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 becomes a recognised 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?
edit: Damn there are crazies in both ends of the arguments. I really don’t think giving Taiwan nukes would help solve the problem.
I think the current best solution, looking at the more reasonable and realistic comments, seems to be to maintain the status quo, at least until both sides of the strait are able to come into some sort of agreement (which seems to be worlds away right now given their current very opposing stances on the issue)
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.
Answering primarily because I don’t want people to see your comment and fall for misinformation, I’m largely repeating what I’ve said to you elsewhere.
This is just Eurocentrism. The majority of the world understands imperialism more in line with Lenin’s analysis, and describing Marxism-Leninism as “tiny” when it is the ideology governing the largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity is absurd. Imperialism does predate Lenin, Lenin built his work off of others that had begun to analyze the formation of the imperialist stage of capitalism.
This is wrong. Lenin analyzed the imperialist stage of capitalism, he did not invalidate prior forms of imperialism. Lenin scientifically analyzed imperialism as it relates to late-stage capitalism using Marxist methodology. He did not claim Rome wasn’t imperialist, just that it was a different mode of production with a different set of processes in place that makes it qualitatively distinct from the imperialist phase of capitalism.
In other words, you’re accepting purely what is seen as valid by the western bourgeoisie with respect to how they get their vast riches. This is a semantic game, when Marxists are arguing against real, observed phenomena that behave in specific, observable ways, not the mere word itself. If we only accepted bourgeois framing of everything, then we could make the same reductive statements about anarchism, critique of capitalism, etc that you’re making of the imperialist stage of capitalism.
As I said elsewhere, I think it would be a good idea for you to read Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism for yourself. This isn’t a “read theory” argument, I know you can’t force people to read if they don’t want to, but instead a suggestion for you to understand why Marxists analyze the behavior of late-stage capitalism this way. Even watching this summary video by Red Pen would do wonders, and it’s only ~55 minutes long (as compared to the 3-5 hours of reading the original text itself).
Calling Lenin and Stalin “two peas in a pod” is pure ignorance. Lenin was a theorist of imperialism and revolutionary strategy in a semi-feudal Russia. Stalin governed an already-existing socialist state under siege and focused on industrialization and survival. Their political contexts, priorities, and theoretical contributions were radically different. Collapsing them together just tells everyone you’ve never seriously engaged with either.
Now about “dictionary imperialism.”
Western dictionaries define imperialism as broadly as possible on purpose: “extending power,” “influence,” “big country doing stuff.” Why? Because that conveniently erases the material reality that Europe and the US built their wealth through capitalist imperialism, finance capital, colonial extraction, unequal exchange, and permanent underdevelopment of the Global South. If imperialism just means “strong states exert power,” then suddenly everyone is equally guilty and nobody has to confront who actually runs the system.
Imperialism only has value as an analytical concept when it means something specific.
Lenin’s definition does exactly that: monopoly capital + finance capital + export of capital + division of the world + super-profits from subordinate nations. That explains the modern world. Your dictionary definition doesn’t explain anything.
We already have words for generic force: war, conquest, invasion.
“Imperialism” exists to describe a capitalist global structure, not your vibes-based “power is bad” framework.
You’re hiding behind dictionary entries because you don’t want to deal with political economy.
This isn’t a semantic debate. You’re choosing a deliberately vague definition because it lets Western countries off the hook and lets you posture without understanding systems.
Honestly, grow up. Stop lecturing people while proudly demonstrating you haven’t studied the topic. Being arrogant doesn’t make you informed, it just makes you loud.