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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS