Communist organizations have been formed in 39 junior-high and high schools nationwide — all belonging to the Intercollegiate Communists Federation founded by members of Taipei Municipal Chien Kuo High School. The federation says its aim is to facilitate reform at schools and spread “correct communism,” and that it is not linked to the Chinese Communist Party.
It is good for young people to have ideals and aspirations, but they might not truly understand communism or are simply trying to be unconventional or appear avant-garde. Schools should be more proactive in guiding them.
Socialism, communism and communist parties are fundamentally different. Socialism is a theoretical proposition — a romantic expectation of an ideal society, communism is a more radical form of socialism that employs more extreme methods and communist parties emphasize atheism and class struggle.
Hopefully, the school groups are based on ideals and aspirations for social reform.
The Indonesian government prohibits citizens from advocating communism. It would never tolerate communist groups. History shows that communist parties exploited the passions and ideals of young people to sow division and conflict. The young people were used as scapegoats to help the parties seize power.
Moreover, the atheism and class struggle promoted by communist parties — although rooted in sociological conflict theory — overlooks the perspective of structural functionalism, which emphasizes how society’s interdependent parts operate together to maintain stability and equilibrium.
Academic discussions aim to analyze social phenomena and realities from multiple perspectives. However, communist parties move well beyond simple sociological analysis, pursuing explicit agendas of class struggle and the seizure of political power.
Communist parties are especially skilled at exploiting the kindness and innocence of those in democratic societies, manufacturing conflict and sowing division to successfully achieve their political goals. They can not be tolerated in schools.
Chen Chi-nung is a political commentator.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS