[PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
(This is a response to a debate taking place on Marxmail about Taiwanese nationalism. Perry Anderson has a useful article on the question at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n11/ande01_.html) When I was recently in northern B.C. in Canada on some Indigenous Reserves I was told by local activists that they had been approached by individuals from Taiwan to set up "sports exchanges" with Indigenous Nations in Canada. They asked for my take on what it was about and I said that it is my opinion that: a) This is part of an overall process of the Taiwan regime trying to look and act like a nation and to do what nations do (forming relations with other nations and/or individuals of other nations); b) they are trying to claim being "Indigenous Peoples" and an "oppressed Indigenous Nation" in order to piggyback the issue of--and summarily assert rights to--self-determination, independence, freedom and sovereignty of all nations. I advised them that they would be better off not having anything to do with the current Taiwan regime as this regime has more in common with the "Vichy Indians" of the "official" U.S.-Government-endorsed/utilized "Tribal Councils" operating under the BIA than any kind of sovereign government of any kind of truly sovereign nation. Those who see Taiwan (the classical name for Taiwan is Liu Qiu) as a nation and/or who see any parallels between the situation of Taiwan and that of real Indigenous Nations existing geographically within the asserted land bases of larger capitalist nations, simply do not understand what makes--and legitimates--a given group of people as a nation and/or do not understand the realities of both Taiwan and the Indigenous Nations of the Americas and elsewhere. Further, they are slandering and setting back the just struggles of Indigenous Nations in the Americas and elsewhere that are victims of capitalist states and their genocidal policies with these bogus comparisons or analogies with the Taiwan regime and situation--e.g. those who ran (rather than were victims of) the same kinds of genocidal policies against the truly Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan (the "Gaoshan" ) or the Han/capitalist-based Kuomintang. One of the reasons that Florida and eight other states have laws fobidding convicted felons from voting is that old die-hard Confederates after the civil war set up structures, laws and processes designed to make the continual and ongoing disenfranchisement of Blacks possible--controlling the courts it is possible to make anyone a "convicted felon" and thus unable to vote. What if those ex-Confederate scum, operating as stooges for foreign powers bent on destroying the system of the U.S., had managed to set up their own government in Florida, and claim, on the one hand, not to be a part of the U.S. and yet also make the contradictory claim to be the sole and "legitimate" representatives of all of the U.S.? What does anyone think the U.S. government would do about that situation? Would the U.S. government allow secession and the fiction that Florida was somehow a separate--and sui generis--nation with fundamental rights to independence and sovereignty? My father flew on 94 missions on B-25s with the 490th Bomb Squadron of the 14th Air Force (the successor to the "Flying Tigers") in China and Burma during World War II. He told me stories about how they would lay awake in their tents in the jungles with their weapons near them because Kuomintang troops would come in the night and attempt to bayonet U.S. forces (supposedly their "allies") in their tents and steal their money, watches and other valuables. My father had an abiding hatred for the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai Shek (whose hand he refused to shake once when Chiang Kai Shek was a passenger from Taiwan to Japan when my father was a co-pilot for Northwest Airlines--the captain on that flight told me the story). He told me the only principled Chinese, and the only real fighters against the Japanese imperialists, were the communists. Around the late 1960s, when the Taiwan was previously trying to act like a nation and had awarded a "China War Medal" to U.S. forces that had served in the China-Burma-India Theater during World War II, my father told me that he would only accept such a medal from "the only legitimate government of China--in Peking"; my father had it right all along and he knew the Kuomintang types and the Taiwan situation very well. Jim Craven -- www.marxmail.org
[PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
What who are you advising on a position to take ? The indigenous folks Jim Craven was advising ? If so , seems best advice is stay out of it, as Jim said. "Taiwan" is not really claiming to have derived from some separate kinbased, hunting and gathering/horticultural society than "China" as the reason that it would be a separate nation, with distinct language, history, territory, culture, traditions, and the other indicia of indigenous sovereignty and independence. If you are advising the U.S., advise the U.S. to stay out of it. This imperialist, oppressor nation already played a main role in creating "Taiwan" as a nation separate from the larger Chinese nation, not because Taiwan had been a historically derived separate nation, but because the U.S. was trying to stop the development of communism in the world . Has there ever been a pretty state ? I know. Switzerland. Charles ^^^ All those KMT people are dead. What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but whatever it is, it isn't pretty. In that light, non-support for PRC sabre-rattling in re: Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems the right position to me. We met with some Taiwan union people a few years back. They were not looking forward to merging with the PRC labor market. Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China goes. mbs
[PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
For moi, an important aspect of analyzing a situation concerning the right to national liberation and self-determination is considering oppressed nation and oppressor nation dynamics, and the history. The main oppressor nationalism involved in the history and origin of Taiwan as a separate nation was the U.S. imperialism, not China's. "Divide and conquer" or "divide and oppress" was the U.S. imperialist strategy in separating Taiwan from the larger Chinese nation. Disruption of Chinese national unity for national liberation was the U.S. imperialist gambit. This history still shapes the current situation. So, these status quo boundaries are a status quo established by imperialism in the neo-colonialist imperialist/Cold War period. This cuts against retaining those boundaries under national liberation/self-determination analysis. This cuts against presuming for the status quo boundaries and putting the burden on the oppressed nation, China, to give "good reasons". We should,on the contrary, presume against the neo-colonialist boundaries and put the burden on imperialism to give reasons for retaining the neo-colonialist boundaries. The PRC has never headed a socialist country. The relations of production in post-rev. China were not socialist. This fact did not prevent the PRC from "being" communist in the past. The fact that the PRC headed a sort of feudal society with the landlords beheaded, a non-socialist country in the early years following the revolution, did not prevent PRC from being communist then. Clearly, the PRC is "saying" that China must go through some capitalism to be capable of being socialist; and that the role of a communist party in a country that has not had capitalism is to lead that massive process, with the intention of building socialism after going through capitalism. And they maintain that they are still communists in following this approach. This is an outline of how I think the PRC would respond to your claim that the PRC is not communist. I see no analysis that ,in this plan of _not_ bypassing capitalism on the road to socialism, China is acting as an _imperialist_ and oppressor capitalist nation, particularly vis-a-vis Taiwan. China's position is that the reunification with Taiwan is repair of a breach of Chinese national unity, a breach carried out by the true imperialists of this era, the U.S. imperialists. CB "Devine, James" : To me, I see no reason to change national boundaries (e.g., merging China and Taiwan) unless there are really good reasons. Preferably, whether these reasons are good or not is a decision to be made by the people of the two countries involved, in a democratic way. This kind of decision can't be made by foreign intellectuals living off in some other country. Charles refers to >distinct language, history, territory, culture, traditions, [etc., as] indicia of indigenous sovereignty and independence< Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people involved (the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct they are, in a democratic way. One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks. The history since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging. It's true that > This imperialist, oppressor nation [the U.S.] already played a main role in creating "Taiwan" as a nation separate from the larger Chinese nation, not because Taiwan had been a historically derived separate nation, but because the U.S. was trying to stop the development of communism in the world .< This is true, but seems irrelevant in a period when the PRC isn't communist except in the sense that an organization that calls itself a "Communist Party" controls the state. (Further, in a lot of ways, the PRC is an ally of the US, despite obvious differences on many issues. It's more distant than France, but may be closer to the US than Russia is.) And the CPC's rule isn't that different from the way that the KMT used to control the Taiwanese state. (Originally, BTW, the KMT was set up along "Leninist" lines, following advice from the USSR, though its goals were clearly different from those of the CPC.) Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
All those KMT people are dead. What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but whatever it is, it isn't pretty. In that light, non-support for PRC sabre-rattling in re: Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems the right position to me. We met with some Taiwan union people a few years back. They were not looking forward to merging with the PRC labor market. Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China goes. mbs To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
"Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > All those KMT people are dead. > > What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. > It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but > whatever it is, it isn't pretty. >From everything I know, this is fairly accurate. > In that light, non-support O.K. But what does it mean to either "support" or "not support" A or B in this conflict? Do we want u.s. military interference should China attack Taiwan? Do we want u.s. pressure on Taiwan to give in to China? In regard to the latter, anyone's opinion is of quite irrelevant. In regard to the former, we have to oppose _any_ military action by the u.s. I don't see why anyone needs any opinion whatsoever about Taiwan & China. Carrol > for PRC sabre-rattling in re: > Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems > the right position to me. > > We met with some Taiwan union people a few years > back. They were not looking forward to merging > with the PRC labor market. > > Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction > from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China > goes. > > mbs > > To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
Carrol Cox wrote: I don't see why anyone needs any opinion whatsoever about Taiwan & China. Yeah, they're so far away, and the people speak funny languages!
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
I'm inclined to agree, but for whatever it was worth, I'd protest any PRC attacks on Taiwan. mbs In regard to the former, we have to oppose _any_ military action by the u.s. ... Carrol
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
any military action by the US against China would appear on the face of it to have a decent chance of turning nuclear (which is why it won't happen of course) and should thus be opposed on simple prudential grounds. Those radioactive clouds bloody well travel, as those of us brought up in the Chernobyl contamination zone know. best, dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Carrol Cox Sent: 09 March 2005 22:35 To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: Jim Craven on Taiwan "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > All those KMT people are dead. > > What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. > It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but > whatever it is, it isn't pretty. >From everything I know, this is fairly accurate. > In that light, non-support O.K. But what does it mean to either "support" or "not support" A or B in this conflict? Do we want u.s. military interference should China attack Taiwan? Do we want u.s. pressure on Taiwan to give in to China? In regard to the latter, anyone's opinion is of quite irrelevant. In regard to the former, we have to oppose _any_ military action by the u.s. I don't see why anyone needs any opinion whatsoever about Taiwan & China. Carrol > for PRC sabre-rattling in re: > Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems > the right position to me. > > We met with some Taiwan union people a few years > back. They were not looking forward to merging > with the PRC labor market. > > Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction > from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China > goes. > > mbs > > To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/05 4:00 PM >>> One of the reasons that Florida and eight other states have laws fobidding convicted felons from voting is that old die-hard Confederates after the civil war set up structures, laws and processes designed to make the continual and ongoing disenfranchisement of Blacks possible--controlling the courts it is possible to make anyone a "convicted felon" and thus unable to vote. What if those ex-Confederate scum, operating as stooges for foreign powers bent on destroying the system of the U.S., had managed to set up their own government in Florida, and claim, on the one hand, not to be a part of the U.S. and yet also make the contradictory claim to be the sole and "legitimate" representatives of all of the U.S.? What does anyone think the U.S. government would do about that situation? Would the U.S. government allow secession and the fiction that Florida was somehow a separate--and sui generis--nation with fundamental rights to independence and sovereignty? Jim Craven <> florida apparently leads u.s. in felon disenfranchisement: 400,000 - 600,000 people depending upon which estimates one uses... believe state was first - in 1868 - to enact felon disenfranchisement following civil war, was included as part of state constitution that year, 'policy' has been sustained through 2 subsequent state constitutions - 1885, 1968... lawsuit has been in court for several years to have felon disenfranchisement thrown out on 14th amendment 'equal protection' grounds, delegate at state's 1868 constitutional convention stated that it was intended to prevent newly freed blacks from voting, thus, denial of voting rights was intended to be discriminatory and it remains so... interestingly (i guess), 2 republican state legislators are pushing bill to have voting rights automatically restored upon completion of sentence, gov. jeb bush opposes (surprise, surprise), just one more example of stupidity/lameness/even bigotry of white florida democratic 'leaders'... despite above, 'ban' is not quite accurate regrding felon disenfranchisement in state, in fact, there good bit of confusion about what exact practice is... here are 2 explanations, both of which are routinely cited... 1) people are supposed to be told when their sentence is completed that they must apply to clemency board comprised of governor and cabinet in order to have civil rights restored which then makes them eligible to register to vote, those who cite this process say that few - if any - are ever informed that it is available to them... 2) restoration for first-time felony offenders is supposed to be pretty much automatic, they're not even supposed to have to request a review of their situation, rather, state dept. of corrections is supposed to inform state parole commission that one's sentence has been completed, if individual qualifies - i do think that persons with more than one conviction are literally banned - then restoration is supposed to happen unless clemency board member objects... ultimately, doesn't matter which explanation is correct, neither is adhered to... moreoever, whether regulations require person to initiate process or it is 'automatic, clemency board is notorious for rejecting requests/petitions to have rights restored... as for florida - or any state - declaring independence and sovereignty for itself, matters was ostensibly settled by civil war and affirmed by 1869 u.s. supreme court decision in case of - _texas v white_ in majority if justices indicated that u.s is 'indivisble/indissolvable union' - in other words, once a state, always a state... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
To me, I see no reason to change national boundaries (e.g., merging China and Taiwan) unless there are really good reasons. Preferably, whether these reasons are good or not is a decision to be made by the people of the two countries involved, in a democratic way. This kind of decision can't be made by foreign intellectuals living off in some other country. Charles refers to >distinct language, history, territory, culture, traditions, [etc., as] indicia of indigenous sovereignty and independence< Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people involved (the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct they are, in a democratic way. One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks. The history since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging. It's true that > This imperialist, oppressor nation [the U.S.] already played a main role in creating "Taiwan" as a nation separate from the larger Chinese nation, not because Taiwan had been a historically derived separate nation, but because the U.S. was trying to stop the development of communism in the world .< This is true, but seems irrelevant in a period when the PRC isn't communist except in the sense that an organization that calls itself a "Communist Party" controls the state. (Further, in a lot of ways, the PRC is an ally of the US, despite obvious differences on many issues. It's more distant than France, but may be closer to the US than Russia is.) And the CPC's rule isn't that different from the way that the KMT used to control the Taiwanese state. (Originally, BTW, the KMT was set up along "Leninist" lines, following advice from the USSR, though its goals were clearly different from those of the CPC.) Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -Original Message- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Charles Brown > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:18 AM > To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan > > What who are you advising on a position to take ? > > The indigenous folks Jim Craven was advising ? > > If so , seems best advice is stay out of it, as Jim said. "Taiwan" > is not > really claiming to have derived from some separate kinbased, hunting > and > gathering/horticultural society than "China" as the reason that it > would be > a separate nation, with distinct language, history, territory, > culture, > traditions, and the other indicia of indigenous sovereignty and > independence. > > If you are advising the U.S., advise the U.S. to stay out of it. > This > imperialist, oppressor nation already played a main role in > creating > "Taiwan" as a nation separate from the larger Chinese nation, not > because > Taiwan had been a historically derived separate nation, but because > the U.S. > was trying to stop the development of communism in the world . > > Has there ever been a pretty state ? I know. Switzerland. > > Charles > > ^^^ > > All those KMT people are dead. > > What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. > It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but > whatever it is, it isn't pretty. In that light, > non-support for PRC sabre-rattling in re: > Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems > the right position to me. > > We met with some Taiwan union people a few years > back. They were not looking forward to merging > with the PRC labor market. > > Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction > from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China > goes. > > mbs
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
Jim Devine writes: To me, I see no reason to change national boundaries (e.g., merging China and Taiwan) unless there are really good reasons. The thing is that almost all Chinese living on the mainland (and almost half in Taiwan?) don't see China/Taiwan as separate national boundaries. They believe in the "One China" principle and they see one country. (Of course the people in Taiwan believing in the 'One China' principle also believe the provisional situation must remain that way until circumstances in China change.) Preferably, whether these reasons are good or not is a decision to be made by the people of the two countries involved, in a democratic way. Again, only IF you accept the "two countries" assumption. Otherwise, you have the "one country, indivisible..." principle that every American schoolchild also recites. This is a view that goes deeper than just the PRC vs. ROC issue. The sacredness of national unity goes to the heart of modern Chinese nationalism and the anti-colonial struggle. That is why the KMT's successors on Taiwan have been so slow to jettison it. Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people involved (the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct they are, in a democratic way. But even under democratic principles, secessionism is often rejected once a national state is formed. [Of course whether the national state can enforce recognition of the national unity principle or not becomes a matter of cruel 'real-politik'.] One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks. Not exactly true. 98% of the people of Taiwan are ethnic Han Chinese. The remaining 2% are indigenous people of about 11 groups from Austronesian/South Chinese origin. About 2/3rds of the population originated in Fujian Province (the province where the bulk of today's Chinese immigrants to the US come from); another group, called the Hakka, came from Guangdong; and about 15% are called "mainlanders" who came in 1949 from all over China. In practical terms this shared ethnic background really makes the situation different than Tibet or Chinese central asia. The history since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging. It is a bit of a cliche, but in Chinese culture and their sense of identity 1950 is not far back. Thomas Lepeardo
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
Jim Devine wrote: Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people involved (the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct they are, in a democratic way. One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks. The history since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging. --I'm not sure what you're referring to here Jim. The "formosan' element would be mostly from Fujian province and certainly Han, no? The indigenous population is not Han, but that's a small minority of the overall population that wouldn't be Han. The intermarriage rate between mainlander and Formosan is also high in any event. There has been considerable convergence, in a way that most miss however. Taiwanese investors are a big presence in China, have been for over a decade already. And that culture, the culture of the Taiwanese investor is real in contributing to overlap. When I was in Beijing, almost everyone I met thought my Taiwanese accent was way cool! In the US reporting I see, whether mainstream or left, the focus is usually on the Chinese cultural 'dominance' on Taiwan. A good argument could be made that it's the other way around now. I don't care much for the cultural aspects of the independence argument in any event, they cover up the real issue at hand, namely the extent and pace at which the US wants China to privatize its economy. The Taiwan question is really just a political mechanism for pressuring China to open up faster. Within Taiwan the sentiment among scholars who focus on the issue is generally one of 'let's wait' and what is to be awaited is when China becomes a liberal democracy with attendant free markets, greater openess to the free flow of capital...The struggle, to the extent there is actually a struggle over this issue has little to do with Taiwan as it does with a battle between the US and China on how the Chinese economy should be structured. Taiwanese views on the issue of when reunification should occur happen to coincide with the US view that reunification is best under circumstances of 'peaceful' democratic [neo-liberal] transition. There is little strong sentiment for actual independence in Taiwan as long as it is one that is threatened by the possibility of attack from China, or little that I tend to register when I go back to Taiwan each year. Where it is strong, in the independence activist factions and parties, it is largely very pro-US and right-wing [in fact if anything they are more to the right of the KMT on issues of free trade, privatization,..!). Yes, there is a small green component of the independence factions, very ineffectual and not able to convince many that Taiwan should be free of US dependence. When I was in Taiwan in the early 1990's I thought for a bit that that wing might be able to develop, but it's really simply not the heart and soul of the independence movement ideologically, not even close. Steve
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
I wrote:>> Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people involved (the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct they are, in a democratic way. One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks << Steve Philion writes: >I'm not sure what you're referring to here Jim. The "formosan' element would >be mostly from Fujian province and certainly Han, no? ...< You're right. > I don't care much for the cultural aspects of the independence argument in > any event, they cover up the real issue at hand, namely the extent and pace > at which the US wants China to privatize its economy. ...< To what extent are the coal mines of the PRC privatized (see below)? If they aren't, why is "privatization" an issue? Jim Devine - Blood and coal: the human cost of cheap Chinese goods Jonathan Watts in Miaowan, Sha'anxi province Monday March 14, 2005 The Guardian "Someone has snitched. The security men are coming. Shut the door, close the curtains and stay quiet." Moments later, footsteps outside. A rap on the door. A mother squeezes her child tightly to her breast to muffle his cries. An older woman holds back sobs, her eyes red with tears. Two others sit on a bed, exchanging anxious glances. It is my fault the security are here, bringing trouble to people who have already suffered too much. But why is a meeting between four middle-aged women and a foreign journalist considered such a threat? The women are not subversives, they are widows and bereaved daughters. Their husbands and fathers were among the 166 men killed in an explosion at the Chenjiashan colliery in Miaowan, a mining community in north-west China's Sha'anxi province, last November. Such accidents are so common in China that their plight and that of tens of thousands of other mining widows has become one of the most sensitive issues facing the communist government. More than 5,000 Chinese miners are killed each year, 75% of the global total, even though the country produces only a third of the world's coal. Working under appalling safety conditions, they are sacrificed to fuel the factories that make the cheap goods snapped up by consumers in Britain and other wealthy nations. Faced with energy shortages this winter, the government has stepped up the pressure on mine operators to raise output. This has contributed to a spate of the worst disasters in the country's history. Last month, 216 miners were killed at Sunjiawan mine in north-east China in the most deadly accident in 50 years. Last October, another gas explosion killed 148. Last Thursday, a cave-in at a mine in Sha'anxi province killed 16 miners and left another 11 trapped underground. Countless other accidents at small unregistered mines go unreported because the owners - often in collusion with local officials - buy off or threaten the victims' families. There is widespread anger that miners' lives are being sacrificed for economic growth. "It's said there is blood on every piece of coal in China," says one of the widows, Mrs Wang. "My husband used to talk about the danger all the time. But we are very poor. We have children. What else could we do?" The five-mile deep pit at Chenjiashan had a particularly bad reputation. Four years ago, 38 men died in a gas explosion. Five days before the latest accident a fire broke out underground. "We came up, but the bosses told us to go back. We didn't want to, but we had to," says one miner, Li, who lost his brother in the explosion. "We all needed the money and there is a penalty of 100 yuan (around £6) for refusing to go down." The managers, who had reportedly been promised a hefty bonus to increase production, ordered the men to keep working even though it had become hard to breathe underground. On the morning of the accident, Li was preparing to start his shift, when workers came running out of the shaft, saying they had seen thick fog and smoke. "Every miner knows that means there's been an explosion," he said. Last week the bereaved were supposed to hold ceremonies to mark the end of the 100-day mourning period, but many widows say they are still unable to grieve properly because their husbands' bodies have yet to be recovered. "Our husbands' bodies are still underground," said Mrs Zhang. "But when we went to ask the mine supervisor for action, the security men beat us. One woman was hurt so badly she is still in hospital." Economics are a major factor in the death rate. Life is cheap, while coal is increasingly dear. In calculating compensation for the victims of the Chenjiashan blast, the state estimated the value of a miner's life at 51,000 yuan (£3,200). An extra 20,000 yuan was paid as a widow's allowance and another 20,000 yuan for an unrecovered body. By contrast, mine operators were reportedly promised a 400,000 yuan bonus if they could raise output by 400,000 tonnes in the last two mo
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
So you're advocating that the PRC take over Taiwan by force if necessary? The way they invaded Vietnam? (Was it US imperialism that caused the latter?) BTW, who said that the Chinese CP wasn't "communist"? not I. It does seem to me that after decades in power, the internal nature of party has change radically. Currently, its status and power rests on the fact that China is a low-cost exporting country (in alliance with US capitalists, perhaps even dominated by them) and that it would be vary hard for the CPC to change directions once that capitalism has been fully established. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -Original Message- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Charles Brown > For moi, an important aspect of analyzing a situation concerning the > right > to national liberation and self-determination is considering > oppressed > nation and oppressor nation dynamics, and the history. The main > oppressor > nationalism involved in the history and origin of Taiwan as a > separate > nation was the U.S. imperialism, not China's. "Divide and conquer" > or > "divide and oppress" was the U.S. imperialist strategy in separating > Taiwan > from the larger Chinese nation. Disruption of Chinese national > unity for > national liberation was the U.S. imperialist gambit. This history > still > shapes the current situation. So, these status quo boundaries are a > status > quo established by imperialism in the neo-colonialist > imperialist/Cold War > period. This cuts against retaining those boundaries under national > liberation/self-determination analysis. This cuts against presuming > for the > status quo boundaries and putting the burden on the oppressed > nation, China, > to give "good reasons". We should,on the contrary, presume against > the > neo-colonialist boundaries and put the burden on imperialism to give > reasons > for retaining the neo-colonialist boundaries. > > The PRC has never headed a socialist country. The relations of > production in > post-rev. China were not socialist. This fact did not prevent the > PRC from > "being" communist in the past. The fact that the PRC headed a sort > of feudal > society with the landlords beheaded, a non-socialist country in the > early > years following the revolution, did not prevent PRC from being > communist > then. > > Clearly, the PRC is "saying" that China must go through some > capitalism to > be capable of being socialist; and that the role of a communist > party in a > country that has not had capitalism is to lead that massive process, > with > the intention of building socialism after going through capitalism. > And > they maintain that they are still communists in following this > approach. > This is an outline of how I think the PRC would respond to your > claim that > the PRC is not communist. > > I see no analysis that ,in this plan of _not_ bypassing capitalism > on the > road to socialism, China is acting as an _imperialist_ and oppressor > capitalist nation, particularly vis-a-vis Taiwan. China's position > is that > the reunification with Taiwan is repair of a breach of Chinese > national > unity, a breach carried out by the true imperialists of this era, > the U.S. > imperialists. > > CB > > > > > "Devine, James" : > > To me, I see no reason to change national boundaries (e.g., merging > China and Taiwan) unless there are really good reasons. Preferably, > whether these reasons are good or not is a decision to be made by > the > people of the two countries involved, in a democratic way. This kind > of > decision can't be made by foreign intellectuals living off in some > other > country. > > Charles refers to >distinct language, history, territory, culture, > traditions, [etc., as] indicia of indigenous sovereignty and > independence< > > Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people > involved (the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct > they > are, in a democratic way. One thing that should be noted is that > Taiwan > has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks. The > history > since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, > traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging. > > > It's true that > This imperialist, oppressor nation [the U.S.] > already > played a main role in creating "Taiwan" as a nation separate from > the > larger Chinese nation, not because Taiwan had been a historically > derived separate nation, but because the U.S. was trying to stop the > development of communism in the world .< > > This is true, but seems irrelevant in a period when the PRC isn't > communist except in the sense that an organization that calls itself > a > "Communist Party" controls the state. (Further, in a lot of ways, > the > PRC is an ally of the US, despite obvious differences on many > issues. > It's more distant than France, but may be closer to the US than > Russia > is.) > > And
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan
To what extent are the coal mines of the PRC privatized (see below)? If they aren't, why is "privatization" an issue? Jim Devine Perhaps 40-50% of coal produced in China comes out of private mines. Because they're usually much smaller, they make up the bulk of coal mines, however. There's a big difference in terms of safety. Private mines eat up miners at a rate several times that of large state-run mines. But competition from 'lean and mean' private mines is affecting how state mines are operating, as coal prices were mostly deregulated in 1993-4. btw, I don't think China's leadership is actually interested in launching a war to retake Taiwan. But with all pretentions to socialism/communism gone, the only levers of legitimacy left are rising standards of living and nationalism. The Hu-Wen leadership might not survive if it looked soft on the issue of Taiwan, but this is a long long way from wanting a war. The US is also less than enthusiastic about de jure Taiwanese indepenedence as far as I can tell. The 'Blue Team' of course wants to use Taiwan as a wedge to topple China's leadership, but they are not driving US policy right now. People were worried after Bush's first installation that the administration was going to make China one axis of its delerious evil-generating whirlygig, but 9/11 put an end to that, and the China hawks flew home to roost and brood. They are making more sounds recently, over the EU resumption in weapon sales and China's growing military, but I don't see the US administration wanting to open a new front of antagonism. So everyone ends up supporting the status quo, despite making sounds to the contrary to appease local constituencies. Charles wrote: "The main oppressor nationalism involved in the history and origin of Taiwan as a separate nation was the U.S. imperialism, not China's." Very much disagree. Japan's annexation of Taiwan in 1895 provoked an actual declaration of independence in Taiwan, and while the US was of course crucial in supporting the KMT after 47 and preventing the communists from taking over Taiwan after the outbreak of the Korean War, it supported the side (KMT) that was violently opposed to the idea of Taiwan as a separate nation. US ambivalence on this Taiwanese independence continues to this day. Cheers, Jonathan
Re: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan,
Jim D asked: To what extent are the coal mines of the PRC privatized (see below)? If they aren't, why is "privatization" an issue? Jim Devine --Jim, I said, I'm pretty sure, pace of privatization, not privatization, is at issue. Steve
