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?
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.
Not only was the USSR not imperialist, but it was Lenin that formulated the Marxist analysis of imperialism, not Stalin, and Lenin further relied heavily on John A. Hobson’s formulation of imperislism. Lenin took Hobson’s base observations and re-analyzed using a Marxist frame. Stalin had no part in that, and it seems like you’re trying to invent a reason to not take Marxist analysis of imperialism seriously.
The Roman Empire was pre-capitalist, and thus its mechanisms for extraction were entirely different from what Marxists analyze as modern-day imperialism. Call it whatever you wish, Marxists do not critique what we call imperialism because of its name, but because of its function as the primary contradiction driving global struggle and development today.
What you call “muddled” is in fact a far more scientific analysis than “big country bully small.” Further, no, the PRC does not fall into the Marxist analysis of imperialism.
You’re right, Lenin, not Stalin. The two are very ideologically similar so I hope you’ll forgive my misremembering. It doesn’t change the validity of my argument however.
Any analysis that automatically rejects 90% of historical imperialism as suddenly not imperialism is unserious. If you wish to call it capitalist imperialism that would be one thing but one obscure and frankly not all that serious theorist doesn’t just get to tell everyone else in the world they’re suddenly using a word wrong just because they decided to and because it’s convenient for their, yes, imperialist politics.
It changes your argument entirely. You claimed Stalin made it up to justify “soviet imperialism,” ie that it was an unscientific definition created for the purpose of justifying actions after the fact. The truth, on the other hand, is that analysis of imperialism predated the USSR, and was used to help analyze tsarist Russia’s place in the world and wage a successful revolution, because it was a scientific analysis of imperialism.
That’s not what Lenin’s analysis of imperialism does, though. You’re doing the thing where you confidently make a statement easily debunked, which leads me to believe that you either have no concern for accuracy, or instead are deliberately making things up. Roman imperialism was different in form and function to what Marxists recognize as the imperialist stage of capitalism.
Again, no, Lenin developed the Marxist analysis of imperialism in the context of the coming inter-imperialist war (World War I), and the successful analysis of imperialism helped establish socialism. There was no USSR, so you couldn’t even accuse Lenin of trying to justify “soviet imperialism,” which doesn’t exist anyways.
Are you being genuine, or have you made up your mind already and are making things up as you go to justify that? Honest question, because you’re doubling and tripling down on this.
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.
Ok I’ll accept the correction, it was Lenin, not Stalin. Whatever. Two peas from the same pod whose ideological differences are frankly scarcely noticeable to most people.
The word imperialism relates to empires. It predates Lenin’s work and its definition continues to be used in that way by most people outside of your tiny political faction. If you want to refer to it as capitalist imperialism or something that’s fine but it’s absurd to claim that Lenin’s work invalidates the long-standing use of the term to describe the behavior of empires before capitalism before and through to the modern time. Especially when your new definition invalidates virtually all of its historical uses.
I am using the word imperialism as the dictionary defines it, not your weird made up version which you unilaterally declare correct in contradiction to the vast majority of English speakers.
Thank you for your service o7