Prejudices against China

[RedStarOverChina]

Prejudice, arrogance, ignorance and hypocricy---throw those ingredients together and u have the view on China shared by 99.9% of the westerners. In many cases, the mix also contains different degrees of racial descrimination.

I'm sick and tired of seeing this recipe of hatred rampaging across the world, brain-damaging even the ones I would normally consider to be my comrades.

I'm sick and tired of people thinking they are intellectually superior; decreeing judgements on us and for us, as if they know China better than we do ourselves.

I'm sick and tired of the hypocricy displayed by the "freedom fighters" of the west, going around screaming "Liberate Tibet!" "Free Hong Kong!" or "Independence for Taiwan!" The truth is, westerners dont care about the well-being of peasants in Tibet, or the future of HongKong, or the prosperity of Taiwan, or the fate of a worker in China. They do not care that if what they call for will lead to devastation in Tibet, chaos in Hongkong, depression in Taiwan, and the loss of whatever hope that is left for a worker in China. Then, as they succeed in laying another country in ruins after Iraq, they will watch millions of Chinese dying on TV, while saying to themselves, "Oh well, too bad. What a pity."

Oh I know the way westerners think, only too well.

[Redmau5]

The government in China is no better than the capitalist democracies in the West. The only difference is the Chinese government exercises more power over its citizens than the West does. The "Communist" party of China is a disgrace, operating nothing more than a capitalistic form of Stalinism, if not a twisted form of fascism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:05 PM
Prejudice, arrogance, ignorance and hypocricy---throw those ingredients together and u have the view on China shared by 99.9% of the westerners. In many cases, the mix also contains different degrees of racial descrimination.
Certainly those are common; one might add irrational fear.

You're making an overly sweeping generalization though.

[LSD]

Prejudice, arrogance, ignorance

hmm, you mean like claiming that "99.9% of the westerners" condescend to China?

"Oh I know the way westerners think, only too well." <--- Prejudice, arrogance, ignorance.



The truth is, westerners dont care about the well-being of peasants in Tibet, or the future of HongKong, or the prosperity of Taiwan, or the fate of a worker in China. They do not care that if what they call for will lead to devastation in Tibet, chaos in Hongkong, depression in Taiwan, and the loss of whatever hope that is left for a worker in China.

Perhaps, but then neither does the CCP.

The CCP was never communist, is not communist, and, by all appearances, has no intention of ever being communist.

They just like the "look".

:lol:&#33;

[Saint-Just]

They do not care that if what they call for will lead to devastation in Tibet, chaos in Hongkong, depression in Taiwan, and the loss of whatever hope that is left for a worker in China.

There is no longer any hope left for the worker in China. And so, nothing more to lose. I really don&#39;t think that the Taiwan question poses much significance to the Chinese working-class in the present China.

The CCP was a communist party before 1976. Today, the U.S. government has more socialist policies than the CCP.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I&#39;m sick and tired of people thinking they are intellectually superior

I don&#39;t know really, I feel that most of the ethnic Chinese I have run into, at least in this part of the US, are some of the most intelligent people I can think of. They are hardworking and capable people. I know for a fact that I am not smarter than some, especially not because they are ethnic Chinese in anyway.

I&#39;m pretty sure that a lot of the people I know who are not ethnic Chinese don&#39;t consider themselves naturally smarter than any race. They take people one at a time. I guess myself and my friends are the only Westerners who think that then ... so there is your .1% I guess ... we are just that enlightened. (I hope your sarcasm meter went off).

And yes, you are making a broad generalization. No one doubts there are people who think that, but not all, and definitely not 99.9%.

I got nothing else to say.

TGOW

[RedStarOverChina]

There is no longer any hope left for the worker in China. And so, nothing more to lose.

Actually there is. They have hope for a better future for their children---thats is possible if they can get them a good education. And even that will be gone if the situation de-stablizes.


I really don&#39;t think that the Taiwan question poses much significance to the Chinese working-class in the present China

Are u sure? last time I check, they are quite emotional on the issue of Taiwan.
Chairman Mao, are u Chinese? you dont seem to understand the Chinese people very well. And I wouldnt say there isnt hope for China. I see hope in the new leadership--and undeniablly, the government still has the support of the majority of the population. Many arent happy with the government, but just like me, they would be furious if foreign imperialist powers commits agreession against our government---which will end up hurting ourselves.


"Oh I know the way westerners think, only too well." <--- Prejudice, arrogance, ignorance.
Well after staying in the west for 6 years i think i have a clue what im talking about. Unless u are able to point out otherwise, which u somehow didnt feel like doing.



You&#39;re making an overly sweeping generalization though.

And yes, you are making a broad generalization. No one doubts there are people who think that, but not all, and definitely not 99.9%.

That what i thought and i still would like to think that way. But times after times i get dissapointed. I think a less figurative and more realistic estimation would be around 90-95%.

[LSD]

Well after staying in the west for 6 years i think i have a clue what im talking about. Unless u are able to point out otherwise, which u somehow didnt feel like doing.

"point out otherwise"?

How, precisely, would you suggest I do this? Psychich Telepathy?

Unlike you, I do not claim to know what people are thinking or believe.

I can tell you however that I know many "western" people and none of them think as you suggest.

In fact, I&#39;m not quite sure what it is that you are claiming&#33;

I can derive that you think that "westerners" consider themselves intellectually superior to Chinese people and that they "do not care that if what they call for will lead to devastation in Tibet, chaos in Hongkong, depression in Taiwan, and the loss of whatever hope that is left for a worker in China." The later being a critisism which, frankly, is equally valid in regards to Africa, Asia, and South America.

Basically, you&#39;re saying that the West is insular and ego-centric. That&#39;s capitalism, it isn&#39;t racism.

As to "intellectual superiority", if anything I think the present stereotype, certainly in American pop-culture, is that of Asians being smarter than the average caucasian.

You claim that 95% of the "west" considers the Chinese to be their intellectual infeiriors, but if this view is soooo prevalent, why haven&#39;t I seen this "dumb Chinese" caricature more?


That what i thought and i still would like to think that way. But times after times i get dissapointed. I think a less figurative and more realistic estimation would be around 90-95%.

So it&#39;s not 99.5%, it&#39;s closer to 90% or 95%...

A disinterested party would wonder from where you are deriving these statistics.

[Jina]

Did you say something about the "workers" in Taiwan... what what what... althought I am in favour of China taking Taiwan by force etc since they are Chinese, don&#39;t fucking say China cares about the workers, that must be why foreign companies are allowed to easily set up sweat shops to fucking drain the workers of any will power in order for them to make profit (as long as these companies pay some to the buracrates in Bejing) the Chinese government will not do anything for the "workers" So stop living in a fucking fantacy world and wake the fuck up. and China is no longer "Communist" you calling China Communist is like calling Nazi Germany Socialist like the idiots in the West...

[RedStarOverChina]

althought I am in favour of China taking Taiwan by force etc since they are Chinese

See? thats what im talking about. Fucking racist pig.

[Jina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:43 AM

althought I am in favour of China taking Taiwan by force etc since they are Chinese

See? thats what im talking about. Fucking racist pig.
WTF? Why am I a racist pig? For supporting Chinese to take back their land? You have a very narrow field of vision.


Funny little fact.. my best friends are CHINESE and here is a guy like you who I doubt have any non-Chinese friends if you are Chinese and if your white :blink:

And stop being a *****

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:10 AM

There is no longer any hope left for the worker in China. And so, nothing more to lose.

Actually there is. They have hope for a better future for their children---thats is possible if they can get them a good education. And even that will be gone if the situation de-stablizes.


Yes that&#39;s why China is now shipping jobs to Central American countries where the wage is &#036;1.50 a day rather than &#036;3.00-3.50 in China.

This isn&#39;t a government decision based on the will of the people, this is somebody making a buck, and if they were truly Communist they wouldn&#39;t try to bust unions in Nicaragua to keep wages down, and require 2500 unit a day piecemeals of units completed a day for that &#036;1.50 a day that kept women away from their children for long hours simply to feed them.

Sure China is just the latest to export jobs to this region, particularly with CAFTA, but don&#39;t give me any crap about China being Communist in any shape or form after this&#33;

Truth is ideology is what counts here, and China&#39;s is running short as she bows to the dollar, in a rather complicated fashion of debt owed by the U.S. to stabilize the U.S. and therefore Chinese markets etc. but the result is the same.

I really don&#39;t like someone assuming to speak for me, as a woman I get that a lot. :P So please do not assume my viewpoint until you speak to me first.


Speaking of which, you may not see yourself as racist but you sure as hell are sexist Jina

And stop being a *****

But does that mean I&#39;m no longer going to talk to men or post here because of that comment :lol: Get real, but I might bash some heads, figuratively at least as I&#39;m a Buddhist, a Tibetan Buddhist, practicing some time, so yes I do really care what happens to Tibet, as my guru is from there, thank you for assuming so much about me :D But in my heart I feel that when the tree of Je Tsongkhapa is cut down much ignorance will prevade our world, a tree which exists in Tibet.

Maybe you should not assume so much about Westerners, this is ignorant.

[Vincent]

[QUOTE]
The CCP was a communist party before 1976. Today, the U.S. government has more socialist policies than the CCP.

When you say &#39;before 1976&#39; I assume you are talking about Mao Tse Tung&#39;s time with the CCP. Mao was NOT communist. He was, in reality a dictator and the economy during his regime fell.

His doctrine was based around his knowledge of Marxism, but Mao refused to agree with the notion of the proletariate being the driving force of the revolution, and rearanged Marxism to focus on the peasants. We call it Maoism.

Mao was a dictator and a tyrant. The fist thing he did was bring all the railways, banks and about a third of heavy industry into state property and the government collected about two thirds of their profits. He ran campaigns are now know as the &#39;thought reform&#39; campaigns. Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?

For thousands of years China was run under dynasties (monarchies), the Sun Yatsen and his nationalists changed that, then Mao thought he could fuck with Marxism and he got no where. Now China&#39;s government is just as bad as the U.S, and I for one would never call it communist.

Parties like the Chinese Communist Party disgrace the word communism.

[kingbee]

erm. i&#39;d say that mao was quite the communist. he adapted socialism to china&#39;s needs. if there are many more peasants than proletariat, then is china supposed to ignore the peasants?

redstar- as a regular visitor to china, i am also quite sick of the west&#39;s perception of china. i obviously do not have a knowledge as good as you on the matter (i take it you are a resident), but things aren&#39;t how the media percieves over there&#33;

i&#39;ve read many posts on various boards, claiming china is "the world&#39;s last enigma", and how there is absolutely no freedom of speech. firstly, china is, and has been opening up slowly since the 70&#39;s, and secondly, there are regular rural protests against local government, from my knowledge.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ok - let me see if I understand it correctly. To combat the prejudices against China, you strenghten your own prejudices against Westerners. How is this helping to solve prejudices?

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:42 AM
erm. i&#39;d say that mao was quite the communist. he adapted socialism to china&#39;s needs. if there are many more peasants than proletariat, then is china supposed to ignore the peasants?


And yet his Great Leap Forward starved millions of Chinese. I&#39;m sure he was QUITE the communist indeed.

[LSD]

erm. i&#39;d say that mao was quite the communist. he adapted socialism to china&#39;s needs.

"adapted" being another word for... reinvented?

Mao&#39;s "socialism" was Stalinist State Capitalism.


if there are many more peasants than proletariat, then is china supposed to ignore the peasants?

No, but it is supposed to help them.

The "great leaps"; the "Cultural Revolution"; the social, economic, political, production, and military "reforms"...

China hasn&#39;t made social progress since the mid 1950s.


firstly, china is, and has been opening up slowly since the 70&#39;s

"oppening up"?

You mean liberalizing.

Not that China was ever communist, but it&#39;s gone from Agrarian Statism to...well... capitalism.

[RedStarOverChina]

His doctrine was based around his knowledge of Marxism, but Mao refused to agree with the notion of the proletariate being the driving force of the revolution, and rearanged Marxism to focus on the peasants. We call it Maoism.


Shows how much u know. Chinese peasants WERE proletariates&#33; Marx didnt classify peasants as proletariates cause they have capital(land), But back then in China the peasantry didnt have any land&#33; they were serfs. And because of that they are even more revolutionary than the workers.


And yet his Great Leap Forward starved millions of Chinese. I&#39;m sure he was QUITE the communist indeed.

Thats a economical failure. So according to u communists cant make any mistakes?


But does that mean I&#39;m no longer going to talk to men or post here because of that comment Get real, but I might bash some heads, figuratively at least as I&#39;m a Buddhist, a Tibetan Buddhist, practicing some time, so yes I do really care what happens to Tibet, as my guru is from there, thank you for assuming so much about me But in my heart I feel that when the tree of Je Tsongkhapa is cut down much ignorance will prevade our world, a tree which exists in Tibet.

Maybe you should not assume so much about Westerners, this is ignorant.


I&#39;m confused. Who are u talking to? but anyway, just so u know i like buddhism when it&#39;s in its purest form, which is merely an "education"(not religion, nor philosophy)

And China no longer practices persecution against religious groups other than Christianity and Falunkong(which is the most ridiculous cult i have ever seen)

In tibet, 1 in 40 Tibetans are/were monks/nuns. Tibetan priests are making HUGE profit on Buddhists and Chinese tourist. I&#39;d been to Tibet 2 years ago (And i plan to go back again this summer cause its my fav. place in the world). Tho i didnt have a good impression on Tibetan monks, I loved Tibet&#39;s friendly and warm-hearted people. The reason i said that is because i consider them my brothers, just like 54 other minorities in China. Both our languages originated from the Sino-Tibetan language. Unlike many "freedom fighters" of the west, I actually care about Tibetan people&#39;s well being. I want the best for them, including a higher degree of autonomy(while they are able to enjoy economical benifits from the rest of China). But Dailai isnt helping.


as a regular visitor to china, i am also quite sick of the west&#39;s perception of china.

(i take it you are a resident), but things aren&#39;t how the media percieves over there&#33;


I am comforted by ur presence. However, I am not as brainwashed as u might think I am. Im Chinese, tho I am living in Canada for the 6th year. I go back often.
I always read 4 or 5 news sources, most of them foreign news agencys (such as BBC, CBC(canadian), CNN and Al-gezera). I honestly cant say which side is more close-minded, Chinese media or foreign media. My point, however, is both sides have their own propaganda. While foreigners accuse Beijing of mass manipulation, they themselves are manipulated by western media.


To combat the prejudices against China, you strenghten your own prejudices against Westerners. How is this helping to solve prejudices?

Probably not. im seriously pissed by the things i&#39;d saw both recently and thro out my life. But I never assume someone is ignorant and prejudiced about China when i meet him/her. Quite the contrary I&#39;d like to think that he/she isnt. What i said wasnt a scientific survey nor did i intend to make it sound like it. But after talking to thousands and thousands of people both online and in person, I must say that the mass majority of them are not the well-informed and harbour prejudice against China.

[lostsoul]

one of my chinese friends who used to be a teacher in china, told me during mao&#39;s time life was amazing. Although no one had a really big house or anything, it was ok, because their houses were free.

He always talks about how "safe" everyone felt during Mao&#39;s time. People didn&#39;t need to lock their doors, you can go out and eat and not worry if the food was bad quality. But now, there are many robbers and alot of time chinese people sell either fake food or foods with alot of chemicals to prevent it from expiring quality, thus alot of people get sick. People didn&#39;t have to worry about education, all education was free and the goverment even gave students "extra" money while they were studying so they didn&#39;t need to get jobs while in school(thus lack of money did not prevent people from studying).

Communism is two parts..economical and political. Both must be communist. If its only polically communist, its like a dicitatorship. Its a shame, Mao and everyone worked so hard for almost everything to be reversed.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:05 PM


I&#39;m sick and tired of people thinking they are intellectually superior; decreeing judgements on us and for us
Aint that some shit&#33;

Most people swear Chinese people are smarter and more industrious.

However (&#33;)

I do not see why I need to "respect" the chinese government.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:32 PM
The government in China is no better than the capitalist democracies in the West. The only difference is the Chinese government exercises more power over its citizens than the West does. The "Communist" party of China is a disgrace, operating nothing more than a capitalistic form of Stalinism, if not a twisted form of fascism.
I agree entirley.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=RedStarOverChina,Mar 23 2005, 07:05 PM]

I do not see why I need to "respect" the chinese government.
I&#39;ve always seen the chinese as being intelligent and industrious as well, but I have norespect for their ogvernment.

[RedStarOverChina]

As individuals, it doesnt matter if u or I give no respect to the Chinese government. The government still has the support of at least a billion people. Unless that&#39;s gonna change dramatically, I will give my support to the government unconditionally(tho it doesnt mean i wouldnt disagree with it on particular issues), since we are being challenged by so much foreign chauvinism.

[LSD]

The government still has the support of at least a billion people.

And you base this on ...what?

The fact that they haven&#39;t overthrown it? Because there certainly hasn&#39;t been a democratic test in ... well.... ever.


Unless that&#39;s gonna change dramatically, I will give my support to the government unconditionally

Wonderful.

"Unconditional support" for a murderous totalitarian capitalist government.

I guess you&#39;re a Bush fan...


(tho it doesnt mean i wouldnt disagree with it on particular issues),

Actually, that&#39;s exactly what it means&#33;

Unconditionally = without condition.


since we are being challenged by so much foreign chauvinism.

Germany was "challenged by foreign chauvinism" durring the thirties and forties.

I trust, though, that you weren&#39;t an "unconditional" supporter of Herr Hitler&#33;

[RedStarOverChina]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Chinese immigrants earned their reputation as a group of hardworking and intelligent people.

So why are the westerners demending us to ran things their way? are we so blind that we need the guidance of the civilized west? are we so dumb that we dont know what is freedom? China hates foreign influences. We do not need the west to stretch the truth for their own purpose, may the purpose be to degrade us or to make themselves feel better. Not to meantion their motives are far from being pure.

[RedStarOverChina]

I disagree with the government in some issues while I support it wholeheartedly. Do u not understand what that means? it means up urs, imperialists. Our conflicts should not be used to their advantages.


I guess you&#39;re a Bush fan...


No, u are closer to being a bush fan---u support his arrogent position on issue of CHina. We dont go around and invade everyone, and we do sign all the treaties and respect them. All I want is for CHina to be treated without prejudice. Dont u dare make connections between me and a bush fan.

And you base this on ...what?
what made u think u know we hate the government? Im talking about MY OWN people here.


The fact that they haven&#39;t overthrown it? Because there certainly hasn&#39;t been a democratic test in ... well.... ever.

and which government did?

[LSD]

I disagree with the government in some issues while I support it wholeheartedly. Do u not understand what that means? it means up urs, imperialists.

*sigh*

That&#39;s exactly the wrong tact to take.

The way to defeat imperialism is not to support a government that is CLOSE FRIENDS with imperialists but to push for a true revolution.



No, u are closer to being a bush fan---u support his arrogent position on issue of CHina.

No I don&#39;t&#33; I just don&#39;t support your&#39;s either.

I think that Bush is a threat to every American worker, just at the CCP is a threat to every Chinese worker.

They&#39;re not mutually exclusive.


We dont go around and invade everyone

"We" meaning China?

I&#39;d remind you that China did invade Tibet (as well as India.. actually...)


All I want is for CHina to be treated without prejudice. Dont u dare make connections between me and a bush fan.

You support a government that is very close friends with the Bush government and it making constant neoliberal reforms.

Sorry, but you support the CCP, you are a Bush fan.


what made u think u know we hate the government? Im talking about MY OWN people here.

:lol:

Sorry, but "I just know" isn&#39;t a valid logical position.

I&#39;m still waiting on evidence for your claim that "The government still has the support of at least a billion people.".


and which government did?

My point exactly&#33;

But it is you that is supporting a governemnt, not me&#33;

I don&#39;t think any state has the right to rule, let alone a brutal capitalistic authoritarian one like the CCP.

You do&#33;

[RedStarOverChina]

China "invaded" Tibet just like Ho chi ming "invaded" southern Vietnam, or Lincoln "invaded" southern states, or like Nehru "invaded" Goa.
Tibet, ever since the mongol conquest, has only been independent for a total of 8-9 years(1942-1951, Dalai and his theocrats declared independence after grasped more power in Tibet by expelling all Chinese officials out of Tibet when China was fighting Japan.)

Whether u accept that or not, Tibet is a part of China, thus the "invasion of Tibet" was a civil war like any other civil war.

About the Sino-Indian war, u have no clue what happened untill u read this detailed record written by Maxwell
http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

This is one of the most detailed and unbiased account i have ever found. If u read it u will realize that India advanced into Chinese Tibet while Nehru refused all negotiations and shattered all hopes of peace.(read part II: the forward policy) It&#39;s too long and tedious to explain everything so u will have to read it urself. But do not throw ur prejudiced anti-China propaganda at me untill u have read and fully understood the article. It depicts both sides of the story.

That&#39;s the problem. Whenever China is involved in a conflict, everyone automatically believes China is the agressor. The way of thinking has became a form of "civic discrimination", manipulating people to think against China like the conditional-reflecting dogs trained by Pavlov.

As for how do i know the government has the support of the people?
Have u talked to a taxi driver in a big city or a old man playing chess beside a tree in China? Have u talked to the peasants in some of the most remote areas in China? Have u talked to an old Tibetan lady, preparing milk-tea for her guests with a big smile on her face?
I HAVE.

[RedStarOverChina]

I will say this once and for all: We deal with our own problems. If we have to choose between the imperialist aggressors or our own oppressors, WE WILL CHOOSE THE LATTER. We do not want China to turn into another Iraq. We do not want any US led "Operation Chinese Freedom". Not to meantion the Chinese government is the world&#39;s only hope to end the US imperialist hegemony.
"China is your enemy if you see it as ur enemy."

[Vincent]

you&#39;re a moron redstaroverchina.

before the the turn of the century, china was still feudal..... FEUDAL.

the peasants were NOT the proletariate. even in the mid 1950&#39;s, the peasants were still just peasants.

if you think they &#39;owned&#39; land then can you explain how they were too poor to cultivate the lots of land that they were given after the agrarian land reforms took place?

if they owned the land, how come &#39;speak bitterness&#39;; sessions took place in which peasants would group together and criticsize the landowners. and in many cases have executions of the ones they considered to be complete bastards?

Chairman Mao was a DICTATOR. He ruled with an iron fist. He basically paved the way for capitalism&#33;

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:56 AM
I will say this once and for all: We deal with our own problems. If we have to choose between the imperialist aggressors or our own oppressors, WE WILL CHOOSE THE LATTER. We do not want China to turn into another Iraq. We do not want any US led "Operation Chinese Freedom". Not to meantion the Chinese government is the world&#39;s only hope to end the US imperialist hegemony.
"China is your enemy if you see it as ur enemy."
Don&#39;t know about this, but I believe that China is about to make Taiwan another Iraq. Sure, I believe that a first-world China is a good buffer to the power of the US, but I&#39;m not sure that the Chinese government&#39;s motives are peaceful. Racism is no stranger to the US or the world for that matter, but I do not believe that the numbers you give are accurate. I&#39;m Jewish, but I do not have to give an undying support for Israel&#39;s government. Criticism towards you government does not ruin the social structure of your country, RedStar, but an undying love towards it does.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+Mar 23 2005, 07:05 PM--> (RedStarOverChina @ Mar 23 2005, 07:05 PM) I&#39;m sick and tired of people thinking they are intellectually superior; decreeing judgements on us and for us, as if they know China better than we do ourselves. [/b]
yes, -countries should be completely sovereign. haha..

Tibet? because Mao Zedong was anti-religion and the Dalai Lama was there perhaps?

I don&#39;t agree with the government in several things such as censorship.


Originally posted by Jina Mar 24 2005+ 06:12 AM--> (Jina Mar 24 2005 &#064; 06:12 AM)
RedStarOverChina @ Mar 24 [email protected] 05:43 AM

Jina
althought I am in favour of China taking Taiwan by force etc since they are ChineseSee? thats what im talking about. Fucking racist pig.WTF? Why am I a racist pig? For supporting Chinese to take back their land? You have a very narrow field of vision.


Funny little fact.. my best friends are CHINESE and here is a guy like you who I doubt have any non-Chinese friends if you are Chinese and if your white :blink:

And stop being a *****[/b]

okay. I&#39;ll say this: saying the chinese can take over taiwan because they&#39;re chinese is like saying the europeans can take over Portugal because they&#39;re europeans. China is multi-national state, comprising not only of Han Chinese.

[RedStarOverChina]

saying the chinese can take over taiwan because they&#39;re chinese is like saying the europeans can take over Portugal because they&#39;re europeans. China is multi-national state, comprising not only of Han Chinese.

Oh u make me sick. The the Taiwan problem is the problem between Chinese ourselves.

The only reason it is still separated is because of imperialist intervention. they screwed us over 50 years ago and now they are hiring people like u to keep screwing us up. Because nowadays its too obvious for the imperialist governments to intervene our civil matters. But the people of the imperialist countries can keep bothering us for something their government did.

50 years ago they invaded Taiwan and made it a pupet. Now they are condemning us for taking it back?

The problem with mainland and Taiwan is exactly the same with the problem of north and south korean, north and south Vietnam, East and west germany. Soviet and American imperialists screwed up all of us. HOW DARE U TRY THAT AGAIN?

About Tibet im not even gonna argue with u. Read my previous posts.


Don&#39;t know about this, but I believe that China is about to make Taiwan another Iraq.
They are completely two different issues. Taiwan is undeniablly a part of China. US has no business in Iraq. And contrary to the US, we dont wanna invade Taiwan. We want PEACEFUL REUNIFICATION. (but the west is intentioanlly ignoraing that while blowing China&#39;s "aggression" way out of proportion.)

CHina and Taiwan are the same country. We care nothing about the "heirlooms" which imperialists left for us (primarily a big scar and separation of our territories). Nor do we surrender to their threats.




you&#39;re a moron redstaroverchina.

Well u are a moron AND an asshole. I have ten more titles for u that are just as appropriate.


before the the turn of the century, china was still feudal..... FEUDAL.

what the hell does that mean? what does it prove? OF COURSE IT WAS FEUDAL. In feudalism, peasantry appears in the form of serfs&#33; Serfs dont have land or any other capital thus they are PROLETARIATES&#33;

[/QUOTE]if you think they &#39;owned&#39; land then can you explain how they were too poor to cultivate the lots of land that they were given after the agrarian land reforms took place?


WTF? What does that mean?

if they owned the land, how come &#39;speak bitterness&#39;; sessions took place in which peasants would group together and criticsize the landowners. and in many cases have executions of the ones they considered to be complete bastards?[QUOTE]

Thats called a revolution u idoit&#33; Thats what its all about&#33; In China, expliotation is most severe in countryside. Peasants dont have land so thbey have to rent land from landowners who exploits them in the most severe way possible. The communist revolution finally made peasants the master of themselves.

U call urself a leftist? what kind of a leftist despises MORE THAN HALF OF THE WROLD&#39;S POPULATION??? If u dont like peasants, hell with u.
U are not only dogmatic, u are reactionary. Nothng but a extremely reactionary petty Bourgeoise.

[lostsoul]

RedStarOverChina, I agree with what your saying. But I disagree when comparing taiwan as a "goa" or "south Vietnam". I think after the communist victory if they had taken taiwan it would have been fine, every a few years later it would have been fine. But I think the time has past now. Invading taiwan in my mind makes them almost like imperialist, trying to get more land and wealth.

I have alot of chinese friends, and also know a few taiwaness(did i spell it right?) and the ones born and raised here are ok with each other. But the majority of Taiwaness people who come from taiwan(that i have met) seem to dislike china and the chinese people. Although slightly more then 50 years ago they were the same people, it seems the people in taiwan are really trying to sperate and differnate themselfs.

Correct me if i&#39;m wrong. But what would be the difference between Britian going in and trying to retake India(In my opinion with the exception of the geographical differences between the countries, the logic could be applied to taiwan and china)?



P.S. everyone, please control yourselfs more. I know these types of topics are emontional for us, but there&#39;s no need to insult each other. It only helps divide the left movement more and makes it easier for the right to defeat us. How can we help the workers of the world to unite, when we can&#39;t even unite with outselfs? Try to teach and try to learn from each other.

[Vincent]

Well u are a moron AND an asshole. I have ten more titles for u that are just as appropriate.

Harsh, but brilliant. One day you will make a great philosopher of irrefutable logic and reasoning.


what the hell does that mean? what does it prove? OF COURSE IT WAS FEUDAL. In feudalism, peasantry appears in the form of serfs&#33; Serfs dont have land or any other capital thus they are PROLETARIATES&#33;

you need an education. a slave doesn&#39;t own land or capital, does that make a slave a proletarian in disguise? Fredrick Engels wrote in his work &#39;The Principles Of Communism&#39; of the proletariate;

"What is the proletariate? The proletariate is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour -- hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridaled competition. The proletariate, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."

Mao wrote in his OWN works of how he wished to take the emphasis OFF the urban worker (or the proletariate) and instead focus upon the large population of peasants in China. He did this because the proletariate was, according to Marx, to be the revolutionary class. Unfortunatley I am unable to find the exact work this was written in.




WTF? What does that mean?

from a history book i used last year...

"The Agrarian Land Reform of 1950 did not live up to every peasants expectations. After receiving their land, peans were often bitterly dissapointed when the realised the had no equipment to cultivate it."



Thats called a revolution u idoit&#33; Thats what its all about&#33; In China, expliotation is most severe in countryside. Peasants dont have land so thbey have to rent land from landowners who exploits them in the most severe way possible. The communist revolution finally made peasants the master of themselves.

The Chinese Revolution achieved a breakaway from feudalism, which is good. Mao, however was naive to think HE could modify Marxism to fit China&#39;s needs. It&#39;s acceptalbe to think that perhaps he was more naive to think that, after his initial plans of socialism failed, he could change communism to suit HIS needs.


U call urself a leftist? what kind of a leftist despises MORE THAN HALF OF THE WROLD&#39;S POPULATION??? If u dont like peasants, hell with u.
U are not only dogmatic, u are reactionary. Nothng but a extremely reactionary petty Bourgeoise.

I think you should stop pushing you&#39;re beliefs of Maosim on others. I disagree with Mao&#39;s divergance from the orginal doctrine, and I am allowed to.

[LSD]

The problem with mainland and Taiwan is exactly the same with the problem of north and south korean, north and south Vietnam, East and west germany. Soviet and American imperialists screwed up all of us. HOW DARE U TRY THAT AGAIN?

Well, actually, what gave China the right to Taiwan at all?

Japan occupied it through the Republic of Formossa 100 years ago, so could Japan now claim that they have a historical right to it?

As far as I can see, Japan has just as much right to Taiwan as does the PRC&#33;

It&#39;s been fifty years&#33; It&#39;s a seperate country now, lostsoul&#39;s analogy is spot on, Britain can&#39;t claim that India is a lost province, so why can China do so with regards to Taiwan?


50 years ago they invaded Taiwan and made it a pupet. Now they are condemning us for taking it back?

Well, actually, wasn&#39;t it more that the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, set up a seperate government, and then the "imperialists" moved in to defend it?

America didn&#39;t "invade" Taiwan, Taiwan, effectively, seceded.


They are completely two different issues. Taiwan is undeniablly a part of China. US has no business in Iraq. And contrary to the US, we dont wanna invade Taiwan. We want PEACEFUL REUNIFICATION.

Who&#39;s "we"?

Every poll conducted shows that the people of Taiwan do not want "unification", peaceful or otherwise.


U call urself a leftist? what kind of a leftist despises MORE THAN HALF OF THE WROLD&#39;S POPULATION???

And what kind of a leftist sticks to nationalism and ethnicism?

You support the reactionary rightist CCP, even though you disagree with it, solely because it&#39;s Chinese. That isn&#39;t leftism&#33; That&#39;s fucking nationalism and there is no place for nationalism within communism&#33;

Workers of the world unite&#33;

Once you divide the working class into "nations" and "races", you&#39;ve already lost.

[Jina]

Originally posted by Dwarf [email protected] 25 2005, 04:10 PM
okay. I&#39;ll say this: saying the chinese can take over taiwan because they&#39;re chinese is like saying the europeans can take over Portugal because they&#39;re europeans. China is multi-national state, comprising not only of Han Chinese.
Difference here is that Taiwan WAS part of China and all most all of the Chinese ethnic groups been part of China for over 3500 years while Europeans weren&#39;t in that state hence other Europeans have no claim in Portugal, not even Spain have any claim in Portugal since they separated many many moons ago. Your argument is weak find a better example if you can. Ohhh while China is one nation Europe is not a single nation so it won’t work.

[LSD]

Difference here is that Taiwan WAS part of China and all most all of the Chinese ethnic groups been part of China for over 3500 years

It also "WAS" part of Japan for a while...

So what?

After 50 years, shouldn&#39;t it really be up to the Taiwanese people to decide? It is disgustingly racist to say that Taiwan should be part of Chin for "ethnic" reasons.

Again, nationalism has no place within worker&#39;s liberation&#33;

[RedStarOverChina]

Ho Chi Ming was a Nationalist. Mao Tsedong and Castro are/were nationalists.


However, no revolutionary that i know of support imeprialist aggression like u do&#33;



Japan occupied it through the Republic of Formossa 100 years ago, so could Japan now claim that they have a historical right to it?

Japan invaded Taiwan 100 years ago and took it over from China. It was ordered to give the island back to China after the conference of san francisco. HOW THE HELL COULD IT BELONG TO JAPAN? IT WAS THE LEGAL TERRITORY OF CHINA. ACCORDING TO UR LOGIC FRANCE BELONGS TO GERMANY BECAUSE IT WAS TAKEN OVER BY GERMANY. UNTILL RECENTLY(1992) THE RULERS AND THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN CONSIDERED THEMSELVES CHINESE&#33;

U ARE NO LEFTIST. U PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS AND JAPANESE FASCISTS.

[RedStarOverChina]

people like u are the exact reason why I&#39;m turning into a nationalist. Without nationalism, we can never defend ourselves from western chauvinism deeply rooted in ur mind.

[Jina]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 05:42 PM

Difference here is that Taiwan WAS part of China and all most all of the Chinese ethnic groups been part of China for over 3500 years

It also "WAS" part of Japan for a while...

So what?

After 50 years, shouldn&#39;t it really be up to the Taiwanese people to decide? It is disgustingly racist to say that Taiwan should be part of Chin for "ethnic" reasons.

Again, nationalism has no place within worker&#39;s liberation&#33;
WTF up your ass, are you retarded or something? Japanese = different people and were invaders, how am I am racist? Can you understand English?

[LSD]

Ho Chi Ming was a Nationalist.

And look what happened to Vietnam.


Mao Tsedong

And look what happened to China.


and Castro

And look what happened to Cuba.

Real communism has yet to happen largely because of nationalism.


Japan invaded Taiwan 100 years ago and took it over from China. It was ordered to give the island back to China after the conference of san francisco. HOW THE HELL COULD IT BELONG TO JAPAN? IT WAS THE LEGAL TERRITORY OF CHINA. ACCORDING TO UR LOGIC FRANCE BELONGS TO GERMANY BECAUSE IT WAS TAKEN OVER BY GERMANY. UNTILL RECENTLY(1992) THE RULERS AND THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN CONSIDERED THEMSELVES CHINESE&#33;

Operative phrase "UNTIL RECENTLY".

Again, historical "rights" are meaningless if the people of Taiwan do not want to be "reunified" with mainland China.

Britain ruled India for 400 years&#33;&#33;&#33; That does not mean that they can claim India today&#33;


U ARE NO LEFTIST. U PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS AND JAPANESE FASCISTS.

However, no revolutionary that i know of support imeprialist aggression like u do&#33;

And you support the reactionary government of China "unconditionally"&#33; What kind of leftist does that make you?

"Imperial aggresion"??

:lol:

You are advocating that China conquer Taiwan against the wishes of her people&#33;&#33;

So, who&#39;s advocating imperialism?


people like u are the exact reason why I&#39;m turning into a nationalist.

You mean people who seek for the global liberation of the working class and not merely the ethnically Chinese?

People who don&#39;t divide the working class into arbitrary "nations" and "races"?

People who believe that a reactionay government is a reactionary government no matter what race its leaders are?

I think there&#39;s a word for that "people like that":

Communist.


Without nationalism, we can never defend ourselves from western chauvinism deeply rooted in ur mind.

And replace it with what? Eastern Chavinism?

Don&#39;t delude yourself, the CCP is no better then the US government.


Japanese = different people and were invaders, how am I am racist?

Because you believe that "race" is sufficient justification for unification even if the people don&#39;t want it.

Let me spell it out for you, RACE IS A MEANINGLESS TERM. It has zero biological crediiblity and is complete an invention of human ignorance.

Declaring that Taiwan should be conquere by China even though its people don&#39;t want it to be because the two countries share a "racial" group is and example of basing a political decision on race.

That is commonly called racism.


WTF up your ass, are you retarded or something?

Can you understand English?

Nice to see I&#39;m making friends&#33;

[T_34]

U have no freinds on this thing becuse of your scarscastic and rude posts, which force rude and sarcy replies.

And them annoyin random bold words.

[RedAnarchist]

T_34, i&#39;m sure you are more intelligent than your posts suggests, so why dont you actaully use it? Intellect is such a wonderful thing.

[1936]

yo T_34, i didnt realise the point of the site was to gain friends....

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:24 PM
U have no freinds on this thing becuse of your scarscastic and rude posts, which force rude and sarcy replies.

And them annoyin random bold words.
Hmm. Who doesn&#39;t have any friends on this board? Please enlighten me.

[1936]

I think its fair to say i have no friends on here....but i didnt join the site to get friends i joined the site to eXpress my beliefs

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

How can you combat chauvinism with chauvanism? Wouldn&#39;t the endresult be that you would become the thing that you hated? Or even worse, that instead of destroying chauvanism you have made it stronger?

[American_Trotskyist]

Nationalism? Fight Chauvinism with nationalism, a euphemism for chauvinism? Lets apply your logic so where else, to put out a fire, we can put gas on to smother it?

Nationalism is a reactionary too used by Capitalists and Stalinists; it is something that is very foolish. Nationalism is like a stimulant that one would put into a horse to take on a long trip to the glue factory. If it was a workers government, if the workers were having such great benefits, why would they need to have demagogy to make them defend their homes and factories? World War Two, the workers still had a few, but not many and far better than their fellow workers in the West, benefits. The inertia of October, the workers revolution, protected a few of the precious benefits of a workers state, the ones that the bureaucracy couldn&#39;t stomp out yet.

Castro wasn&#39;t a socialist until after the revolution; he was a petty bourgeois reformist. Fidel angered to US and so he went to the USSR for protection. Fidel wasn&#39;t a socialist and his revolution wasn&#39;t connected with Socialism, it was reform.

China has one of the largest free market economies in the world. The horrible working condition in the cities, the pay barely capable of eating with, that’s a worker’s paradise?

By the way, I like LSD, so there is one friend.

[NovelGentry]

I think its fair to say i have no friends on here....but i didnt join the site to get friends i joined the site to eXpress my beliefs

I don&#39;t know you very well, but I have absolutely no problem with you -- and certainly you claim to be leftist and seem to carry it, even if you&#39;re misunderstood on certain things, and for that you&#39;re my Comrade.


By the way, I like LSD, so there is one friend.

Yeah, he seems good by me

[NovelGentry]

Nationalism? Fight Chauvinism with nationalism, a euphemism for chauvinism? Lets apply your logic so where else, to put out a fire, we can put gas on to smother it?

Theoretically, yes.

[Paradox]

Theoretically, yes.

THEORETICALLY, yes. But in practice, no. I tried that once, and ended up needing new furniture. :lol: jk

Anyway, screw nationalism. I&#39;m part Native American and proud of my culture, but I ain&#39;t gonna blindly support anyone just cuz their Native American. I&#39;m not going to fight to take back the land from the white people and kick them out. I&#39;m part Mexican too, but I don&#39;t give a damn about the Mexican government. And I live in the u&#036;, but there&#39;s no way in hell you&#39;re going to see me waving a flag. I live Texas right now, and there aren&#39;t many Chinese or Asian people here, but back when I lived in California there were plenty. There were Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, plenty of them. And they were smart, good people. I had plenty of Asian friends then, so don&#39;t go pulling no "you racist pig" type crap on me. I don&#39;t support the Chinese government, or any government really, for that matter. Think whatever you want about me, but remember- Communism is STATELESS&#33; Leftism=INTERNATIONALISM. The workers of every nation need to unite to overthrow imperialism, whether it be that idiot bush here in the u&#036;, Fox in Mexico, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, or the fake Communists in the Chinese government. You&#39;re really being hypocritical in your posts, claiming that almost all the "west" hates China, and then inaccurately labeling people who respond to you with a differing opinion by calling them "racist" and things like that. Counter-productive my friend, counter-productive.

[refuse_resist]

It sucks what happend to China after Mao&#39;s death. We shouldn&#39;t abandon all hope for the workers of China though. There is still alot of class consiousness amongst them.

Also I&#39;d like to bring up that there are 2 different kinds of nationalism: revolutionary and reactionary. There is a huge difference between nationalism of the oppressed and nationalism of the oppressor.

[LSD]

Also I&#39;d like to bring up that there are 2 different kinds of nationalism: revolutionary and reactionary.

All nationalism is reactionary.


There is a huge difference between nationalism of the oppressed and nationalism of the oppressor.

The problem is that once a nationalist revolution occurs, the oppressed quickly become the oppressor.

Any ideology based on arbitrary definitions like "nation" or "race" is ultimately self defeating and divisive. The only way for a successful revolution is if we abandon the labels that the rulling class has forced upon us.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Umm, wasn&#39;t nationalism added to communism in an attempt to gain support in the Western Imperialists&#39; colonies in the form of United Fronts? Remember when CPC allied itself with the Kuomingtang after Sun Yatsen agreed to get much needed aid and support from the Soviets? Last time I checked, the Kuomingtang (aka the Nationalist Party) was a nationalist at the time, filled with industrialists, petty-bourgeoisie, workers and peasants, rich and poor. It was Chinese ... not workers. And the the CPC was a direct supporter because it allowed the party to gain power and influence while working through the KMT.

Besides that, when has the CPC not used nationalism? In fact, when have any of these "communist" nations not used it? (Can you say "socialism in one country"?) I don&#39;t see communism around much today, and I don&#39;t see many those countries that claim they are, cooperating much. I wonder if it is their borders?

So in a way, since nationalism has failed the movement, shouldn&#39;t we be searching for a new way? or at least resurrecting an even older one?


think its fair to say i have no friends on here....but i didnt join the site to get friends i joined the site to eXpress my beliefs

Neither did I, but one more friend never hurt anyone.


The only way for a successful revolution is if we abandon the labels that the rulling class has forced upon us.

Yes sir. Divide and conquer works both ways. This will be one of the hardest things to do, but it&#39;s the right idea.

LSD, you ask questions and bring up topics to get people thinking, and I like that, that is the point of all this anyway. LSD is much more left than I, if he is not a leftist, than I must be Hitler or somebody ... maybe Mussolini, oh wait&#33; Franco, yea, that must be who I am, Franco. ... I feel all warm and tingly now.

TGOW

[celticfire]

Wow for as much talk is there is on this board there sure isn&#39;t a lot of facts&#33;
China was very much indeed socialist and Che followed the Maoist line a lot, although they had tactical differences and Castro eventually followed the revsionist USSR. Mao was a revolutionary to the end. Not only did he help create the PRC, when it became over run by new exploiters, Mao led another revolution to put an end to that. A lot of the "deaths" that attributed to Mao are BS. Yes, people starved, yes some people died during the civil war and cultural revolution but these are the realities of life. "There is no such thing as a non-violent revolution&#33;" Mao was by no means a dictator. Formally, under the democratic-centralist principles of the PRC, Mao could be voted out of office, and in reality after 1949 Mao played a "advisor" role to policies not so much a leading role in state affairs. Mao was critical of Stalin, but didn&#39;t fall in line with Kruschev in denouncing the good aspects of Stalin (the socialist ones, not the phsyco ones). Mao was defintely a great revolutionary leader.

[Vincent]

Wow for as much talk is there is on this board there sure isn&#39;t a lot of facts&#33;

Wow for as much &#39;facts&#39; there is theres not much evidence.


China was very much indeed socialist

At which point exactly was China socialist. I assume you are speaking of the period of change after 1949... there were aspects of socialism, however China was basically in state capitalism.


A lot of the "deaths" that attributed to Mao are BS. Yes, people starved, yes some people died during the civil war and cultural revolution but these are the realities of life.

These &#39;realities of life&#39; could have been easily avoided. Had Mao thought his two Five-Year Plans through properly, the economic distaster wouldnt have occured, nor would have the famine.


Mao was defintely a great revolutionary leader.

However, when he was put into leadership of the nation he was absolute crap. Can you say &#39;corruption&#39;? Try &#39;despot&#39;.

I think we should stop worshipping people like Mao, who screwed Marxism to meet their own needs.

[kingbee]

All nationalism is reactionary.

no, its not.

all nationalism? is being proud of your country when you are overrun by a foreign power reactionary? is palestinian nationalism reactionary? i am welsh, and think independence is a good idea, because i don&#39;t want to be ruled from london. am i a reactionary?


Britain ruled India for 400 years&#33;&#33;&#33; That does not mean that they can claim India today&#33;

of course it doesn&#39;t. but, india is thousands of miles away from britain. taiwan is a swim away from china.



And look what happened to Vietnam.




And look what happened to China.


And look what happened to Cuba.

look at what happened to korea. look at what happened to laos. look at what happened to the soviet union. have all socialist countries failed due to nationalism then?

[LSD]

of course it doesn&#39;t. but, india is thousands of miles away from britain. taiwan is a swim away from china.

Oh, so geography is the key&#33; :lol:

So does that mean that Britiain has the right to reconquer Ireland, or India has the right to reconquer Pakistan, or Japan has the right to reconquer Korea?&#33;?


look at what happened to korea. look at what happened to laos. look at what happened to the soviet union. have all socialist countries failed due to nationalism then?

Well clearly all socialist countries have failed due to something, I&#39;d say that nationalism is largely responsible, yes.


i am welsh, and think independence is a good idea, because i don&#39;t want to be ruled from london. am i a reactionary?

Not nescessarily. Seeking independence because you don&#39;t wish to be ruled by an oppresive government is is one thing. It is justified if you plan on replacing that government with something better. Changing a capitalist government in London for a capitalist government in Cardiff Bay is meaningless, and doing it for the sake of "nation" is indeed reactionay.

It only further helps to seperate the rulling class and strengthen local ouregois control by making the other nations the enemy instead of the ruling class&#33;


all nationalism? is being proud of your country when you are overrun by a foreign power reactionary?

Fighting against oppression is always right.

But "proud of your country"? That&#39;s reactionary. These "countries" are arbitrary lines on a map drawn for hundreds of years by feudal and then bourgois masters. We can no buy into their artificial boundries.

One should indeed fight against foreign oppression, but one should fight just as hard against local oppression as well.

RedStarOverChina, says he "unconditionaly" supports the CCP, ewven though he disagrees with them, solely because they are Chinese.

That is what nationalism does.

[kingbee]

Oh, so geography is the key&#33;

So does that mean that Britiain has the right to reconquer Ireland, or India has the right to reconquer Pakistan, or Japan has the right to reconquer Korea?&#33;?

leap to conclusions, why don&#39;t you. china actually has a claim to taiwan. it was historically part of china. they speak mandarin. they have claimed they are part of china, only not under the present government. india/pakistan, japan/korea have no such links.


I&#39;d say that nationalism is largely responsible, yes.

believe what you want. i do not believe that nationalism lead to the downfall of the soviet union, or the failure of laos, or the bureaucracy of korea.


Changing a capitalist government in London for a capitalist government in Cardiff Bay is meaningless, and doing it for the sake of "nation" is indeed reactionay.

but changing the government for one that respects the welsh language and culture, and would act in the interests of wales- i believe that is progressive.


It only further helps to seperate the rulling class and strengthen local ouregois control by making the other nations the enemy instead of the ruling class&#33;

if wales became independent, it wouldn&#39;t change my perspective on england. i wouldn&#39;t see england as the enemy. i&#39;m sure it wouldn&#39;t change many other people&#39;s minds either.


But "proud of your country"? That&#39;s reactionary. These "countries" are arbitrary lines on a map drawn for hundreds of years by feudal and then bourgois masters. We can no buy into their artificial boundries.

but what about different cultures and traditions? these have not been drawn by feudalists and the bourgeoise. im proud of my language and culture, and if i show this by being proud of my country, then so be it.

[LSD]

eap to conclusions, why don&#39;t you. china actually has a claim to taiwan. it was historically part of china.

Ireland was historically a part of England.


they speak mandarin.

The Irish speak English.


they have claimed they are part of china, only not under the present government.

They have stopped making this claim, now all they want is independence.


but changing the government for one that respects the welsh language and culture, and would act in the interests of wales- i believe that is progressive.

No. The only "progressive" change is one towards leftism.


but what about different cultures and traditions? these have not been drawn by feudalists and the bourgeoise. im proud of my language and culture, and if i show this by being proud of my country, then so be it.

Find be proud of your culture, but not your "country".

[kingbee]

but the irish have never wanted to be part of britain (except northern ireland).

the taiwanese have expressed an wish to be part of china- i&#39;m sure that if the ccp fell tomorrow, then taiwan would want to be part of china.

it is accepted by the international community that ireland has the right to be independent. it is not generally accepted by all that taiwan has sovereignty. also, taiwan is seperate due to political differences. ireland isn&#39;t.

"No. The only "progressive" change is one towards leftism."

well, i&#39;d rather my language not drown in a sea of anglo-american culture. and even if you think that&#39;s not progressive, then fine.

"Find be proud of your culture, but not your "country""

i will be proud of what i want. you are from canada, i am from wales. our ontologies on our countries is very different, and cannot be generalised. you haven&#39;t experienced what i have experienced.

[LSD]

the taiwanese have expressed an wish to be part of china- i&#39;m sure that if the ccp fell tomorrow, then taiwan would want to be part of china.

Don&#39;t be so sure.

After 50 years of independence, oppinion polls show that if the PRC fell, most Taiwanese would want to remain independent.


it is accepted by the international community that ireland has the right to be independent. it is not generally accepted by all that taiwan has sovereignty.

It is gernerally accepted that Taiwan has sovereignty, it&#39;s just that no one can admit it or China wil freak out. But come on, its a a de facto state already, we just can&#39;t say it or we&#39;ll "hurt China&#39;s feelings".

But do you honestly think that the US is patrolling the Taiwan straits becasue they dont&#39; recognize Taiwanese sovereignty?&#33;?


well, i&#39;d rather my language not drown in a sea of anglo-american culture. and even if you think that&#39;s not progressive, then fine.

Again, there are ways to preserve your culture without sinking into nationalism. I have nothing against you honouring your heritage, but allegiance to a "flag" or "country" is reactionary.

[kingbee]

After 50 years of independence, oppinion polls show that if the PRC fell, most Taiwanese would want to remain independent.


and i&#39;ve heard polls that say otherwise.


It is gernerally accepted that Taiwan has sovereignty, it&#39;s just that no one can admit it or China wil freak out. But come on, its a a de facto state already, we just can&#39;t say it or we&#39;ll "hurt China&#39;s feelings".

But do you honestly think that the US is patrolling the Taiwan straits becasue they dont&#39; recognize Taiwanese sovereignty?&#33;?

but they don&#39;t recognise it officially then. i think that is what matters. it hasn&#39;t a seat in the u.n., and surely the u.n and the rest of the world would get bullied by china....

u.&#036; sells taiwan arms. the u.&#036; patrols around taiwan, yes. but they still recognise china as the representative for the u.n., rather than taiwan.


Again, there are ways to preserve your culture without sinking into nationalism. I have nothing against you honouring your heritage, but allegiance to a "flag" or "country" is reactionary.

i don&#39;t believe so. especially when we haven&#39;t got independence.

[LSD]

but they don&#39;t recognise it officially then. i think that is what matters.

Why?

Surely the fact that they have been running a seperate government for 50 years is more relevent than international recognition, especially when we know that the only reason that the world doesn&#39;t recognize Taiwan is to molify China.


and surely the u.n and the rest of the world would get bullied by china....

The world doesn&#39;t really care, if not recognizing Taiwan keeps China happy, they&#39;re fine with it.


.&#036; sells taiwan arms. the u.&#036; patrols around taiwan, yes. but they still recognise china as the representative for the u.n., rather than taiwan.

It&#39;s not an "either or".

China should be recognized by the UN as China.
Taiwain should be recognized by the UN as Taiwan.

[Hiero]

The Irish speak English.

They spoke Gailic.

Twainese didnt have there own language like the Irish.

[LSD]

They spoke Gailic.

We&#39;re talking about Ireland today and the vast majority of Ireland speaks enlgish.


Twainese didnt have there own language like the Irish.

Alright then...

How about Austrlia? Can Britain reclaim Australia because they speak enlglish?
Can France take Algeria?
Can Spain take Cuba?

Language and culture and history are meaningless in the face of what the people want.

Taiwan does not to be joined with the PRC, and really can you blame them?

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 03:17 AM

Also I&#39;d like to bring up that there are 2 different kinds of nationalism: revolutionary and reactionary.

All nationalism is reactionary.


There is a huge difference between nationalism of the oppressed and nationalism of the oppressor.

The problem is that once a nationalist revolution occurs, the oppressed quickly become the oppressor.

Any ideology based on arbitrary definitions like "nation" or "race" is ultimately self defeating and divisive. The only way for a successful revolution is if we abandon the labels that the rulling class has forced upon us.
This is not entirely true. While as communists our long-term goal is to abolish all forms of nationalism, it can also be used for the short-term to help a nation gain its national sovereignty from being under the hegemony of another. The reason being is because imperialism itself operates internationally and when one nation is not under the dominance of another, that is one more blow to imperialists and they have less people who they can exploit. Remember, it&#39;s the small things that eventually add up to the bigger things.

[Hiero]

We&#39;re talking about Ireland today and the vast majority of Ireland speaks enlgish.


I thought that is is still taught, and used in different social situations. Someone from Ireland want to clear this up.

But the point being is they have there own language different to that of Britain.


Alright then...

How about Austrlia? Can Britain reclaim Australia because they speak enlglish?
Can France take Algeria?
Can Spain take Cuba?

Language and culture and history are meaningless in the face of what the people want.

Taiwan does not to be joined with the PRC, and really can you blame them?

Im not really saying anything, i was just pointing out that Irelands relationship with England is different to that of Tawain and China.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I think that this all comes down to your definition of a nation. Does language = nation? Does ethnicity (the classical use of the term "race") = nation? A lot of people in a little country called Germany used to think that, for quite a long time too.

Does geography = nation? Is there such a thing as a French mountain?

Just because a people have a common language, a common ethnicity and geography does not make it a nation. A nation is a grouping of people that maintain a common set of cultural and historical traits that are ubiguitous and obvious. You can&#39;t force people to be part of your nation, they would have to want it. It&#39;s like saying the German-speaking Swiss are to be part of Germany, whether they like it or not.

Obviously Taiwan has a different history than China does ... look at the last 50 years. Obviously, it has a different culture than China does, again, look at the last 50 years. So don&#39;t tell me that China has "claim" over anything. If the Taiwanese wanted to be part of China, they would be.

Read some articles by Renan on nationalism. I realize he was a 19th century Liberal, but, that doesn&#39;t diminish his words in my opinion.

I guess this has nothing to do with actual issue of this thread that we in the West are racists which, because of our arrogance and attitudes, keeps China in the grip of nationalism ... or something like that.

TGOW

[kingbee]

"Obviously Taiwan has a different history than China does ... look at the last 50 years. Obviously, it has a different culture than China does, again, look at the last 50 years. So don&#39;t tell me that China has "claim" over anything."

korea is divided after 50 years. their cultures have changed over 50 years.

"If the Taiwanese wanted to be part of China, they would be."

again, look at korea. they both want to be united, but can&#39;t because of political differences.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:08 PM
but the irish have never wanted to be part of britain (except northern ireland).


No the only ones that wanted Ireland to be part of Britain, even in Northern Ireland, were the British land barrons.

Now allow me to play devil&#39;s advocate.
Redstaroverchina, you have said several times that the westerners have had unfair prejudices against China, you say the westerners think that chinese people are inferior, and you say that we have unfair stereotypes. Yet you still keep referring to the westerners as chauvinist and as imperialist which are typical stereotypes of westerners. So in saying you dislike prejudice against chinese you have only furthered your prejudice for westerners.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 03:59 PM
Surely the fact that they have been running a seperate government for 50 years is more relevent than international recognition, especially when we know that the only reason that the world doesn&#39;t recognize Taiwan is to molify China.
From the viewpoint of bourgeois international law, maybe.

From a Marxist viewpoint, however, Taiwan is as if the Confederate States of America still held part of Florida or someplace.

Note that traditionally Taiwan has not claimed independence either (and formally still hasn&#39;t declared independence.) Why? Because the Taiwan has been ruled by a government that used to control all over China and still claimed to rightfully rule all of China.

The legislature in Taipei, not so long ago, contained representatives from all over China. Chosen in phony elections decades earlier.

Taiwan being under a different government than the rest of China is a remnant of a Chinese civil war. It is not a different nation.

Complicating things, there are the "native Taiwanese" who have now deposed the Kuomintang refugees from political power. But they also are Han Chinese.

(Then there are the "indigenous Taiwanese", who aren&#39;t, but they&#39;re a small minority.)

There is no national question where the need for self-determination would apply.

Its a class question, just as the Union vs the Confederacy was.

Or if you go back further, Taiwan was under the Japanese, as part of the dismemberment of China by the imperialist powers. That is a national question, and regaining Taiwan is part of reestablishing China&#39;s independence and unity.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 28 2005, 10:23 PM--> (Severian &#064; Mar 28 2005, 10:23 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 03:59 PM
Surely the fact that they have been running a seperate government for 50 years is more relevent than international recognition, especially when we know that the only reason that the world doesn&#39;t recognize Taiwan is to molify China.
From the viewpoint of bourgeois international law, maybe.

From a Marxist viewpoint, however, Taiwan is as if the Confederate States of America still held part of Florida or someplace.

Note that traditionally Taiwan has not claimed independence either (and formally still hasn&#39;t declared independence.) Why? Because the Taiwan has been ruled by a government that used to control all over China and still claimed to rightfully rule all of China.

The legislature in Taipei, not so long ago, contained representatives from all over China. Chosen in phony elections decades earlier.

Taiwan being under a different government than the rest of China is a remnant of a Chinese civil war. It is not a different nation.

Complicating things, there are the "native Taiwanese" who have now deposed the Kuomintang refugees from political power. But they also are Han Chinese.

(Then there are the "indigenous Taiwanese", who aren&#39;t, but they&#39;re a small minority.)

There is no national question where the need for self-determination would apply.

Its a class question, just as the Union vs the Confederacy was.

Or if you go back further, Taiwan was under the Japanese, as part of the dismemberment of China by the imperialist powers. That is a national question, and regaining Taiwan is part of reestablishing China&#39;s independence and unity. [/b]
Taiwan was not officially apart of China until 1887 - to prevent Japan from gaining
influence on Taiwan. Before then - Taiwan was first controlled by the portugese,
the dutch, also during the 1860&#39;s northern part of Taiwan was controlled by the
french and when it came to official relations with Manchu China - they could not
control the island - although people from China immigrated to Taiwan. So in 1887
- fearing Japanese expansionism - Manchu China declared Taiwan a part of China.
But this did not dissuade Japan - and China gave up any claims on Taiwan forever
to Japan in 1895. The Taiwanese declared their independence in the face of a
Japanese takeover as the Republic of Tawan or the Taiwan Democratic Republic.
But Japan took over the Republic of Taiwan and annexed it. I know you are looking
at it from your point of view - but you must also take into consideration the historial
aspect in it&#39;s entirety.

Second - after World War II - the Allies gave Chiang Kai-Shek temporary
control over Taiwan as apart of the Republic of China - Not the People&#39;s
Republic of China - legally speaking - The People&#39;s Republic of China has
no right to claim Taiwan as a part of China.

Third - Since you mentioned the "Civil War" (And civil war means two forces that
are fighting for the control of one government [The South was fighting for it&#39;s inde
-pendence; so this does not qualify as a civil war]) I do agree it was a class issue;
but it also had to do with taxes - the "Civil War" was both a tax war and a war of in
-dependence for the South - however one can not doubt that the slavery issue is
what pushed the south to actually secede from the United States . But this is going
off topic. So i will refrain on this point.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:41 PM
That&#39;s the problem. Whenever China is involved in a conflict, everyone automatically believes China is the agressor. The way of thinking has became a form of "civic discrimination", manipulating people to think against China like the conditional-reflecting dogs trained by Pavlov.
He&#39;s right about this, folks.

It wasn&#39;t always this way: during most of the 80s, when China was an ally against the USSR and Vietnam, you didn&#39;t hear nearly so much stuff about China being an aggressor.

But since the Soviet bloc went into decline, and Western governments stopped being scared of &#39;em in the late 80s, anti-China propaganda&#39;s picked up greatly.

People "on the left" are not immune to this.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:26 AM

The Irish speak English.

They spoke Gailic.

Twainese didnt have there own language like the Irish.
Read Up on you history. The island of Taiwan was inhabited by indigenious people. Only when the chinese nationalists arrived did Chinese culture heavily influence that of Taiwan&#39;s. The original inhabitants only make up 5% of the population now, but they have a language unique to them.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Chinghis Khan+Mar 29 2005, 10:28 AM--> (Chinghis Khan @ Mar 29 2005, 10:28 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 12:26 AM

The Irish speak English.

They spoke Gailic.

Twainese didnt have there own language like the Irish.
Read Up on you history. The island of Taiwan was inhabited by indigenious people. Only when the chinese nationalists arrived did Chinese culture heavily influence that of Taiwan&#39;s. The original inhabitants only make up 5% of the population now, but they have a language unique to them. [/b]
But language?

[LSD]

Or if you go back further, Taiwan was under the Japanese, as part of the dismemberment of China by the imperialist powers. That is a national question, and regaining Taiwan is part of reestablishing China&#39;s independence and unity.

Taiwan has now been independent almost as long as it was officially part of China. Compared with mainland China, it is tiny.

Explain to me why its "regaining" is essential to China&#39;s "independence". China seems to be quite independent on its own. And besides, is it genuinely in our interests to prop up the CCP? Do we really want the PRC to expand its reactionary rightist capitalist totalitarianism?


ote that traditionally Taiwan has not claimed independence either (and formally still hasn&#39;t declared independence.) Why?

Because the PRC has declared that if they do, China will invade.


Because the Taiwan has been ruled by a government that used to control all over China and still claimed to rightfully rule all of China.

Historical holdovers.

All evidence today indicates that Taiwanese independents would be more than happy[/b] it China just left them alone&#33;


Taiwan being under a different government than the rest of China is a remnant of a Chinese civil war. It is not a different nation.

And the US being under a different government is a remnant of the War of Independence. Does that mean the England has a "right" to the United States?


But since the Soviet bloc went into decline, and Western governments stopped being scared of &#39;em in the late 80s, anti-China propaganda&#39;s picked up greatly.

Oh yeah, all that anti-China propaganda Bush has been spouting. You know, "great friends", "trading partners", "allies in the war against terrorism", "progressive forces on the ascendency"...

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 12:35 PM

And the US being under a different government is a remnant of the War of Independence. Does that mean the England has a "right" to the United States?
Which was not a civil war, and was over a national not a class difference.

To the degree there was a class difference involved, the U.S. bourgeoisie was the more progressive involved.

You simply don&#39;t seem to get the point I was making. What Chomsky would call a "fram e of reference" problem probably.

[LSD]

Which was not a civil war, and was over a national not a class difference.

To the degree there was a class difference involved, the U.S. bourgeoisie was the more progressive involved.

Don&#39;t be naive, the civil war was about far more than class, it was about power. Who would rule China, the KMT or the CCP? Perhaps the CCP had some class intentions, but the nationalists...didn&#39;t.

But, more importantly, after 50 years, it&#39;s irrelevent. The PRC today is not progressive, and the ROC is not claiming ownership of the mainland. Yes, it was politics that split Taiwan from China, but it&#39;s been 50 years. There has now been a half-century of history and independence. The Taiwanese people do not want reunification and, honestly, there is no practical reason why the PRC needs conquer Taiwan.

It&#39;s just pride.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2005, 01:21 PM
Don&#39;t be naive, the civil war was about far more than class, it was about power.
What kind of pointless counterposition is this?

Politics is classes fighting for power.

You talk as if power is some kind of dirty thing which nobody should fight for.

The capitalist class could ask for nothing better than the spread of that kind of thinking among working people.

As for the idea that Kuomintang doesn&#39;t represent a class, don&#39;t be ridiculous, of course they represented (and all parties in Taiwan still represent) the capitalist class.

I disagree that it&#39;s irrelevant...one, I don&#39;t think history is ever irrelevant, and two, I&#39;d argue the PRC is still more progressive in class terms than the ROC in class terms.

Which has nothing to do with the leadership, which was also rotten, and everything to do with an examination of the prevailing property relations in China. The restoration of capitalism is incomplete...and resisted.

[LSD]

Which has nothing to do with the leadership, which was also rotten, and everything to do with an examination of the prevailing property relations in China. The restoration of capitalism is incomplete...and resisted.

Resisted, maybe, but hardly imcomplete.

China today is capitalist. So is Taiwan of course, and I&#39;m not saying the the ROC is intrinsically superior or inferior to the PRC, but I am saying that, at this point, China and Taiwan are two seperate independent capitalist countries.


I&#39;d argue the PRC is still more progressive in class terms than the ROC in class terms.

In some ways, perhaps, but in many ways the ROC today is more progressive than the PRC&#33;

[codyvo]

No matter who they belonged to in the past shouldn&#39;t anyone be allowed to become independant if they want to.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:48 PM
No matter who they belonged to in the past shouldn&#39;t anyone be allowed to become independant if they want to.
No, not "anyone", for example Marxists have not typically supported the right of northern Ireland to be separate from Ireland, regardless of what most people in the north think.

Support for self-determination was pioneered by the Bolsheviks....they supported self-determination for oppressed nationalities. As a way of uniting working people across lines of nationality, also across borders, etc.

The last is important: it&#39;s a means to an end, not a principle carved in stone forever.

[viva le revolution]

China today is a capitalist country, they may be waving a communist flag, but there exists in China a distinct class structure that stil prevails thanks to free market economics on the rise there.
The main reason for this regression is the absence of any major revolutionary movement in any part of the world. A major condition of socialism is the spread of the movement, one country cannot go it alone. It needs allies in the struggle against the imperialistic beast, that coupled with the absence of any leader sincere to the glorious revolutionary cause has caused the Chinese leaders to forget the cause and alienate our Chinese comrades.
What we need is a major demonstration of solidarity with our Chinese comrades or any other revolutionary movements across the globe.
Any views on how we arrange this and stand up to face of imperialism will be greately appreciated.
This comrade stands ready to do his duty&#33;
Long live the revolution&#33;

[Phalanx]

That is why we should stand steadfastly with South America. We&#39;ve got an embryonic Socialist society here. If South America shows as much opposition to the US and its *****es as Cuba has, we could see the demise of the monster imperialistic machine known as the US&#33;

[LSD]

Support for self-determination was pioneered by the Bolsheviks....

No it wasn&#39;t.

It was actually "pioneered" by that adament racist, Woodrow Wilson.


No, not "anyone", for example Marxists have not typically supported the right of northern Ireland to be separate from Ireland, regardless of what most people in the north think.

"regardless of what people in the north think"?&#33;?&#33;?

Who should make this decision if not them? You?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to dictatorships.


self-determination for oppressed nationalities. As a way of uniting working people across lines of nationality, also across borders, etc.

The last is important: it&#39;s a means to an end, not a principle carved in stone forever.

Agreed.

Indeed, in the long term, national/state boundries of any form are ultimately counterproductive and, eventually, we must be rid of them all.

But in the present pragmatist now, we must realize that keeping Taiwan seperate today helps millions of Taiwanese and does nothing to hurt any future revolutionary plans.

Allowing China to reconquer Taiwan only serves to diliver more subjects into the hands of a decadent capitalist regime and to bolster a hopeless reactionary regressive shell of a communist party.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2005, 06:59 PM

Support for self-determination was pioneered by the Bolsheviks....

No it wasn&#39;t.

It was actually "pioneered" by that adament racist, Woodrow Wilson.
I could find plenty of stuff by Lenin on self-determination that dates well back to before Wilson&#39;s rhetoricalsupport to self-determination.....if it was worth bothering.



"regardless of what people in the north think"?&#33;?&#33;?

Who should make this decision if not them? You?

In this case: the majority of people in Ireland as a whole. An oppressed nation seeking its full independence from British imperialism.

Similarly, China is a Third World nation, historically carved up by imperialism, seeking to regain the last of the territory finance capital took from it: Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan....

National unity and independence has been a part of all the classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions, from the Dutch republic to German and Italian unification....it is also an unresolved bourgeois-democratic task for China.



Allowing China to reconquer Taiwan only serves to diliver more subjects into the hands of a decadent capitalist regime and to bolster a hopeless reactionary regressive shell of a communist party.

"Allowing China to reconquer Taiwan"? Allowing? Who&#39;s going to stop them, you and what army? OH, that&#39;s right, the army of your good buddy Uncle Sam.

Which suffices to explain the "pragmatic" problem with supporting Taiwanese independence: it involves supporting an excuse for U.S. intervention.

Incidentally, "China reconquering Taiwan" is an unrealistic bogeyman fear

China doesn&#39;t even have the naval/air force capacity to attempt any such thing. That so many ignore this fact to keep promoting this bogeyman, can only be explained by the " Prejudice, arrogance, ignorance and hypocricy" that RedStarOverChina started out this thread talking about, plus the irrational fear of the Yellow Peril I added.

China does insist that Taiwan not formally declare independence. If they can do that, the growing economic links between Taiwan and the rest of China will eventually make reunification possible.

Oh, a little while back you put out some BS about the Bush administration supposedly saying all kinds of nice things about the PRC; in reality they&#39;ve described it as a "strategic competitor"; clearly their policy aims at "containing" it and even towards a confrontation potentially down the road. To some extent this is obscured because they have higher priorities post-9/11.

There&#39;s plenty more extreme stuff on the right, people who through a fit every time a Chinese company gets a contract to manage a port in Panama or similarly minor stuff.

And similar stuff from the liberal wing of imperialism, as reflected in this thread.

[Enragé]

"China doesn&#39;t even have the naval/air force capacity to attempt any such thing"

thats why they are spending more and more money on the military, while the divide between rich and poor in the country itself grows stronger.

"Chinese company "

A company in a truly socialist society is impossible, therefore china is not, never was socialist. It has always been STATE-capitalist.

"Which suffices to explain the "pragmatic" problem with supporting Taiwanese independence: it involves supporting an excuse for U.S. intervention."

not necessarily. I hated Saddam for a long time, didnt mean i supported the US in their imperialist invasion of Iraq.

[LSD]

I could find plenty of stuff by Lenin on self-determination that dates well back to before Wilson&#39;s rhetoricalsupport to self-determination.....if it was worth bothering.

And I could find enlightenment writing that dates back further. The idea of national self-detemination can be dated back to the rennaissance and influenced Napolean and Bismarck among others.

But the question was who "pioneered" it. Who "made it famous". And the asnwer to that is Wilson.


In this case: the majority of people in Ireland as a whole. An oppressed nation seeking its full independence from British imperialism.

Bullshit nationalism.

Because of ethnic and linguistic and geographic lines you&#39;re going to decree that the wishes of Northern Ireland somehow "don&#39;t count"? Becauee they&#39;re "natinoally" similar to the rest of the Irish island, somehow they&#39;re oppinion "doesn&#39;t count"?

Democracy supercedes any nationalistic lines. Yeah, Ireland has been oppressed. But it is just as oppressive to tell a people that they "must" be joined against their will.


Similarly, China is a Third World nation, historically carved up by imperialism, seeking to regain the last of the territory finance capital took from it: Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan....

Taiwan is as historically Chinese as India is historically British, less in fact since Britain ruled India far longer than mainland China ruled Taiwan.


"Allowing China to reconquer Taiwan"? Allowing? Who&#39;s going to stop them, you and what army? OH, that&#39;s right, the army of your good buddy Uncle Sam.

Which suffices to explain the "pragmatic" problem with supporting Taiwanese independence: it involves supporting an excuse for U.S. intervention.

I&#39;ll tell you, at this point, in this region, on this issue, American imperialism is a whole lot less dangerous than Chinese imperialism.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, the US has an economic strangle-hold on Taiwan, and I would like to see Taiwan freed of US oppression as well, but I&#39;d rather be ruled from Washington than Beijing.

The US enslaves millions, the PRC kills millions.


China does insist that Taiwan not formally declare independence. If they can do that, the growing economic links between Taiwan and the rest of China will eventually make reunification possible.

TAIWAN DOES NOT WANT &#39;REUNIFICATION&#39;&#33;&#33;&#33;

The people don&#39;t want it, the workers don&#39;t want it, the bourgeois don&#39;t want it, the proletariat don&#39;t want it, the men don&#39;t want it, the women don&#39;t want it, the children don&#39;t want it.

No major sector of Taiwan wants unification. Taiwan wants one thing from the PRC, to be left the fuck alone&#33;

That&#39;s it&#33;

[VukBZ2005]

1

Here is my current analysis of things here - I do not hope people get offended,
but I was going to have to say it - even in the light of recent events concerning
this situation. First, there are certainly some people who actively want the &#39;reu
-nification&#39; of the People&#39;s Republic of China and Taiwan. But what&#39;s their reason
for being so persistent in this advocation of reunification? Because Taiwan was
once under the control of China for 200 years? Because the majority of Taiwan
-ese are ethinically Chinese? While everyone are getting all stired up about this
particular issue - you are forgeting the one thing that matters in this situation -
the People of Taiwan. So what if they are ethnically Chinese? So what if they ha
-ve a similiar culture to that of China? So what if they were once apart of China?
This decision is up to the Taiwanese people. Not the Chinese. They do not con
-trol Taiwan and they do not have any kind of authority to say that they do. Chi
-na; by passing the "anti-secession" law showed that it wishes to dictate the de
-cision of the Taiwanese people to determine the path they are supposed to pro
ceed.

(more later...)

[thenonliberator]

agreed about the taiwan thing

china is a capitalist country now despite what they say it is.

i went to china last week and i asked a tour guide what hapened in the masacre tianamen square and she said that she didnt know HALF THE FUCKING WORLD KNOW LOVE AND YOU LIVE IN THE SAME CITY AND EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT&#33;&#33;&#33;

the government there try to hide the real china - especially in Beijing, where they covered the old housing (that was falling down YET people still lived there- in poverty might i add if it wasnt obvious) with giant bill boards
they take you to governmet factories and wont leave till at least someone in your group buys something. one man was trying to sell me a weaving(a hideous weaving) and was telling me that it took 2 weeks to make and it was 200RNB(15rnb to the £) less than 100rnb a week&#33; And they want us to believe they are still a communist country

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2005, 06:15 PM
But the question was who "pioneered" it. Who "made it famous". And the asnwer to that is Wilson.
Maybe that&#39;s the question to you; to me the question is: who made it a standard position for revolutionary Marxists.


Democracy supercedes any nationalistic lines.

Perhaps to you; but to me it&#39;s the class struggle which supercedes both bourgeois democracy and national self-determination.

I think to anyone with a revolutionary bone in their body, the falsity of your approach will be made clear by the fact it&#39;s led you to oppose an independent and united Ireland.

And also led you to....


I&#39;ll tell you, at this point, in this region, on this issue, American imperialism is a whole lot less dangerous than Chinese imperialism.

Heh.


TAIWAN DOES NOT WANT &#39;REUNIFICATION&#39;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Speak for yourself. There are in fact, different opinions in Taiwanese politics.

The only faction which favors a declaration of independence, is the political descendents of collaborators with Japanese imperialism. The leaders of this faction recently visited a controversial "war dead" shrine in Japan, where the main war criminals from WWII are buried. Even in Japanese politics this kind of thing is controversial, and associated with those who are trying to revive Nippon nationalism and renewed Japanese military intervention.

This seems to be the faction whose position you&#39;re closest to.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:32 PM
"China doesn&#39;t even have the naval/air force capacity to attempt any such thing"

thats why they are spending more and more money on the military, while the divide between rich and poor in the country itself grows stronger.
Yup, here we go with a citizen of an imperialist country complaining while the PRC buys a few subs, and according to some rumors considers buying....its very first aircraft carrier. For the "Navy Deparment of the People&#39;s Liberation Army", a name which gives a pretty good idea of the PRC&#39;s low priority on this traditionally coast-and-river force.

The PRC is a LONG way from the capacity to invade Taiwan, even assuming the US doesn&#39;t intervene, and there&#39;s little objective reason to think that&#39;s the goal of their comparatively modest buildup.

Comparatively modest, especially, compared to the massive U.S. military, with a larger budget than its next several rivals combines. Ever consider that fact, and the U.S.&#39; increasingly hostile stance towards China since the USSR fell, might have something to do with Chinese military policy?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 10:45 PM

U support imperialism, bigotry and descrimination against 1.3 billion people...

The greatest danger to the Chinese people today is the Chinese government.


No&#33; Supporting a reactionary government because of cultural or ethnic loyalties is not communist&#33;


I agree wtih Lysergic Acid Diethylamide on this, in fact red star over china&#39;s support of the chinese government because they are hcinese could be seen as racism.

[LSD]

Perhaps to you; but to me it&#39;s the class struggle which supercedes both bourgeois democracy and national self-determination.

And how is forcing Taiwan under the thumb of a regressive CAPITALISTIC authoritarian state like the PRC helping "class struggle"?

You&#39;re simply thinking racially and saying well, they&#39;re ethnic Chinese, and they&#39;re ethnic Chinese, so let&#39;s put &#39;em together....

That&#39;s not class-thinking, that&#39;s racism.


Heh.

Brilliant retort.


The only faction which favors a declaration of independence, is the political descendents of collaborators with Japanese imperialism.

All oppinion polls show that the majority of Taiwan does not want reunification with China. Period.

[RedStarOverChina]

I no longer wish to argue with u hypocritical western chauvinists prentending to be leftists. But i will make one more point here.

China spend less money on military than India and Japan, not to mention America. Believing that China is an imperialist country only exposes ur irrational fears.



American imperialism is a whole lot less dangerous than Chinese imperialism.

U r freakin out of ur mind. I knew u pretty much didnt like anyone except for urself but its nevertheless supprising to hear such a propostrous and ignorant comment.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Don&#39;t accuse of me western chauvanism. How can you combat chauvanism with chauvanism? Chauvanism+chauvanism=too much chauvanism.

So, indeed you didnt&#39; turn out the Communist, or Red as you claimed. But a nationalist. Your American collegeau Patriots and local Capitalist congratulate you. You just strenghtend them. Thank you very much.

[RedStarOverChina]

hey i dont live up to your standards. I am a Marxist and if u dont recognize that I dont care. u r no authority on how to be a Marxist. In fact, its that kind of attitude that makes it impossible to unite the leftists against a common enemy.

I do not fight chauvinism with chauvinism. I never claimed China to be supperior than anyone and i never will. Put urself in other peoples shoes is the key phrase. Thats what i believe and thats what i am fighting for.

[LSD]

I no longer wish to argue with u hypocritical western chauvinists prentending to be leftists.

The only one "pretending to be a leftist" here is you:

Claiming marxism, while espousing support and blind loyalty based solely on nationalism and ethnicity.


U r freakin out of ur mind. I knew u pretty much didnt like anyone except for urself but its nevertheless supprising to hear such a propostrous and ignorant comment.

What&#39;s "propostrous and ignorant" is your blind reactionary patriotism. That you feel loyal to a state guilty of the crime that the PRC and CCP have committed is disgusting.

Being a communist means that you care about class struggle first and everything else second. The PRC is a regressive capitalist state and is one of the greatest dangers to communism in the world today. That you would support them because they&#39;re Chinese is as uncommunist as you can get.

[RedStarOverChina]

I happen to think that chauvinists like u are the greatest threat to the peoples struggle&#33; U dont support the peoples struggle. U support imperialism, bigotry and descrimination against 1.3 billion people as u take the side of US imperialists, anything and everything that could possibly bring down Chinese peoples hope for prosperity and independence. to hell with u.

I am loyal to no one but the 1.3 billion people who raised me and educated me. I would say thats better than u supporting imperialists and fascists&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Is it nowadays called National-Marxism, National-Bolshevism or National-Socialism. All these flashy names confuse me.

And no I am not an authority on who is or is not a Marxist. But I heard this dumbass argument before. I was told by a statist Christian who claimed himself as anarchist, that I wasn&#39;t an authority to tell him otherwise.

Hello call from the real world. We anarchists share certain ideas, which defines us as such. Same with Marxists. Following his and your logic; a Nazi could claim himself Anarchist or Marxist. Following this logic a nationalist could claim himself a Marxist. :huh:

But no, you are right. All the millions of Marxists got it wrong. Supporting Nationalism and Capitalism is the way forward to Communism. Give yourself a tap on the shoulder, you deserved it&#33;

Frankly I am not interested in "uniting with leftists". I want to specificly know what they stand for. Claiming oneself a leftist doesn&#39;t qualify anything. Now, if you excuse me, I got an revolutionary anti-capitalist demonstration with the Kerryists.

[RedStarOverChina]

good luck condemning 99.5% of the population.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Duh&#33; That&#39;s why I want to change society. Why else would I want to change, if I were to be happy with this society?

[RedStarOverChina]

u dont get it, do u
how r u gonna change anything without the support of a considerable number of people

Anyone who ignores the factor of the people will be abandoned by the people. Unless u can relate urself with the people u r faced with certain doom.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The people didn&#39;t "abondon" me or something. They were never on my side, I am trying to get them over. And I can relate with people I am faced with.

[LSD]

U support imperialism, bigotry and descrimination against 1.3 billion people...

The greatest danger to the Chinese people today is the Chinese government.


...anything and everything that could possibly bring down Chinese peoples hope for prosperity and independence. to hell with u.

No&#33;

I support world-wide revolution, this includes China as much as anywhere. But I will not support a regressive capitalistic regime like the CCP, all that does is deeper entrentch nationalism and capitalism.

Supporting a reactionary government because of cultural or ethnic loyalties is not communist&#33;


I am loyal to no one but the 1.3 billion people who raised me and educated me.

No you&#39;re loyal to a brutal government that abuses and oppresses them.

Stop thinking on racial lines&#33; Start thinking Globally&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2005, 06:15 PM
TAIWAN DOES NOT WANT &#39;REUNIFICATION&#39;&#33;&#33;&#33;

The people don&#39;t want it, the workers don&#39;t want it, the bourgeois don&#39;t want it, the proletariat don&#39;t want it, the men don&#39;t want it, the women don&#39;t want it, the children don&#39;t want it.

No major sector of Taiwan wants unification. Taiwan wants one thing from the PRC, to be left the fuck alone&#33;

That&#39;s it&#33;
Apparently LSD was, well, on acid when he wrote this.

From Wednesday&#39;s Washinton Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042600406_pf.html)


The People First Party has advocated reunion with China under negotiated conditions. That makes it a favorite of Beijing, which has long contended that Taiwan is part of China and must rejoin the mainland. The Nationalists, who lost power to Chen in 2000, also traditionally sought reunion under certain conditions. But they have played down that subject in recent years as separatist sentiment grew among Taiwan&#39;s voters.

Those are two of the larger parties in Taiwan.

Let this be a warning about making sweeping generalizations as if everyone in a country could have the same opinion.

***

Y&#39;know, it&#39;s always been easy for reformists in the imperialist countries to feel superior in pseudo-internationalism compared to nationalists in the Third World.

[viva le revolution]

China is now a mere dictatorship running on capitalism. The efforts of Mao and the other revolutionaries to eliminate class inequalities is forgotten by the present leadership of China. Once again the oligarchs have risen in China and once again the worker is forced on his pedestal of humiliation and servitude.
The corrupt and decadent capitalist elements in China have forgotten communism and it&#39;s ideals in the face of profits and foreign investment. The only thing communist about China today is it&#39;s flag.

[LSD]

Let this be a warning about making sweeping generalizations as if everyone in a country could have the same opinion.

Again, I&#39;m not claiming that no one in Taiwan seeks reunification, merely that "no major sector of Taiwan wants unification.".

Meaning that while there certainly are reunification advocates, they do not compose any significant majority of any significant section of the Taiwanese people. All polls show that support for reunification is below 25%&#33;&#33; Most Taiwanese are generally happy with the status quo.

...and maybe you should do some research before you blindly follow the empty words of the "Washington Post":


The People First Party has advocated reunion with China under negotiated conditions.

um...no, it hasn&#39;t.

From Taiwan Government Headlines (http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw):

The former Taiwan governor said the party would reflect New Taiwanese mainstream political values, such as peace in the Taiwan Strait, democracy, social justice and reconciliation between Taiwan&#39;s various ethnic groups.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_reunification):

The People First Party officially advocates that Taiwan should maintain the status quo

From The Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/12/2003214732):

Cross-strait relations and Taiwan&#39;s national status have been the main themes of this year&#39;s election. The pan-blue camp claimed that a pan-blue legislative majority would demonstrate that the public wishes to retain the national title of "Republic of China" and supports the cross-strait "status quo."

From NPF Commentary November 2,2003 (http://www.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/NS/092/NS-C-092-336.htm):

The Kuomintang and its ally, the People First Party, are running a campaign like sure winners who do not want to rock the boat to affect their shoo-in. James Soong, chairman of the People First Party, is Lien’s running mate. Both of them are so assured of their election victory that they hesitate to offer any counterproposal to President Chen’s campaign promise. All they can do in the face of the visionary president is to mouse their platitude: The status quo between Taiwan and China shall be maintained.


But they have played down that subject in recent years as separatist sentiment grew among Taiwan&#39;s voters.

Yeah... "played it down" so much that it is no longer part of their official party platform. The entire pan-blue coalition now fabours a maintaining of the current situation. Period.

[Severian]

Let&#39;s note that I did not specifically go searching for something to support my contention; I happened across that Washington Post article while reading the day&#39;s news.

LSD, on the other hand, has apparently searched the whole web looking for something that will support his earlier overheated rhetorical claims. It&#39;s usually possible to find somebody who will support just about anything, somewhere on the web. So it&#39;s remarkable how little success he&#39;s had: for example, the Wikipedia article he links summarizes the issue in its second paragraph: "Unification is controversial with varying and sometimes conflicting definitions. It is supported by the government of the People&#39;s Republic of China and to different degrees by the Kuomintang, People First Party, and New Party (known collectively as the pan-blue coalition) in the Taiwan. It is opposed by varying degrees by supporters of Taiwan independence, which include supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (known collectively as the pan-green coalition). Some of them refer to it as Chinese unification, Chinese expansionism or annexation by China. Within the political scene of Taiwan, unification versus independence defines the political spectrum with the caveat that much of the support to either bloc is unrelated to the pro-unification versus pro-independence issue and with the caveat that most people in Taiwan are in the middle of the spectrum."

I didn&#39;t go looking for that: LSD found it for me. And I didn&#39;t cherry-pick the best part for me; that&#39;s the first paragraph that describes the Taiwanese political lineup.

LSD, in contrast, not only has to search the whole web, he has to cherry-pick one-sentence quotes, in order to support his claim. In context, those sentences show only that these parties are hesitant and inconsistent in their support for eventual unification, not that they are opposed to it.

Would it kill you to admit you exaggerated? I mean, c&#39;mon, go back and look at your original post.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Random Interesting fact of the day:

China had the most executions last year, well over 3,000.

Fiction:

The use of the US death penalty is too severe.

[LSD]

Let&#39;s note that I did not specifically go searching for something to support my contention; I happened across that Washington Post article while reading the day&#39;s news.

Are you actually proud that you didn&#39;t do any research before making your claim?

:lol:

Wow... talk about anti-intellectualism....


...for example, the Wikipedia article he links summarizes the issue in its second paragraph: "Unification is controversial with varying and sometimes conflicting definitions. It is supported by the government of the People&#39;s Republic of China and to different degrees by the Kuomintang, People First Party, and New Party (known collectively as the pan-blue coalition) in the Taiwan. It is opposed by varying degrees by supporters of Taiwan independence, which include supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (known collectively as the pan-green coalition). Some of them refer to it as Chinese unification, Chinese expansionism or annexation by China. Within the political scene of Taiwan, unification versus independence defines the political spectrum with the caveat that much of the support to either bloc is unrelated to the pro-unification versus pro-independence issue and with the caveat that most people in Taiwan are in the middle of the spectrum."

It also, more relevently says "Most polls show declining support for unification and increasing support for independence in the recent decade. Historically, throughout much of the last decade polls consistently suggest that 70% to 80% of all Taiwanese support maintaining the status quo—although the definition of the status quo is an area of intense debate." which was my entire point. A point, I notice, you have still failed to refute.

And even more importantly are the actual Taiwanese sources, such as the words of founder of the People First Party, the opposing parties, the local paper. You did not address these sources which clearly refute your ludicrous claim that the People First Party supports reunification.

Look, this conversation is over whether or not Taiwan wants reunification. You claimed that the "fact" that the People First Party supported reunification shows that it is popular. I have now fully debunked that claim and shown that the People First Party in no way supports reunification, but aims to maintain the status quo.

...so what else you got?


Would it kill you to admit you exaggerated? I mean, c&#39;mon, go back and look at your original post.

Alright, let&#39;s look at it:

No major sector of Taiwan wants unification. Taiwan wants one thing from the PRC, to be left the fuck alone&#33;

Since all polls show that at least 75% of Taiwan opposes reunification.... my post seems to agree with the facts.

Your post, however, seems to be supported by nothing. But then that&#39;s hardly surprising, since as you yourself admit that you "did not specifically go searching for something to support my contention".

A little research would have done you good.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 1 2005, 06:29 AM
Random Interesting fact of the day:

China had the most executions last year, well over 3,000.

Fiction:

The use of the US death penalty is too severe.
can&#39;t both uses be too severe, the death penalty is wrong.