[Marxism] The Taiwan nation -- a recent and purely political artifact

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have read Perry Anderson's article on Taiwan, and I strongly recommend
it to everyone engaged in the China and related Taiwan discussion.
Although I disagree sharply with his conclusions, I feel much better
informed about why than I did before I read it. And while I think he
basically comes forward as a defender of sorts of the "Taiwan nation"
and its "freedom" from China, he does this without the tweet-tweet
apologetics for Taiwan's political culture and democracy that are
increasingly common, including on the left.

Among the nations of the world, he recognizes that Taiwan is purely sui
generis, despite his political effort to defend its independence along
the lines of  Uruguay and other settler nations.  He understands that
the Taiwan case is a case unto itself alone.

He recognizes that Taiwan nationalism, although it has a prehistory,
only exploded on the scene in 1996, when the Taiwan ruling class or most
of it saw the need for a change of stance, since the recognition of
China had clearly become irreversible in any short-term way, and Taiwan
was increasingly being excluded from international bodies (something, I
would point out, never happened to such nation-less nations as Kuwait).

The argument of Taiwan independence and Taiwan nationhood came forward
as the best way to regain some of the world stature formerly held by
Nationalist China, to strengthen the political base of the regime in
Taiwan, and to justify continued US support.  "Taiwanese nationalism"
is, of course, directed entirely against the "oppressor nation" (also
known to some as "Great Han chauvinism" although the population that is
integrated into the Chinese nation is not purely Han at all, nor is
Chinese nationalism just another name for Han nationalism).

It is not direted at all against the power on which the new nation is
profoundly dependent and to which it is subject in the international
system, that is, US imperialism.  In Taiwanese nationalism, the state
which dominates (the United States) is not the nation which "oppresses"
Taiwan (China or the Han).

Anderson notes that there are cultural differences,including differences
of dialect, between Taiwan and China (especially if one defines China as
exclusively the Han), these have nothing to do with the new nation,
which is united on three basic issues: Taiwan's bourgeois democracy,
fear (or political hatred) of China, and ties to the United States. In
fact, cultural questions would only divide.  This is an aspect of  the
Taiwanese "nation" that is unique in my personal experience.  (Even the
Jews of Israel are united culturally to the extent that they have
accepted Hebrew as the national language and the history of Jewish
oppression in the twentieth century as their national pre-history).

There is a fourth aspect of Taiwanese nationalism that is not noted, but
that I think exists in a much quieter way these days: anti-Communism.
As practical men, the Taiwanese bourgeois are not as convinced  as many
left intellectuals in the West are that the Chinese revolution is dead
and will no longer affect their businesses.  This, too, has been from
the beginning part of the exclusively political unity of the developing
Taiwanese nation, and is still a key to the degree of unity that exists
about staying separate from China.

Anderson portrays US imperialism as opposed to Taiwan independence.  I
think it would be more correct to describe US imperialism as opposed to
a DECLARATION of Taiwanese independence at this time.  There is very
strong support for the course toward Taiwan independence and for the
posture of "Taiwan nationalism" in the White House structure, the
Pentagon, and Congress.  They may continue to attempt to oppose a
declaration of Taiwan independence, but it would be wrong (and Anderson,
who seems to respect facts which I hope will save him in the end, does
not claim this) to describe US imperialism as oppose to the political
course toward a declaration of independence and opposed to the Green
Party..  And some of the supporters of Taiwan independence (those most
convinced China can be faced down on this as Anderson seems to be) favor
confronting them now rather than later.


Actually, Anderson's description (while it has unique aspects), keeps
reminding me of Israel fending off (with US support  for the new
"oppressed nation", against the Jew-hating and very hateful Arab- or
Islamic-chauvinist sea that surrounds it.  Here it is, the only Chinese
democracy ( now that Hong Kong has fallen to the enemy, but of course,
not at all really part of China), a nation of settlers and Chinese
natives who have made the desert bloom and established the only
democracy in the region (without the Palestinians, at home, I admit,
which makes the bullshit easier to sell). What liberal or left-liberal
of the post-communist era can be other than inspired?  The advantages of
this "nationalist" imagery is rather clear for the alliance with
Washington, and I think it is foolish to imagine that Washington is
"really" fighting it tooth and nail and thus pushing the Taiwanese
"nation" toward anti-imperialism and nonalignment. Alignment is its
nature as a "nation."

Well, I admit I find it entertaining to think of the flight of Chiang
Kai-shek's forces from China to Taiwan was "the birth of a nation" and
that Chiang was the (unintentional) father of his country (not China but
democratic anti-China Taiwan). I don't believe that anyone I know in
history can match Chiang for deriving personal success and wealth from
one defeat after another. A sign of real talent, not just an "accidental
figure," as we used to say in the Trotskyist movement.  But still I'm
not willing to let the old con man -- one of the best, I have no doubt
-- get away posthumously with his biggest (though no planned) con of
all: the Taiwanese anti-China demcratic nation. My soft spot for really
inspired scoundrels and maniacs will only take me so far.

But to the also very talented (but not a con man) Perry Anderson, I owe
a real debt (second to Nayan Chanda of Far Eastern Economic Review --
then ==  who began my thinking on this many years ago).  His facts have
reinforced rather than changed my fifty year gut reaction.  Those of us
who don't have extensive knowledge of Taiwan owe him a real debt.

Just a comment for Louis Proyect. I am glad you are taking another look
at Tibet.  Personally, I have thought since the brutal anti-religios and
anti-human Maoist attack on Tibet that self-determination (i.e.,
independence) was the inevitable goal of the national struggle after
that.  So I am for independence, despite the fact that I do have
military strategic concerns re China and imperialism, whether China is
bourgeois or a workers' state -- and overall, I hold more firmly than I
have let on to the view that it is the latter.

And I hope you will also reconsider in this context the Milosevic course
toward Kosovo beginning with the death of Tito (at least).  Did this
contribute anything to the defense of whatever was left of the workers'
state in Yugoslavia or Kosovo? I leave aside the question of defense
against imperialism, which is an obligation regardless.
Fred Feldman





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism