[Marxism] China: a Successful 58th Anniversary (Prensa Latina)

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Tue Oct 2 10:32:49 MDT 2007


Néstor Gorojovsky wrote:
> Imperialist policy makers support the Tibetan struggle for
> "independence" from China, since Tibet cannot exist as an independent
> nation in the current world (nor, to my knowledge, has ever been able
> to) and an "independent" Tibet would immediately become a semicolonial
> Tibet. A new possession in the hands of the West.

You can say the same thing about Black nationalism in the USA. During 
the 1960s, separatism was very strong here even if the demand for a 
"Black Belt" in the South no longer had much traction. Should we have 
told Black activists that this was an incorrect demand because an 
independent Black nation was not viable?

On Tibet. It was never in China's interest to dominate this country even 
if the rulers were feudalists. It had no military nor economic value, 
nor would its separation from China lead to the dissolution of the 
country in a Bosnia or Kosovo type scenario. The only explanation can be 
residual pre-Communist thinking of the sort that was on display when 
Stalin bullied the Georgians. This does not advance the cause of socialism.




More information about the Marxism mailing list