[Marxism] Is the struggle to unify China an expression of "GreatHan chauvinism" today?
rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 5 16:19:05 MST 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fidler" <rfidler at cyberus.ca>
To: "Marxmail" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Is the struggle to unify China an expression of
"GreatHan chauvinism" today?
> Prima facie, however, I do not find Fred’s argument compelling. The
> Chinese claim to Taiwan goes back at most a few hundred years (a
> relatively short period in China’s history), to when Chinese
> began to arrive on the island around the 16th century A.D. Japan
> and occupied Taiwan from 1895 to 1945. Five years later, it became the
> surviving beachhead for the KMT retreating in the face of the
> Chinese CP forces on the mainland, and both the KMT and the Chinese CP
> claim sovereignty over a China that embraces both mainland and Taiwan.
> China rightly fears the imperialist U.S. military presence and buildup
> on Taiwan, which for decades has cited Beijing’s claims to the island
> a pretext for its alliance with Washington. But I wonder whether a
> Chinese renunciation of claims to Taiwan might help bolster the
> of those in Taiwan who see Taiwanese independence as an answer to both
> Chinese and American domination. A Taiwan increasingly less dependent
> the imperialist powers would be a great boost to anti-imperialist
> within China, whether in or out of the government.
Not much on the list etiquette issues, and I can't say that I agree with
FF's positions down the line, but as expressed above, RF's argument is
off the mark.
First, the KMT constituted its regime over Taiwan not as an independent
nation, but a government in exile, the one true China with dreams of
marching victoriously back to the mainland. Of course the source of the
dream, the day residue so to speak, was the lullaby the US sang to the
KMT each night as it lay itself down to sleep.
Without the US military and economic support, the China would have
broken the bough and down would have come Chiang, Madam Chiang and the
baby Chiangs all.
That a disaffected element of the ruling class now wants to style itself
as independent of the US is just more talking in the sleep.
In theory (and practice) how is Taiwan any different than Hong Kong?
Because the US doesn't have the nomenclature of crown colonies?
Those pretending to be "Taiwanese" now are no more Taiwanese and less
Chinese than their predecessors were and were not 55 years ago. Their
economic focus may be somewhat more independent-- after all Taiwan has
great investments in the Guangdong, but their class interests are no
different than they were under the KMT.
That China itself has moved down the road apiece (maybe more than
apiece) to capitalist restoration doesn't really change the flimsiness
of the "independent Taiwan" position. The "independents" antipathy to
the US comes from the fear of being sacrificed as a pawn in a great
game. But in no way shape or form would an "independent" Taiwan be any
less dependent on, any less integrated into, advanced capitalism.
For the record, both China and Taiwan, export capital.
More information about the Marxism