"Lenin's dream is gone / but Pushkin's autumn remains." These two lines from a poem often make me think of a speech Lenin gave in 1922, a few years after the founding of the Soviet Union. He seemed to feel that the revolution had been stifled by bureaucracy and institutional arbitrariness.
The bureacracy of the old system was startling. Despite the revolution, the communist revolutionaries -- who had put an end to the tsarist era -- found it difficult to do more than just talk about transforming government institutions and changing ideology and atmosphere. So how does President Chen Shui-bian (
Having put an end to KMT rule, the political motivation inherited by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) from the tangwai movement proved to be nothing short of revolutionary. Compared to democracy and the transformation towards independence, the longstanding party-state, martial law and a colonial system holding up China as a model were but an empty Chinese shell.
But will the DPP be able to sustain its revolution? It has to deal with both the bureaucratization that follows from being a government and the party-state atmosphere, in a society long controlled by a colonial party-state system.
Discussions of Lenin generally use the words "criticism" and "self-criticism" when describing how the revolutionary Lenin dealt with the discrepancy between ideals and reality. So how do we get around the problem of reality? Lenin even said that "we are disgusted that the state apparatus disappoints us so, with negligence and chaos everywhere." He also wanted to "reform this useless government institution."
But after the founding of the Soviet state, Lenin was unable to fully realize his political ideals, and he died at 54 years of age, not having been able to realize his dream of a "democratic communism." That wasn't entirely his fault, but rather it depended on a pathological political system.
The Taiwanese revolution that put an end to the KMT rule entailed a democratization and a transformation towards independence, but there was no revolutionary who could lead that revolution in the way that Lenin did.
So what about criticism and self-criticism in our political situation? Taking over a Republic of China (ROC) transformed into a party-state, hard work is required to eliminate that party-state.
How will the government bureaucracy deal with Taiwan's democratization and transformation towards independence?
If Taiwan is occupied, who will lead the central and local governments? In other words: Are Chen and the DPP really the formal and spiritual leaders of this country, of Taiwan? Is the nation implied unambiguously a Taiwanese nation? Or is it a nation with identity problems, hi-jacked by a Chinese national consciousness? Maybe we should even ask if this country is still being ruled by the KMT's party-state.
If that revolutionary character really has been lost, do the social conditions for a transformation of the old KMT rule still exist? Politicians are tested by both revolutionary ideals and reality, but this only means that they must not treat politics as a business, but rather as a formal power ritual aimed at building order, justice and security -- and this is a cultural endeavor.
So do Taiwan's politicians treat politics as a business or as a cultural endeavor? Although his political dream is gone, Lenin treated it as a cultural endeavor.
Lee Min-yung is a poet and president of the Taiwan Peace Foundation.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS