Summary
Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated in his New Year’s speech that Taiwan’s “reunification” with China is inevitable.
China has escalated military activity around Taiwan, including frequent incursions near the island and sanctions on U.S.-linked companies over arms sales to Taipei.
Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te rejected Beijing’s claims, stating Taiwan’s future can only be decided by its people.
Lai also criticized China’s restrictions on travel and education exchanges with Taiwan, calling for dignified, reciprocal relations based on goodwill and equality.
Reading up a bit on the history of China, it looks like the Communists won the war for power in the nation and those who were supported by the West fled to Taiwan.
A better comparison would be if the Confederates fled to an island and retained their independence after losing the American civil war.
You need to keep in mind, the capitalists lost. You can live in la-la land thinking they “should have” won, but that’s simply not what happened.
Capitalist lost? You seen modern day China? Hardly anti-capitalist. Taiwan should get to decide if it’s part of China or not. Doesn’t seam they want undemocratic dystopia.
Going to your America example, the Brits withdrew to Canada. You with Trump with invading Canada then? A 1812 rematch?
I dont get the downvotes. China is state controlled capitalism with all the negatives of capitalism like extreme wealth disparity. China couldnt be further from a stateless, classless moneyless society that communism aspires.
There are a lot of similarities between the PRC’s economic model and the NEP, but this doesn’t mean it’s Capitalist, nor is it accurate to say it has all of the negatives of Capitalism. The PRC is in the early stages of Socialism, and this is shown through strong government control of the Private Sector, a robust and expansive Public Sector, and large-scale Central Planning. You’re correct that it is far from being Stateless, Classless, or Moneyless, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that they simply can’t push the “Communism button” and establish a global Republic of full Public Ownership and Central Planning and an established system of labor vouchers or other such non-money form of accounting.
The process of building Communism is long and drawn out after the revolution, and must be a global process as well.
Yes, all Socialist societies should work towards the eventual end of commodity production, however neither Marx nor Engels figured that it could be done away with immediately. From Principles of Communism:
From Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
Ultimately, it remains a contradiction that eventually the PRC will have to do away with. However, this is a gradual process that can only be accomplished through trial and error. There is a Chinese proverb often referenced in the CPC, that “one must cross the river by feeling for the stones,” and this reflects their cautious strategy. Moreover, we must understand that the USSR fell, and the CPC saw that in real time. Not wanting to repeat the Cultural Revolution nor the fall of the USSR, the CPC adjusted their practice. It remains to be seen what will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, of course, but currently the CPC is behaving in a manner we can understand as Marxist.
The USSR was just as capitalist as the PRC. Because it had generalized commodity production and wage-labor. You can’t have a socialist mode of production in just one country, as the interaction with capitalist countries will infect your system.
The PRC is a highly technocratic advanced capitalist democracy, and yes, it will likely outpace the west in a number of key statistics over time, that doesn’t make it socialist, because the productive mode is capitalism.
You can’t have Communism in one country, as Communism must be international, global, and have fully eradicated Private Property and Commodity Production. You absolutely can have Socialism in one country, however. Socialism is a transitional status towards Communism from Capitalism, and is dependent upon human supremacy over Capital and a trajectory towards further collectivization and the dominance of the Public Sector over the Private not in percentage, but power.
To take the opposite claim, that you can’t have Socialism in one country, is to determine that you must call a fully publicly owned economy “Capitalist” despite eradication of Markets and commodity production in general. Further, to claim that Socialism can only exist internationally is to make the asserted claim that a 99% publicly owned and planned economy is actually dominated by the 1% in the market sector and is thus Capitalist, these are anti-dialectical judgements.
Further, revisiting Marx, he considered countries where feudalism was still the majority of the economy yet Capitalism well on its way to dominate the entire economy to already be Capitalist. The dialectical method acknowledges that there is nearly no such thing as a “pure” system, to require “purity” for Socialism alone and not any of the previous Modes of Production erases the foundation of Scientific Socialism.
All in all, I am getting a definite Trotskyist vibe from your analysis and that would explain your stances a bit more, but I really do wonder in particular how you personally reconcile Dialectics with an anti-dialectical approach to Socialism specifically. The productive mode does not depend on a “one drop” rule of commodity production, but the dominant mode and the trajectory of the system as a whole.
I suggest reading What is Socialism? Here’s a relevant snippet from it talking about your exact argument:
Oh no, please don’t give that bloated orange Slurm mascot any more ideas.
The official position in both countries is that there is “one China” and that they are the legitimate one.
Unlike in mainland China in Taiwan people including most of the political elite seem to be fine with the status quo though.
I think they are both best just signing mutual recognition and moving on. Neither is the same as they where when they seperated.
everyone in Taiwan would love to do that, but Beijing can’t get over being dumped.
Having markets and Private Property doesn’t mean a country isn’t dedicated to Socialism and eventual full public ownership. Rather, Marx and Engels maintained that even heavily developed countries could not immediately publicly own and plan all production, but that after the revolution this would be a gradual process. Focusing too much on Class Struggle and not on industrial development (which allows the Class Struggle to be accelerated as the more an industry develops the easier it is to plan it, a central observation about Capitalism that led Marx to predict the next mode of production to be Socialism), is a dogmatic mistake that led to the excesses in the Cultural Revolution.
Either way, back to the US, a more apt comparison would be decolonization and land-back for Indigenous Peoples, same with Canada.
Your saying it’s not capitalist and it clearly is now.
For the US example, it’s not comparable if you go back to Indigenous Peoples. That’s a whole other thing.
What do you mean by China is “clearly Capitalist?” What do you think Capitalism and Socialism are?
“Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.”
This applies to modern China.
Communism’s brief doesn’t fit modern China “a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in society based on need.”
Private Ownership isn’t the basis of the PRC’s economy, though. The PRC isn’t at Communism yet, either, rather they are Socialist. The base of their economy is in the Public Sector with strong state control over the Private Sector.
To ask this in another way, are you of the belief that a “single drop” of Capitalism makes the system Capitalist? The natural conclusion to that is that neither “Capitalism” nor “Socialism” has ever existed. This is obviously wrong, of course, the answer is that the system is determined by the sector with power over the economy.
So we agree modern China is not communist. From what I skim (not really read to be honest) capitalism came to China via Deng Xiaoping. Its not been becoming less capitalism since. Now it’s not different than other capitalist countries, only the state at the centre isn’t democratic and not accountable to its people or laws.
The CPC is a Communist Party, they are trying to build Communism. Communism is a global system, so no, we aren’t on the same page here.
Capitalism did not “come to China” via Deng. Markets existed even under Mao, what Deng did was invite foreign investment and allow profits to be made off of Chines labor in exchange for industrialization, training, and development. This was a bit of a gamble, but has been critical for the modern success of the PRC. This isn’t a total subversion of Socialism and a return to Capitalism, key industries were maintained in the Public Sector like banking, energy, steel, and so forth.
Next, this Private Sector has been more and more under direct control of the CPC as it develops, especially in the last decade. The CPC exerts firm control and executes strong central planning. This is an increase in socialization of the economy, gradually. This is fundamentally and entirely different from Capitalist countries, where the Private Sector is dominant and Capitalists control the state.
Finally, the PRC is democratic and accountable to the people, just not to wealthy Capitalists. I’m not sure where you are pulling this myth from, to be honest, there are elections, councils, mass participation, and multiple political parties. It isn’t the same as western systems, but it is democratic.
Overall, I think you need to do a fair bit more research into Marxism and the PRC if you want to be making qualitative judgments of it along Marxian lines, no shame in learning something new!
Keep reading, because you haven’t gotten it yet. The communists rebelled against the KMT government and pushed them out to Taiwan. The American analogy would be if the south had won the civil war and pushed the north back to, let’s say, Long Island.
personally, if the confederates f off to their own island, I would let them stay on that island, as long as they don’t influence back.
That’s a lazy and inaccurate take. The Chinese Civil War wasn’t some simplistic ‘capitalists vs. communists’ fight. The KMT was corrupt but not purely capitalist, and the CCP’s victory came from exploiting peasant dissatisfaction and the KMT’s failures, not some inherent ideological supremacy. Comparing the KMT to the Confederacy is absurd—they weren’t separatists but nationalists fighting for control of all China. If you’re going to push historical narratives, at least try for accuracy instead of ideological grandstanding.
K, I don’t use all caps a lot, but I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CHINESE CIVIL WAR.
I will not be a slave to history. My defense of Taiwan is entirely based on the here and now.
K I need to qualify that statement somewhat. History is useful for explaining why the world is the way it is today, and serves as a guide into the future, but it is useless as some kind of long term score sheet.
Well, if that’s how you want to see it then the idea of “rightful owner” doesn’t matter much.
It’s really just who you like more at that point.
It’s not that the rightful owner doesn’t matter. It’s that it is hard to quantify on this scale, and it is especially hard to quantify using history.
And yeah, it is in fact more about who I like more. I like the Taiwanese government because the Taiwanese people are in control of it, and I believe in every human’s right to choose their own government. I hate the Chinese government for exactly the same reason, along with the fact that they’re a bunch of land grabbing imperialist bastards.
I’m glad you can admit your bias and that your idea of who China belongs to is based on personal preference.
I’m glad you can admit that you consider human rights as a form of personal preference.
But my, uh, “preference” for human rights isn’t actually the highest principle at play here. The highest principle here is that of internationally-agreed-upon borders. A country may not violate these borders. Period. For example, even though I like Taiwan’s government more, I do not believe they deserve one square metre of mainland China.
That’s weird, I thought China has currency and all sorts of other capitalist systems.