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.
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!
The trueth is all the countries you are calling capitalist because are probably all mixed economies. With a lot owned by the state. Here in the UK that includes our health service, education system, roads, the electricity grid, and more. Rail is being renationalised and water probably will have to be too as its privatisation (by the Conservatives in the 80s) has been an epic fail. The key difference is these countries can peacefully kick out the government and the government is answerable to laws. Laws it sets. We recently had a PM brought down for breaking his own Covid laws. We have free press holding governments to account. All kind of freedom of information and transparency.
China started out more communist than if is now. More like the USSR.
Taiwan is mixed economy like western democracies, and doesn’t want to be like China. Which is why China is having to talk about inflicting it by force.
The truth is that close to every economy beyond the very earliest tribal formations were all mixed economies. When people say a country is Socialist or Capitalist, they are making a judgement of which aspect of the economy holds power, and is thus primary. The idea that an economy can be 32% Capitalist and 68% Socialist is nonsense, everything in an economy exists in the context of the rest of it and thus cannot be seen as static quantities.
Your next bit, on saying the people “have the power to kick out government peacefully,” is frankly misguided. The laws in Capitalist society, such as the UK, are ultimately determined by the Bourgeoisie and to a lesser extent the remnants of the Monarchy. What is cast as voteable is what has already been predetermined as acceptable to the ruling class. A “free press” is really “free to be manipulated by wealth,” and it is in this manner that narratives are massaged. The truth is that there is no such thing as free press. No matter how independent or dependent, all press has an agenda, and all press has a bias.
As for the PRC, it had higher rates of Public Ownership in the past, yes. This did not make it “more Communist.” When understanding Marxism, one must understand that modes of production and forms of property ownership have different levels of development they excel at. Because the PRC collectivized too early, growth was unstable (though positive) and there was a lot of chaos. The expansion (not introduction!) of Markets and the invitation of foreign investment served to better suit the material conditions of the PRC in the 90s, and now that said industrialization has played enough of its part, the CPC is gradually extending more control and ownership. Marxism was applied under Mao, then it served its purpose and Marxism was applied again under Deng, then it served its purpose and now Marxism is being applied again under Xi and is continuing to serve its purpose based on new material conditions.
The Taiwan bit is complicated. The majority of Taiwanese people like the current status, but don’t want to be independent nor folded in. Many want to be folded into the PRC, and some are outright hostile. The Nationalist Kuomintang fled there during the end of the Communist Revolution, so in its present state it remains at odds with the Communist mainland.
So we agree countries are really a shades of grey. Personally, I would move more infrastructure to state ownership in the UK. Other countries it is up to them, though the US private health is clearly an epic murderous fail. As long as the setup doesn’t make trade unfair and start tariff problems.
In the UK monarchy is symbolic. They can’t take sides on anything officially. If they did, it would be a scandal. Most democracies with a monarchy are similar or have them not even symbolically part of the system. Their power is purely adversely and in networking.
Based on rumour and the queens dresses at the time, and family history, it is widely thought the queen did not want Brexit. But it happened anyway. It brought down the PM of the time as well. In fact it was the start of a series of short lived PMs. Mainly because Brexit is a batshit idea and the promises made are incompatible with each other and reality! Arguably the press was a bit too free. Free from fact. All suboptimal, but doesn’t back you ruling Bourgeoisie angle. I’m pretty sure we be back in the EU one day anyway due to demographics and economic realities.
I say again, it can only up to the people of Taiwan if they are assimilated into China. If they vote for it, (I recommended a 66+% super majority to avoid Brexit 52% nonsense) I’d have no issue. If they don’t and are just invaded, I have a big issue with it. Like I do with Russia invading Ukraine and Israel’s genocide.
Marxism is Dialectical, it recognizes that “pure” systems are close to fantasy, sure.
As for the UK, again, the Monarchy shouldn’t exist, period, and the fact that you think the press was too free only cements bourgeois rule as the dominant factor in UK society. Money is the driver of your society just like it is for all Capitalist countries.
Taiwan is a complicated issue and will likely be resolved in a way that nobody is initially happy with due to external pressures like US involvement.
Pure is a nonsense absolutely.
I’d remove the monarchy, but right now it isn’t doing any harm. When it does, it will be removed from the system. That tension, that “sword of damocles”, the monarchy is very aware of and it keeps them in check. No one should be born into positions and I have no time for royals complaining of their gilded cage. At some point the UK will restructure I"m sure (federate and decentralise) and each time wil reduce the monarchy position.
I said “arguably the press was a bit too free”. That is not saying I think it is. Only that I see a case for the argument it is. Out of that and a totally state controlled press, free is better. Things fester in darkness. Unaccountable power corrupts. Fact free needs more consequences, but that isn’t the same as choking freedom.
Money drives China just as much. That’s OK. Money is just an expression of value we are prepared to exchange. It’s an intermediate used between goods. An abstraction. Even if we ever get to post scarcity, it will be with us.
Taiwan does want China. It can see what happened to Hong Kong. We all can. If China wants it, it will have to take it by force. Just like Russia is trying to with Ukraine.
I appreciate what you do, and always learn from your comments.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! I know most people likely aren’t going to get much out of what I say, but I also know many others will learn a thing or two, and when they point that out it helps!