Recently, the Chinese revisionist (中修) has been very aggressive in its “cultural offensive” against Taiwan. After the first “Taiwan Restoration Day” on October 25, the Chinese revisionist issued several articles about Taiwan, namely “The Origin and Nature of the Taiwan Issue,” “Development of Cross-Strait Relations and Benefits of Unification,” and “The Motherland’s Inevitable Unification is Unstoppable.”
After reading these articles, many petty bourgeois right-wing (little pinks) began to fantasize: the big one is coming! Military unification is imminent! However, a simple analysis shows that these articles lack novelty, and at least do not indicate that the revisionist is about to launch an invasion of Taiwan. Here are some of my views, and everyone is welcome to share their opinions.
First, these articles show that the main political principle of the Chinese revisionist regarding Taiwan remains the “1992 Consensus,” which is “each side verbally expressing the ‘One China’ principle.” However, this so-called consensus, often repeated by the revisionist fascists, is actually a product of compromise between the revisionist regime and the Taiwan authorities. During the socialist period, our government consistently maintained that the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing China and opposed all schemes of “two Chinas.” As for the so-called Republic of China government, it is a reactionary regime occupying Taiwan, defying historical trends, and has no right to represent the Chinese people. The Chinese people must liberate Taiwan. Today, after capitalism’s restoration, the Chinese revisionist, together with the descendants of Chiang Kai-shek’s bandits who occupy Taiwan, still “insist” on this ambiguous “One China” principle, only verbally. Only revisionist traitors could do such a thing. In fact, the “1992 Consensus” is less a principle of “unifying the motherland” than an acknowledgment of the humiliation of the Republic of China regime by the revisionist regime.
Second, these articles reveal that the Chinese revisionist is very insecure about the legitimacy of unification. We know that the historical reason for the current cross-strait political confrontation is that Chiang Kai-shek’s bandits lost their legitimacy over the mainland during the liberation war and had to flee to Taiwan, relying on begging the American imperialists and occupying a few small islands. This proves that the Chinese people’s cause to liberate Taiwan is entirely just, and the only way to resolve the Taiwan issue is through war. However, how does the revisionist justify the legitimacy of unification today? They only make a few vague statements about the liberation war’s history, spending more space on the so-called “since ancient times.” They prefer to start from the geographical structure of mainland China and Taiwan to prove that Taiwan has been Chinese territory since ancient times, or cite historical documents to show that Taiwan was returned to China after World War II, and that Taiwan belongs to China as a historical fact. Many liberals have countered with empirical evidence: Taiwan was not under the control of the central Chinese government in ancient times, and after WWII, Taiwan was returned to the Republic of China, which did not yet have the People’s Republic of China. In response to these fallacies, Marxists would argue that the different natures of the two regimes are key: the People’s Republic of China is a proletarian dictatorship established through revolutionary struggle, representing progress and revolution, while the Republic of China regime in Taiwan is a reactionary regime dominated by Chiang Kai-shek’s bandits and big capitalists, reactionary and decayed, long overdue to exit the stage of history. This underscores the historical inevitability and legitimacy of the Chinese people’s liberation of Taiwan. Why does today’s Chinese government no longer dare to say this? It even dares not mention “liberating Taiwan” explicitly, and compromises on the abstract “One China” principle. Because today’s Chinese government is a revisionist traitor group relying on conspiracy coups and usurpation. Such a traitor regime cannot face the sacred cause of socialist China’s liberation of Taiwan. How different is this traitor regime from the Republic of China regime occupying Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu?
Regarding the “benefits” of cross-strait unification, the Chinese revisionist discusses many points in “Development of Cross-Strait Relations and Benefits of Unification.” I think there is no need to refute these in detail. First, “Respect lifestyles and safeguard legitimate rights.” Hong Kong, once fantasized by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie as a “democratic holy land,” has already lost its formal democracy. Would the revisionist fascist regime grant any rights to the Taiwanese people? Second, “Break through economic development bottlenecks and share the benefits of national development.” The revisionist regime’s economy is increasingly sluggish. It issues hollow promises of common development while blatantly coveting Taiwan’s advantageous industries such as integrated circuits, precision machinery, and biotechnology, revealing its malicious intent to turn Taiwan into a colony for plunder. Third, “Use public funds for the people and share national resources.” Looking at the lives of mainland Chinese people, it’s clear this is a lie with no real technical content. Conversely, the fourth point, “Share national glory and dignity,” is somewhat honest, as it shows that the so-called national unification by the revisionist is driven by imperialist chauvinism, with shameless praise for revisionist fascism. As for the fifth point, “Avoid war risks and ensure peaceful living,” it is even more laughable. The main cause of the increasing danger of war in the Taiwan Strait is the revisionist army treating Taiwan as a stepping stone for invasion and expansion. Clearly, the future Chinese revisionist war against Taiwan is unjust, entirely for aggression and expansion, and subordinate to imperialist policies.
Due to the reactionary nature of the war against Taiwan, its outbreak can only be attributed to intense class contradictions within mainland China, forcing the revisionist to use war as a means to divert people’s struggles, rather than because “the motherland’s inevitable unification is unstoppable.” Will the petty bourgeois right-wing fantasized war happen immediately? The answer is no. The degree of social contradictions in China has not yet reached the level of a nationwide uprising against revisionist rule. More importantly, the Chinese mass movement still lacks leadership from a Marxist party. The revisionist also has not prepared militarily to attack Taiwan or confront the entire U.S. imperialist bloc. In fact, from the vague “One China” rhetoric, it is more realistic that the revisionist will dialogue with the new Kuomintang (KMT) chairperson Zheng Liyun, to further support their comprador representatives in Taiwan—namely, the KMT—to serve their economy and prepare for subsequent military invasion. Recently, the newly elected KMT chairperson Zheng Liyun expressed her stance on cross-strait relations, advocating for negotiations with the revisionist regime. She even abandoned the KMT’s previous “party-state” stance and her early extreme pro-independence positions, proposing to “only discuss the 1992 Consensus, not the Republic of China” in cross-strait relations. For such a KMT chairperson openly approaching Chinese imperialism, Xi Jinping (yes, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China) directly and shamelessly congratulated Zheng Liyun on her election. The statements about the “One China principle,” especially the vague phrase “recognition as Chinese” as a basis for talks, clearly represent the revisionist regime’s renewed goodwill towards the KMT.
In conclusion, I believe that the recent series of articles by Xinhua News Agency on Taiwan do not mean that the Chinese revisionist’s direct invasion of Taiwan is imminent. Imperialist China remains very weak and unprepared. Its more realistic significance is that the revisionist regime is making a political overture to the KMT.