[Marxism] Re: Taiwan "nationalism" (response to Brian Shannon)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian wrote:
And, Richard, while you are at it: What is role of U.S. Imperialism in
avoiding a settlement of the national question through the
reunification of Texas, New, Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and California
with Mexico?

Or, more appropriate for you: What is the role of U.S. Imperialism in
failing to settle the North American national question through
completing the American Revolution by reunifying the lost colony of
Canada with the United States.


Previously Brian called for the sides in the dispute over Taiwan to be
cautious.  That was a defensible position, an apparent warning to the
Chinese government not to take military action to retake the island, and
to the Taiwanese leadership not to try to cement their "special
relationship" with Washington or their strong economic ties to Japan by
proclaiming independence.  As far as I can see, both the Chinese and
Taiwanese governments are following this advice.  I agree, from the
standpoint of support to China's claim, that avoiding a military
conflict is probably the best tactic for the foreseeable future.

Now, however, he seems to have thrown caution to the winds, and is
attempting to present the Chinese claim to Taiwan, held valid by the
entire world to date and far from being rejected by all Taiwanese, as
just as absurd as a US claim to Canada would be today. From urging
caution, he seems to be becoming a propagandist for Taiwan independence.

Aside from the fact that the US is an imperialist power, and Canada is a
competing imperialist power, and there is colonial or semicolonial rule
in either country (unlike China, which shook off imperialist domination,
and Taiwan, which is a US protectorate and relies on the US military to
maintain its separation from China).  Taiwan has never been
"independent" from the standpoint of imperialism -- its separation from
China has throughout been imposed and maintained by imperialist powers
(or emerging ones, as Japan was in the early stages). That includes, of
course, Chiang Kai-shek's conquest of the island in 1949.

This last enforced separation has lasted fifty-six years, although the
world -- including Taiwan -- has yet to recognize it  as independence.
How does this compare with the time span during which the US separation
from Britain's former northern territories (the present Canadian nation)
existed? Or the US success in stealing the southwest from a weak,
divided, and declining landlord regime in Mexico?

In an earlier article, Richard Fidler argued, basing himself on Perry
Anderson's excellent article (which, in spite of the author's
conclusion, provides a strong basis for arguing against the existing of
a genuine Taiwan national movement), argued that democracy is the basis
of Taiwan nationalism.  But Taiwan has only been a bourgeois democracy
since the late 1970s at the earliest.  Twenty-six years to forge a new
"democratic" nation?

In fact, the "democratic Taiwan" argument is simply a more defensive
continuation of the imperialist-sponsored myth of Taiwan as the "good
China" in contrast to the mainland as the "bad China." Now the
difference is democracy, whereas before the difference was
pro-imperialist Nationalism versus communism.  An updated post-Cold War
argument against the unification of China and the potential
strengthening of a power that US big business makes billions from but
that the US imperialists also deeply fear.

As Brian notes, the Articles of Confederation included the prospect of
Canada becoming a part of the USA. (And I am sure that Britain found
this provision as obnoxious as Washington now finds the Chinese claims
to Taiwan). As late as 1812, the US made a feeble attempt to take over
the British colonies to the north.  Although the USA was the more
progressive side in that conflict, the already growing conflict between
those exploiting slave and those exploiting proletarian labor (with the
farmers  having an important weight between them) made it impossible for
the US to seriously pursue such an effort, which probably could have
obtained substantial support in Canada, including from the oppressed
Francophones. Over much time, the emergence of a bourgeois Canada --
eventually independent of Britain -- made this issue completely moot.

The example of Mexico and the southwestern states is, if anything worse.
I don't think revolutionaries should accept the Rio Grande as the
permanent and immutable border of the US nation.  A genuine popular
revolution in Mexico, coupled with growing instability in the US
imperialism, could reopen this question.  Already the US rulers are
aware of the dangers  of losing control over the Mexicano, Chicano,
Latino native and immigrant population of the areas.  I do not rule out
that a popular nationalist revolution in Mexico could lead to a
challenge to the old  borders.  As recent reports about the fascists
patrolling for the white ranchers, etc., against illegal immigrants and
Mexicans and Latinos generally, this is not really one of the calm world
borders, but one of the tense ones.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a shock to the world, something we
had grown used to that was not supposed to disappear, even though all
kinds of fissures and weaknesses had been visible for years.  I think
that Brian's comment shows -- and I don't even mean this as a criticism,
but as a comment on the state of mind even of revolutionaries in today's
world -- how unimaginable is the fall of US imperialism.

As attempts to ridicule China's claim to Taiwan, both examples fall
short because of their excess, general inappropriateness, and inner
contradictions.

By the way, Fidel Castro remains the leader of the Cuban national
movement as well as a socialist revolution.  The two have become
inseparably combined, the struggle for Cuba's freedom from imperialist
domination is far from over.

I hope the suggestion by Richard that it makes no difference in our
attitude whether a national movement is progressive or reactionary (or
pro- or anti-imperialist, or directed against the oppressor of humanity
or against nations striving to liberate themselves).  The fact that
"Taiwanese independence" has for the last sixty years been a "movement"
not against the nations that actually oppress and exploit Taiwan -- the
US and now Japan -- but against China, is not a healthy sign and should
affect our attitude toward it.

I'm glad Brian is no longer a pro-Maoist Swabeckite, but I think he may
have wandered just a bit TOO far from his roots.
Fred Feldman



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