super profits. The PRC has never done that.
That’s just a nonsense definition invented by Stalin to apologize for his own imperialism. No one else uses that definition.
Although arguably the PRC has done that even by this muddled definition.
You’re just factually wrong.
That definition wasn’t “invented by Stalin.” It comes from Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in 1916, before the USSR even existed. Stalin didn’t “make it up.” Lenin analyzed imperialism as a specific stage of capitalism: monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, division of the world, and super-profits extracted from subordinate nations. That’s standard Marxist political economy, not a post-hoc excuse. The fact you’re this wrong about it is genuinely incredibly impressive.
You’re also mixing up empires with modern imperialism. They are not the same thing.
Rome conquered territory through pre-capitalist slavery and tribute. Modern imperialism works through banks, corporations, debt, unequal exchange, and enforced dependency. Capitalist imperialism is what matters on the modern age, not every conquest in human history. Saying “Rome doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition” isn’t a gotcha, it just shows you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Now on your snide comment about China.
Imperialism today looks like this: exporting finance capital, imposing structural adjustment, extracting monopoly rents, enforcing dollar hegemony, surrounding the globe with military bases, and keeping whole regions permanently underdeveloped.
China does none of that.
The PRC doesn’t run IMF shock therapy. It doesn’t control global reserve currency. It doesn’t force privatization. It doesn’t maintain hundreds of overseas bases. It doesn’t drain super-profits from the Global South. Chinese investment is infrastructure-heavy, bilateral, and negotiated, which is exactly why so many formerly colonized countries prefer dealing with China over the West.
Calling that “imperialism” is just liberal brainrot: “big country doing geopolitics = imperialism.”
I hope you can grow up and learn and stop preaching arrogantly on things you clearly know less than 0 about I understand it’s the American way but it is incredibly frustrating to be constantly lectured by uneducated labour aristocrats.