And while we're at it, decolonize Polynesia.

I have quoted this for you multiple times already:

That's not me saying the poll should be ignored.

No it isn’t. There isn’t a hypothetical, there is the real world, and in the real world there are lots of options besides those two.

The definition of a hypothetical is that it's a set of circumstances not present in the real world as it is now. Well done.

No it isn’t. There isn’t a hypothetical, there is the real world, and in the real world there are lots of options besides those two.

What are some other options?

Fucking hell! Why else would you support any course of geopolitical action than it being better than the geopolitical alternatives based on geopolitical realities!?

Right, I'm not saying they support it now but primarily because of the risk of inciting China into attacking them. If that was not a threat, they would likely support moving towards independence officially.

So what? And as I said before, if space aliens attacked, maybe they’d want unification for protection. You can’t just change the geopolitical realities, insert whatever you think their responses would be, and treat that as somehow being more true or more valid than their actual responses based on the actual geopolitical realities. This is complete nonsense.

So you don't even disagree with me here then. You think the hypothetical is outlandish (to the point where you compare China accepting their self-determination to a literal alien invasion) but don't dispute my conclusions.

You’re just factually wrong.

That definition wasn’t “invented by Stalin.” It comes from Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in 1916, before the USSR even existed. Stalin didn’t “make it up.” Lenin analyzed imperialism as a specific stage of capitalism: monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, division of the world, and super-profits extracted from subordinate nations. That’s standard Marxist political economy, not a post-hoc excuse. The fact you're this wrong about it is genuinely incredibly impressive.

You’re also mixing up empires with modern imperialism. They are not the same thing.

Rome conquered territory through pre-capitalist slavery and tribute. Modern imperialism works through banks, corporations, debt, unequal exchange, and enforced dependency. Capitalist imperialism is what matters on the modern age, not every conquest in human history. Saying “Rome doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition” isn’t a gotcha, it just shows you don’t understand what you're talking about.

Now on your snide comment about China.

Imperialism today looks like this: exporting finance capital, imposing structural adjustment, extracting monopoly rents, enforcing dollar hegemony, surrounding the globe with military bases, and keeping whole regions permanently underdeveloped.

China does none of that.

The PRC doesn’t run IMF shock therapy. It doesn’t control global reserve currency. It doesn’t force privatization. It doesn’t maintain hundreds of overseas bases. It doesn’t drain super-profits from the Global South. Chinese investment is infrastructure-heavy, bilateral, and negotiated, which is exactly why so many formerly colonized countries prefer dealing with China over the West.

Calling that “imperialism” is just liberal brainrot: “big country doing geopolitics = imperialism.”

I hope you can grow up and learn and stop preaching arrogantly on things you clearly know less than 0 about I understand it's the American way but it is incredibly frustrating to be constantly lectured by uneducated labour aristocrats.

Just that the majority of the responses should be ignored, so that you can cherry pick the results you want.

I've explained my reasoning over and over.

I’m saying I don’t care what your mental model of Taiwanese people would say if the world were different than how it is, more than I care what the actual Taiwanese people do say in the world that actually exists.

Good for you. I'm saying that I suspect many more Taiwanese people would support and vote for official independence movements if they thought it was safe and viable to do so. This is not exactly an outlandish observation at all.

How does your mental model of Taiwanese people in this hypothetical matter in any way?

It doesn't? It's just a discussion.

So yes: Taiwan is culturally Chinese, and the modern political “distinction” was created and maintained by the US to preserve an anti-communist holdout against the PRC. That’s the historical through-line. I haven’t made any moral claims about whether this is good or bad, I’ve just laid out how the situation came to exist. You’re the one reframing this into values and feelings. The fact remains: US military intervention froze the civil war, and decades of protection, capital, and political shaping produced today’s outcome. Everything else you’re pointing to is downstream of that.

I don't really care about the history of it. I only care what Taiwanese people think now. They don't want to join the PRC. I think that should be respected.

You said

So you think the only reason that Taiwan has not merged into the PRC is because the USA forbids it?

and if you look at the history the answer is yes(as I explain it's slightly more complicated but largely yes). I was answering your question. Why are you so hostile?

It's not true now though. And the USA only used hard power in the sense of stopping China from invading, and then used soft power/influence to tend to the development of Taiwan. The USA would be pretty powerless to stop them now if they changed their position now.

I'm not hostile, I'm just explaining how my position is pretty simple.

Hello friend, you seem to reasonable. Here’s a viewpoint from a Taiwanese. You will never see me say anything positive about China because you are an existential threat to our way of life. As individuals you all may be perfectly nice and lovely but as the bully next door we want nothing to do with you.

You asked a historical question and the historical answer is simple: the United States intervened militarily, froze the Chinese Civil War, protected the KMT, and then spent decades reshaping the island economically, politically, and informationally against the PRC. That’s hard power first, soft power afterward. Saying “I only care what people think now” is just dodging how those opinions were produced. Public sentiment formed under 70+ years of US security guarantees, arms sales, education policy, media alignment, and political engineering does not arise in a vacuum.

And you can already see this changing. As US power declines relative to China, its grip on Taiwan weakens too. That’s reflected in the growing instability around the DPP, impeachment attempts, falling credibility, and public backlash when they tried to restrict platforms like 小红书. Most people on the island aren’t rabid separatists, polling consistently shows ambivalence and a preference for the status quo mainly because it feels stable, not because they possess some timeless anti-China essence.

You don’t get to erase decades of foreign military protection and geopolitical shaping, then sanctify the result as “pure self-determination.” You asked whether the US is why Taiwan didn’t reunify. The answer is yes. Everything you’re pointing to now, identity, politics, current preferences, flows downstream from that original intervention. You can ignore history if you want, but that just makes you arrogant and uneducated.

You asked a historical question and the historical answer is simple: the United States intervened militarily, froze the Chinese Civil War, protected the KMT, and then spent decades reshaping the island economically, politically, and informationally against the PRC. That’s hard power first, soft power afterward. Saying “I only care what people think now” is just dodging how those opinions were produced. Public sentiment formed under 70+ years of US security guarantees, arms sales, education policy, media alignment, and political engineering does not arise in a vacuum.

So what? The opinion of people on the mainland is also due to how the ruling party of the PRC has shaped public opinion since they took power too. Does that somehow devalue opinion polls coming from there?

So the opinion of the Taiwanese now should be ignored because of how their opinion emerged and they should be taken by force?

And you can already see this changing. As US power declines relative to China, its grip on Taiwan weakens too. That’s reflected in the growing instability around the DPP, impeachment attempts, falling credibility, and public backlash when they tried to restrict platforms like 小红书.

Most people on the island aren’t rabid separatists, polling consistently shows ambivalence and a preference for the status quo mainly because it feels stable, not because they possess some timeless anti-China essence.

They don't have to be "rapid separatists" in order to not want to join the PRC. More people clearly support eventual independence as compared to unification by current polling, and the current setup is de-facto independence already. Moreover, most people in Taiwan by the same polls self-identify as Taiwanese. China also very much implies, if not threatens a war if they try to go independent officially - that’s likely to temper many responses.

You don’t get to erase decades of foreign military protection and geopolitical shaping, then sanctify the result as “pure self-determination.” You asked whether the US is why Taiwan didn’t reunify. The answer is yes. Everything you’re pointing to now, identity, politics, current preferences, flows downstream from that original intervention. You can ignore history if you want, but that just makes you arrogant and uneducated.

What do you want people on Taiwan, born and raised and educated there to do about that? They can only speak for how they feel now, and if most of them don't want to join the PRC - what is your point here? I can be aware of the history, but that doesn't mean that what the people of Taiwan think now should be thrown away.

Previously, the dictatorship stopped the people of Taiwan rejoining if they so chose to. Now it's the own people there. The USA couldn't really do much if the population truly desired to join China.

Out of curiosity, what specifically do you think would change in your daily life if Taiwan reintegrated and stopped functioning as a forward U.S. military platform? Concrete impacts like jobs, housing, healthcare, travel, civil rights as opposed to general terms like “freedom” that don't really say much on their own would be preferred.

Ok, listen you’re arguing about a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. You asked a question about why Taiwan exists in its current form. The answer is yes: the United States is why. They froze the civil war, protected the KMT, and spent decades shaping the island against the PRC. Feelings, polls, and identities don’t change that causal reality. I don’t personally care whether Taiwan reunifies or not(outside of political interest and it would be nice seeing the US lose it's unsinkable carrier) it has zero impact on my daily life. I was answering your question about history. If you don’t like the answer and want to pivot to vibes and hypotheticals, that’s on you.

They froze the civil war, protected the KMT, and spent decades shaping the island against the PRC. Feelings, polls, and identities don’t change that causal reality.

But the reality now is what matters to me. I personally support Taiwanese self-determination because it's what the people who live there now seem to want via continuation of the status quo, or official independence.

But that wasn't the question and the reality now is a direct result of history. Please stop this trolling bullshit circular argument and actually read what you asked and what I said. I'm not arguing Taiwan being independent is good or bad or that they should reunify or any of this bullshit you're pretending I am. I answered your question about US influence the fact you took it as an attack on Taiwan is completely in your own head.

The original post of mine that you replied to was where I said this to someone else:

"So you think the only reason that Taiwan has not merged into the PRC is because the USA forbids it?"

You replied that US propping up the dictatorship was the reason they haven't merged at a time in the past is technically true, but not really relevant as it was still the dictatorship calling the shots there, and at any point could've surrendered - but chose not to. It was more the USA as a powerful global force offering support to the regime to protect them against the PRC, and then further supporting them economically to maintain attitudes to continued separation and independence. And certainly now, certainly in this time period - if Taiwan were to just fold and ask to be annexed into the PRC, there really is nothing the USA could do about it.

Please read my replies you clearly don't understand them.

Already did.

Clearly not

Yes, I did. I disagree with your historical framing in some ways - but that's besides the point because the Taiwanese people do not want to join China now.

No it is the point. The history is why things are how they are.

And it's also true that if the Taiwanese now all, or enough of them, decided to join the PRC - the USA could not stop them.

How is it relevant? Are you serious? How are you claiming this is imperialism? It's an island that a murderous dictator fled to after losing a bloody civil war. It was then recognized as "China" at the UN for years. Like how is reunification==imperialism in your mind?

That's irrelevant. The conditions that led people on the island to hate the mainland are largely manufactured by the US. The reason why the status quo exists is the US. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

Thank you for your service o7

That’s irrelevant.

I disagree. It was the root of my point on this. The USA now is not able to stop and thus can't be said to be actively preventing Taiwan from joining the PRC. I also dispute that 'the conditions' could be simplified down to "The USA forcing Taiwan to do things" given the Taiwanese government initially actively sought out US support in the first place.

The conditions that led people on the island to hate the mainland are largely manufactured by the US.

USA providing support over many years that help improve their infrastructure and boost their economy etc is "manufactured"? Does that mean that any uptake in opinions towards China over many of their foreign initiatives could be equally said to be "manufactured"?

The reason why the status quo exists is the US.

This is true in so much that the USA helped defend the island initially, but they didn't force Taiwan to do anything in relation to that.

There is more functional democracy in China with its one-party socialist state than there is in the US's two-party capitalist democracy.

The idea that the number of parties impacts the people's will and ability to enact change is complete fantasy celebrated by those who mindlessly fetishize democracy.

A good thing it's not a direct choice between joining the USA or joining PRC for Taiwan then.

That’s just a nonsense definition invented by Stalin to apologize for his own imperialism.

Not only was the USSR not imperialist, but it was Lenin that formulated the Marxist analysis of imperialism, not Stalin, and Lenin further relied heavily on John A. Hobson's formulation of imperislism. Lenin took Hobson's base observations and re-analyzed using a Marxist frame. Stalin had no part in that, and it seems like you're trying to invent a reason to not take Marxist analysis of imperialism seriously. Lenin's work on imperialism predated the USSR, and actively informed how the bolsheviks struggled for socialism in tsarist Russia.

This is extremely easy to verify, so I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Either you genuinely didn't know, and thus didn't care enough to learn or verify, or you made it up knowing how easy it is to debunk. Neither points to reasonable argument.

The absurdity here is that by this definition classical empires like Rome didn’t even engage in imperialism.

The Roman Empire was pre-capitalist, and thus its mechanisms for extraction were entirely different from what Marxists analyze as modern-day imperialism. Call it whatever you wish, Marxists do not critique what we call imperialism because of its name, but because of its function as the primary contradiction driving global struggle and development today.

Although arguably the PRC has done that even by this muddled definition.

What you call "muddled" is in fact a far more scientific analysis than "big country bully small." Further, no, the PRC does not fall into the Marxist analysis of imperialism.

I think many of them do support it now, that's the point. They accept status quo given the existing pressures, but if that changed, they would likely move for official independence.

So then, they don’t support changing it now, but would if the geopolitical realities changed.

They don't support pushing for it now because of the risk of inciting a war with China, but a clear majority do not wish to enjoin with the PRC - and many more people in those same polls express support for moving towards independence as compared to pro-unification, and I suspect strongly that the fear of antagonising China suppresses many more would-be pro-independence supporters from expressing their true position on this.

I don't know that the argument that effectively represents China as an aggressor here as the reason many Taiwanese don't officially support moving to independence is particularly impressive one, personally.

Cool! So they don’t support it now. So is the “the reality now” what matters to you or not?

Because of Chinese intimidation and threats. Many more who voted for a flat 'status quo' option absolutely would wish for China to back off so they could officially become independent and a recognised nation. That is my contention.

I know I, and anyone with an ounce of sanity, including the vast majority of the Taiwanese people (whose opinions you completely disregard), think it would be completely insane to start WWIII just based on some point of pride, instead of enjoying the continued peace that the status quo has provided for decades.

A good thing that I didn't say that they should then. As unreasonable as China is being here, I've never once said that the Taiwanese should declare independence because of the actual risk of the Chinese reaction.

In response to the latter you claim that “the reality now is what I care about,” but then you go on and on and on about how important it is to imagine what people would want in the former hypothetical, instead of looking at what they want in the reality now.

There's good reason to believe, as I've indicated to you in many other replies that many Taiwanese right now, as it is now, would like to push for independence but don't feel it viable so the polling reflects that. I think that, if true (and to be clear - I think it is) is reason to believe that it ultimately commands a majority.

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.

Forceful conquering by military might or other coersion means makes it imperialism. There is no history that could make it otherwise.

I don't get the point of comparison here. I haven't really said anything about the USA. I supposed if the history of USA-Taiwan was different, Taiwan may never have got to the point it is now and been annexed many times over at many different points in many different timelines. But I'm not really talking about Taiwan as it was in the 1950s, 60s, 70s or 80s.

You're right, Lenin, not Stalin. The two are very ideologically similar so I hope you'll forgive my misremembering. It doesn't change the validity of my argument however. You can change Stalin for Lenin in my original comment and it remains true.

Any analysis that automatically rejects 90% of historical imperialism as suddenly not imperialism is unserious. If you wish to call it capitalist imperialism that would be one thing but one obscure and frankly not all that serious theorist doesn't just get to tell everyone else in the world they're suddenly using a word wrong just because they decided to and because it's convenient for their, yes, imperialist politics.

I just could not believe you’d have the audacity to say “the reality now is what I care about” after I spent 40 comments trying to convince you that the reality now is what matters. You are just impossible.

The reality of what people in Taiwan now think, not alternative history scenarios regarding a different USA reaction to Taiwan at specific points of divergence. I think a majority of the would-be pro-independence bloc across Taiwan likely do wish to move towards independence, but feel it unrealistic and dangerous to do so because of the potential reaction from China, and so answer "status quo" or "status quo, decide later" on polls out of that specific resignation.

You’re right, Lenin, not Stalin. The two are very ideologically similar so I hope you’ll forgive my misremembering. It doesn’t change the validity of my argument however. You can change Stalin for Lenin in my original comment and it remains true.

It changes your argument entirely. You claimed Stalin made it up to justify "soviet imperialism," ie that it was an unscientific definition created for the purpose of justifying actions after the fact. The truth, on the other hand, is that analysis of imperialism predated the USSR, and was used to help analyze tsarist Russia's place in the world and wage a successful revolution, because it was a scientific analysis of imperialism.

Any analysis that automatically rejects 90% of historical imperialism as suddenly not imperialism is unserious.

That's not what Lenin's analysis of imperialism does, though. You're doing the thing where you confidently make a statement easily debunked, which leads me to believe that you either have no concern for accuracy, or instead are deliberately making things up. Roman imperialism was different in form and function to what Marxists recognize as the imperialist stage of capitalism.

If you wish to call it capitalist imperialism that would be one thing but one obscure and frankly not all that serious theorist doesn’t just get to tell everyone else in the world they’re suddenly using a word wrong just because they decided to and because it’s convenient for their, yes, imperialist politics.

Again, no, Lenin developed the Marxist analysis of imperialism in the context of the coming inter-imperialist war (World War I), and the successful analysis of imperialism helped establish socialism. There was no USSR, so you couldn't even accuse Lenin of trying to justify "soviet imperialism," which doesn't exist anyways.

Are you being genuine, or have you made up your mind already and are making things up as you go to justify that? Honest question, because you're doubling and tripling down on this.

They do like in that Starfleet Academy episode where they fake a war to satisfy everyone's honor and just pretend everything is OK

Well Taiwan sees itself as part of mainland China, just not a part of the communist regime

Not sure why you're copping some hate, but your analogy is pretty accurate.

Just alternate present scenarios, gotcha.

One specific one, I suppose.

Right, and I think a majority of the would-be pro-unification bloc across Taiwan feel currently feel that unification is not necessary because there isn’t a looming alien invasion.

You think an alien invasion is on the same level of likelihood of a Chinese change of policy here?

You’re acting as though “pro-independence” or “pro-unification” are just these abstract things that can be understood in a vacuum, utterly unconnected to geopolitical realities, except, for some reason, when the geopolitical realities pertaining to China are involved.

China could hypothetically change in a number of ways that would change pro-independence attitude itself, but assuming nothing else changed within China but their willingness to accept an independent Taiwan - I think Taiwan would move pretty fast on this. I suppose the USA could also change and behave in such a way that alienates Taiwan from their position and drive them to the mainland, but I maintain strongly that the only reason that 'status quo/status quo-choose later' currently lead the polling on this issue in Taiwan is due to the well-understood threat from China to Taiwanese people if the Taiwanese decide to formally explore pathways to official independence. 'Status quo' itself is a halfway house that no-one in Taiwan or China is especially happy with, but works well enough for both sides to last at least as of now - a long time (which is why I am not calling for any independence moves for Taiwan).

What we also do know is contained within the site that you linked me are also polls on Taiwanese identity, and that the population has broadly moved towards seeing themselves as and identifying as prominently Taiwanese over Chinese. This tells me that a sense of national identity is taking hold within Taiwan, and combined with the actual pro-independence outlook being about 4 times more popular than unification according to polls, I think I'm making fairly reasonable observations.