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)
Right, so this is what I mean when I say that you would portray anyone who wants China (the PRC) to fall as far-right. Or anyone who supports continued Taiwanese existence as an independent state as ‘far-right’. I’m not bound by your ideological presuppositions regarding “dictatorship of capital” on this point. We’re not going to agree on this.
Well that is both unrealistic, and rage-baiting - but it is also appalling in a way that calling for the collapse of a regime is not appalling. Calling for the slaughter of an ethnic and cultural group is however, unlikely as it is, morally repugnant. So the difference is pretty self-evident.
Calling for the collapse of socialism in the PRC is absolutely appalling. When the USSR dissolved, there was an estimated 7 million excess deaths due to skyrocketing poverty. Wanting the restoration of capitalism and the destruction of socialist democracy in China is wanting the same to happen to an even greater number of people than were impacted by the dissolution of the USSR.
Taiwan is not independent. It is neither a fully incorporated territory of the PRC, nor an independent state. Independence implies something new, something the ROC itself does not recognize. The ROC considers itself to be the rightful ruler of the mainland, not an independent state, which is why maintaining the status quo is popular there, as people neither want independence nor to be fully incorporated.
Can you honestly answer why you run interference for right-wingers?
I think in their head, they imagine a peaceful and quick and painless transition. Realistic? Obviously not. Laughable. People also call for the collapse of the US government which in reality would bring in a possible violent and poor period just like the collapse of any other mega-state would., like China. It’s likely they have, or expressed an idealised view of how they think such a regime collapse would happen. It’s probably ultimately not that deep in-so-far as they are expressing it.
It’s a farce. A gentleman’s agreement that most of the world acknowledges. Taiwan is de facto independent, and only doesn’t aspire towards official international recognition because of not wanting to antagonise China. That’s it.
“Maintaining the status quo” is also the far safer option in terms of not upsetting their neighbour. I don’t think the Taiwanese believe that it’s possible to somehow unify with the mainland on any grounds that they would find acceptable, and nor is it possible that they can somehow convert the Chinese mainland into a state that they would likely merge into, or convince them to join Taiwan. So it’s mostly done to keep the peace as the conditions of ‘status quo’ are considered reasonable enough. Most Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese now, not Chinese. They’ve simply moved on. But China forces them to keep up this charade.
Loaded question. Ignored.
You keep inventing views for people you’ve never met, and didn’t even bother to check his profile to notice that he uses he/him pronouns and was born in the PRC.
The major difference here being that people call for revolutionary overthrow of the US Empire, which would save millions of lives globally and would dramatically uplift the living standards of the Statesian working classes. Advocating a return to capitalism and a collapse of socialism in China would have the opposite effect.
Incorrect. Taiwan is de facto not independent, and is in many ways incorporated into the PRC already beyond formal measures. Both de facto and de jure, Taiwan is neither fully independent nor fully incorporated.
And in the coming decades, demographics will shift. The US Empire is dying away, and China is rising. The most likely outcome is that the US pulls out of Taiwan and Taiwanese people willingly join with the PRC in the long run, which is why the PRC has no intention to intervene unless provoked.
Important question dodged, discussion over.
I just use “they” and “their” generally habitually. In any case, I see no reason to think he actually wants Chinese people to suffer.
“The major difference is that I want the US to fall and agree with the people who say this”. Okay bro.
“In the collapse of the USA that I imagine, it would go perfectly and no-one would suffer - but the collapse of China, that you imagine - it would go badly and everyone would suffer”.
Trust me bro. Literally just blatant holding people to entirely different standards that you don’t hold others to. Completely transparently partisan.
Completely disagree on the de facto part.
This is literally just cope and “just trust me bro”, but at least this is as close to an acknowledgement that I can see that you agree that in Taiwan now, the people don’t want to be part of the PRC.
I will reply all the same. I don’t answer to “When did you stop beating your wife?” type questions.
The first half of your comment isn’t an argument based in logic, which you already refused to do so earlier by saying we are never going to agree on the ROC being a dictatorship of capital.
You invented my position, again, and made a strawman. This is just plain lying, you lie to protect people calling for the dissolution of socialism and the reinstatement of capitalism, while you lie to pretend I would say socialist revolution in the US would be perfect and nobody would get hurt. I never made such a claim, just that collapse of socialism in China would go similarly to the collapse of socialism went in Russia, while socialist revolution in the US would go similarly to socialist revolutions elsewhere.
You abstract away “change in system” to ignore the key context of what those systems are and what is to replace them. This is a metaphysical error in analysis and is anti-scientific.
We can get into the material processes driving the US Empire’s decline and the PRC’s rise, if you want, but that’s a shift from your earlier position of “we will never agree so discussion is worthless.” Further, I never said most people in Taiwan want to be further incorporated into the PRC, and you’ll notice that nobody has been saying otherwise. I am “admitting” nothing, this is the stance I have always had, because my stances stem from analysis of material processes and contextualization, ie dialectical materialism.
Why defend Rimu’s racism, and try to pretend PieFed is devoid of political bias in its development? Why defend people calling for the dissolution of socialism in China? Call it whatever you like, these people have in common anti-China views based in right-wing beliefs, and you bat for them relentlessly.
Anyone can see what you’re doing here.
No, you sit there and nod along when a leftist-type calls for the USA regime to be overthrown and act like its the best thing that could happen and would go absolutely swimmingly, but if someone says the same about China, say it’s awful and that would mean the death and suffering of millions.
So that would still mean a lot of suffering in the interim, you know.
I said we will “never agree” in your framing that every liberal democracy everywhere is a “dictatorship of capital”. You said it regarding the ROC, but you likely view it true of everywhere. That’s terminology rooted in your world view and not based on any kind of common ground.
I don’t regard what Rimu said as racism. Moreover, I didn’t even do that. I said that the pure purpose of Piefed wasn’t rooted entirely in politics, nor that different interpretations of how the blocking function should work (as you recall that was the chief point of dispute) had anything to do with Rimu’s political positions.
Because it’s just an expat making cathartic, and ragebait comments? What should I do, exactly?
You regard everyone who isn’t a communist as having right-wing beliefs, so it doesn’t really matter if someone explicitly calls for the Chinese regime to be overthrown or not - you’d still say the same thing if they don’t start from that point.
And what am I doing, exactly?
It’s extremely simple: my point isn’t that changing systems is inherently bad, but that’s your core premise. The reason I am confident that socialist revolution in the US Empire would be dramatically positive (not at all free of conflict or struggle, of course) while collapse of socialism in China would be devastating for most people is because I look at history, not just the abstract, metaphysical idea of change being bad.
For example, when looking at the transition between tsarism and socialism in Russia, we saw a chaotic period of revolution followed by tremendous progress in key life metrics like life expectancy, housing rates, literacy rates, women’s rights, and more. It was not perfect, and it did involve violent revolution, but the new system was dramatically progressive and uplifted the people.
When we look at the dissolution of socialism in Russia, we see skyrocketing poverty rates, increased prostitution, drug abuse, disparity, homelessness, drops in education, life expectancy, and more. Many of these metrics are still behind the soviet union in the modern Russian Federation.
By looking at historical example, and comparing the general with the particular characteristics in the US Empire and the PRC, I can say which I support and why.
Of course, but this suffering pales in comparison to the tyranny of the present capitalist dictatorship and the constant genocide the US Empire exports. If there was an easy, simple, peaceful option to bring about socialism in the US Empire, I’d take it in a heartbeat. The problem is that there isn’t, and I can say so because I study the processes of growth and development, of change, ie dialectical materialism.
It’s based on the analysis of how capitalist systems are run. Bourgeois “democracy” cannot truly represent the will of the people, only the will of the ruling class, that class being the capitalists that control the large firms and key industries. This isn’t something leftists believe out of dogma, but observed analysis of history and the process of growth and development of society over time.
That’s a self-tell, Rimu spread Heritage Foundation propaganda about “organ harvesting” by the PRC. There’s absolutely no credible evidence for this, meaning Rimu believes it due to seeing Chinese people as subhuman. It’s the same strategy colonizers used to dehumanize those living in colonies, believing lies about them and seeing them as “savages.”
My point was that Rimu’s views impact the development of PieFed, and thus we need to contextualize PieFed’s development with his views. There is no such thing as a process in the abstract, as a static and unrelated thing, instead everything exists in context with everything else. Your rejection of contextualization is anti-scientific.
This is the point you made, not the point said ex-pat made. Said ex-pat has deliberately stated that they want socialism to fall and the capitalist ROC to dominate the mainland. To answer your question, you should stop running interference for these kinds of things.
Anti-communism is right-wing. I don’t consider all non-communists to be right-wing, though, for example anarchists are left-wing. Opposing socialism and wishing for the instatement of capitalism is right-wing, and I can’t see how you’d argue otherwise.
Running cover for right-wingers that, from our interactions purely, have all had anti-China positions. It seems like you’re trying to dance in rhetoric to defend and legitimize those that oppose the PRC and the socialist system it has against any meaningful criticism. I say “dance in rhetoric” because you seem entirely uninterested in talking about the flaws in your analysis, like your metaphysical framing of concepts and your rejection of history having an impact on modern conditions. You see history not as an unfolding process, but as a series of snapshots, and you refuse to engage with my critique of this error whenever I bring it up.
So the suffering during the interim transition phase and potential collapse (I think it’s pretty absurd to believe a socialist revolution in the USA would somehow be successful or develop in a way that you precisely would want) is actually irrelevant to you.
Yes, I know the basics of how your worldview works here.
This logic makes zero sense as to his motives. Also, this stuff got as far as the OHCHR, and was reported on by many different press outlets across the world at various points. The notion that somehow means he is subhuman is absurd.
Okay?
And many PRC people say the opposite. What’s your point?
So there we have it. I’m already right-wing according to you no matter what I say here about any of these issues.
I’m not remotely interested in being lectured from you about Communism and how you think its the ideal outcome. I know you regard what you do here on the fediverse as instructional and that you believe you have an obligation to ‘educate’ others. In that sense, it’s not unlike many forms of evangelism. But I’m just not even slightly interested in depating or being convinced into communism by you.