What you and the parent commenter are saying are different things.

You are saying that "the system" is structured to oppress workers, but there is no "overarching power grab"; you are not positing that there is a conspiracy among the elites to subjugate and oppress the proletariat.

The parent commenter is making that claim. He claims that the "elites" or "wealthy classes" have coordinated over time to implement a "strategy" (in his words) to create the structure of the system to subjugate and oppress the proletariat; he also claims in other comments that they pay for media and commenters on social media to produce misinformation to conceal that fact.

It is a conspiracy theory, and you were duped into defending it by passing it off as something that it is not.

Whether or not what you have said is true (and I don't think that it is, but we can assume that it is true for the sake of argument), it is an obvious case of whataboutism.

The article concerns allegations that China is extending loans to low-income countries that they cannot service and using their debt to exert influence over them.

That analogies can or cannot be drawn about the relations between elite and proletariat classes within nations does not address, and merely distracts, from the subject of the article.

If elite classes are oppressing the proletariat as your comment implies, that is bad; but that is not a reason not to address credible allegations that China engages in "debt trap" diplomacy to influence impoverished nations.

Sophisticated whataboutism designed to appeal to Redditors' biases.

To be clear:

(a) Taiwan is an independent state, not a quasi-independent state.

(b) The only reason that any other state maintains the sham that is the "One China" policy is because China threatens to sever diplomatic and trade relations if they don't.

You do not authentically imply that a state is not independent because you are coerced into an evasive policy or you maintain it only to keep the peace.

(c) The only reason that China has not used military force to annex Taiwan in the past is because it did not have the capabilities to do so; it is beginning to believe that it might have that capability in the near future, which is why the prospect of an invasion is becoming more likely.

It is not because of Taiwan's importance as a producer of semiconductors; China wanted to annex Taiwan before it became a dominant manufacturer of semiconductors.

(d) The US and other states take seriously China's intention to invade Taiwan; very few serious commentators think (as your comment implies) that there is no (or even a very low) risk of invasion over the medium-term time horizon.

Commentators take seriously Xi Jinping's express direction to the PLA that it should be able to invade Taiwan by 2027.

(e) Other countries were "cozying up" to Taiwan long before it became a major manufacturer of microchips; most democratic states recognised Taiwan as the legitimate government in mainland China until the rapprochement between the US and the CCP in 1972.

The US and its allies continue to support Taiwan because it is a vibrant democratic state with liberal values in South East Asia that a ruthless authoritarian state wants to crush; it is not "because microchips" as you have claimed.

That it is a major manufacturer of microchips only increases its importance; but the US and its allies would defend it against Chinese aggression even if it wasn't (as the US did in the 1990s).

I assume that you are a Chinese propagandist, because that matches what a Chinese propagandist would say pretty well.

Thicc