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)
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.