台灣最大公約數 – 反共去統不反中
The True Common Denominator of Taiwan
我察覺到一個新的台灣共識(最大公約數)正在成形,而且已經接近完成。雖然許多人還沒意識到這點,也還有一些人尚處在無感、或雖然有感但心理上拒絕的階段。
I sensed a New Taiwan Consensus is forming and near completion, although many are still not fully aware of it, some at the psychological stage of ignoring it and some even in total denial .
這新共識可以用三個原素的一句話來總結:反共、去統、不反中國平民。三元素環環相扣,構成了一個具有主旋律的直白命題:那些已經把台灣視為自己家鄉的人,已經把台灣當成一個與他方無涉的主體。
This New Consensus can be summarized in one expression with three parallel elements: opposing communism, de-unification and neutralness toward Chinese civilians. These three elements constitute an organic whole with a common theme that simply says, people who took Taiwan as their home deemed themselves as one distinct entity .
為了讓人們充分理解這三元素的意義,需要做一些進一步闡釋。我們這就開始。
I understand some elaboration may be needed to allow the three elements to be fully appreciated, especially the third one. Let me begin.
1. 反共。台灣其實並沒有那麼反對自由的社會主義;事實上,台灣社會本身在日常生活型態中就含有明顯的自由社會主義的痕跡。但是,台灣絕不會容忍社會主義精神脫序到共產主義的地步。若然,那種社會主義就是敵人,沒有討論的餘地。台灣海峽彼岸的中國共產黨(CCP),就屬於這一類。
1. Opposing Communism – Taiwan is not that much against liberal socialism. In fact,there is a rather obvious strain of it already existing in its social life. However, Taiwan would not tolerate socialism when carried away to the extent of communism, and would take it as enemy. Period. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other end of the Strait falls into this category.
2. 去統。在台灣,不但老一輩了解中共天天掛在嘴邊玩弄的「統一」,只不過是其用來維持政權、控制已經被洗過腦平民的一種虛偽口號,而年輕一輩只會以荒謬視之。因而,此處並沒有用過去的「反統」一詞,而是用「去統」,表示了一種將「統一」概念徹底由腦中去除的意思。就像「大掃除」的意思一樣,老早就該扔掉的東西就把它扔掉。
2. De-Unification – Not only do the older generations realize that the jingling of
“unification” of the CCP is just a bogus slogan for upholding its regime’s control
over the brain-washed civilians, the young generation of Taiwan simply finds the
slogan ridiculous. Therefore, rather than using the term “anti-Unification” as people used to do in the past, I think “De-Unification” – the unshackling of the very idea of unification, as one can relate with the word “de-clutter”- is a better suited term.
3. 不反中,指的是對中國平民保持中性的態度。過去三年間,包括我自己以及國際輿論,已經破除了那個存在已久的迷思 – 中共CCP就等同中國。情況根本不是這樣的。中共不等同中國,更不用說等同中國人民了。中共是一個具有9千8百萬黨員的巨大政黨,但那只是住在那塊土地上的14億人當中的7%。
3. Neutralness towards Chinese Civilians – In the past three years, people in Taiwan including myself, as well as the international community, have debunked the long-existed myth that CCP Is China. No, far from it. CCP is NOT equivalent to China, let alone the Chinese people. CCP is a huge party of 98 million members and that accounts for only 7% of the 1.4 billion Chinese people living on that landmass.
簡單的算數就可以呈現真相。對任何國家,如果僅佔7%的人口可以在政治上完全控制100%的人口,唯一的可能就是實施殘酷暴力或通過暴力改變人的頭腦。
Simple math would tell the truth. In any nation, when 7% of the population politically controls 100% of the population, it would be an impossibility unless by brutal violence or total brain coercion.
中國平民本身就是受害者。其他的國家,不應該膝蓋反應式的把受害者視為天生就是邪惡的。因此,無論在心態上還是現實地緣政治考慮下,台灣社會都應該把「必反」這詞留給共產黨而不是受害的平民。
Therefore, considering the Chinese civilians are victims themselves, people from other parts of the world should not act in a knee-jerk way towards the ordinary, victimized Chinese Civilians as if they are born evil. Either under a proper mindset or the practicality associated with geopolitics, Taiwanese society should and is starting to understand this point. “Anti-“ is an attitude reserved for CCP and not intrinsically for the ordinary and mostly victimized civilians.
這才是台灣的最大公約數。然而,為了選票的政治人物及民調機構拖累了台灣。每年每月的民調都在問早已失效的問題:你偏藍還是偏綠?你贊成獨立還是統一?
Putting together the above three Elements, thus there is the New Taiwan Consensus. What’s falling behind and dragging Taiwan’s feet, are the ballot-hungry politicians and the various outdated polling agencies. They do so many so-called popular surveys every year, sometimes monthly. And they stick to the long invalid way of setting up their survey questions: Are you favoring Green (DPP) or Blue(KMT)? Are you pro-independent or Pro-unification?
這種自我設限或自我審查的問法,使得其他國家以為台灣是個分裂社會。
This kind of self-confined or self-censored surveys leave other nations the impression that Taiwan is a split society, Green or Blue, Independence or unification etc.
台灣這種導致外人認為台灣是個分裂國家的作法,實在愚蠢。如果問的問題對,台灣是沒有分裂的。例如,如果將「你贊不贊成獨立」改為「你反共不反共」,結果肯定是98%以上。
It’s such a foolish thing to do for Taiwan itself misleading outsiders into deeming Taiwan as a split country. There is absolutely no split should the right questions be asked in the surveys. For example, had the question been changed from “Are you pro-independence or anti-independence” into “Are you pro-communism or anti-communism”,then the result would have been a clear-cut 98% or even 99.5% towards “anti”.
若問「你是反中國共產黨還是反中國老百姓」,前者不會低於80%,後者不會高於20%。
Now, try this further question: “Are you anti-Chinese Communist Party, or anti-Chinese common people”, my guess is the former gets at least 80% and the latter gets 20% at most.
第三個問題:「你願不願意被共產黨統治」,保證結果是99.9%的「不願意」。
The third question: “Would you be willing to live under the Communist Rule”? That would guarantee a resounding NO answer of 99.9%.
這就是新台灣共識、社會的最大公約數,應該向世界大聲、清楚、不含糊的說出來。
This is exactly how the New Taiwan Consensus looks like – the true common denominator among a seemingly divided Taiwan. And the New Taiwan Consensus should be articulated to the rest of the world, no vagueness, no grey area and unambiguously.
不信的話,可以用上述問題做幾次民調。而且我保證,在不久的將來,所有民主國家都會端出類似「台灣共識」的政策原則。
For any surveyor or politician who still has doubts about this New Taiwan Consensus, he or she can just conduct new surveys with questions suggested as above. And, I myself am convinced, in a not-so-distant future, all democratic countries on the planet would issue national policies based on guidelines similar to the New Taiwan Consensus, for the goodness of their respective countries.
所以,台灣為什麼不這樣做呢?這可是台灣展示世界政治領導力的機會啊!
So, Hey, Taiwan! Why not put a thrust on this Taiwan Consensus to the world by publicizing it unambiguously and show some political leadership, just for once?
後記:以雙語向全球發聲,將是我接下致力的方向。所使用的這兩種文字,涵蓋了35億人口,接近地球的一半人數。這個行動,將以 「前哨預策」網站 為核心基地,其他的社交媒體,只要有傳播力道,都會被用為衛星來做整體運作。
個人的思考、判斷不一定對,您也不見得同意,但是,我保證這平台中的每一句話都是獨立的、出自內心的。而今天的台灣,乃至於世界,最缺的就是突破傳統成見、不受黨派左右、同時又知錯能改的獨立思考力量。不知您是否同意?
「前哨預策」平台將分為三步走:內容平台 – 互動平台 – 行動平台。剛誕生的它,當前還只是個內容平台,但達到一定數量的會員支持後,將加入各種新媒體形式,與會員就重要議題互動,並以「達成不同意見之間的最大公約數」為目標。一旦在會員內部形成「最大公約數」後,就構成了行動的基礎。至於行動的形式,也由願意推動或參與的會員決定。
此平台婉拒任何政黨、政府的贊助,只接受個人會員或企業會員的贊助;所有收入及贊助,均將用於「讓台灣更好」的事務上,以及推動、發揮台灣作為東亞及世界的「關鍵少數」的槓桿角色,為人類下一波文明做出量力而為的貢獻。
我只能說,十年來的不斷保持獨立,希望能換得您對「不受任何政黨、政府左右」這一點點價值的認同。
范疇
謹上
於台灣
首頁鏈接: InsightFan.com
訂閱鏈接: https://www.insightfan.com/membershipspricing/
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「democratic socialism」的推薦目錄:
democratic socialism 在 Hew Kuan Yau 丘光耀 Facebook 的最佳貼文
这是我四年前些的文章,今早FB弹出来,再share一次。
我给民主行动党50週年党庆的箴言
文/丘光耀博士
今年是民主行动党50週年“党庆年”。我适逢今年七月退党,然斗争精神一刻都没有离开过。
我相信讲真话是美德,历史学者也最忌讳作假。我仅此向行动党的朋友们,提出我的一些观察和善意批评。
这个党,从被讥笑为“万年反对党”,到“308”终于能一尝州级执政权力,甚至在“505”距离问鼎布城,只有一步之遥而已。
五十年,对于一个严肃、老牌的社会民主主义党,它有过高峰,也有过困顿;它有过重创,也有过复兴,然而它未来将走向何处?当下新的政治格局,包括选委会新一轮的选区划分,这套游戏规则,对于循选举斗争的行动党,其势力会进一步扩张,还是逐步萎缩,以致打回原型?
半个世纪以来,大马国人尤其非马来人,对行动党都投以极大的热情和希望,即使在上个世纪,没有机会看到火箭执政的岁月,所谓的“钟摆定律”,都从未让行动党沦为一蹶不起的“蚊子反对党”。
五十年以来,非马来人支持行动党,理由可以很多,诸如要教训国阵(巫统)、国家不能没有反对党、火箭比其他反对党可靠、行动党高调反贪污、行动党领袖不畏坐牢、马华民政太无能,甚至林吉祥的政治硬汉形象等等,不一而足。
然而在我看来,支持行动党最关键的公约数,就是非马来选民都大致认同,大马是一个多元民族的国家,因此“马来西亚人的马来西亚”比巫统的“马来人的马来西亚”更适合奉为大马建国的核心理念。
众所周知,“马来西亚人的马来西亚”,这是行动党领袖在群众演讲、政治文告、文宣传单、布条横幅、政策宣言最常用的一句口号/概念/主题/词彙。然而,这麽显性的斗争目标,这十个字,却从未列在党章的“宗旨”里头。
反之,行动党另一个隐形的意识形态,即:民主社会主义(Democratic Socialism),从1966年就被列为党章“宗旨”的第一条,演进到2005年修改新党章,在“宗旨”依然是位列第一,只不过表述改成了“社会民主主义”(Social Democracy),这和欧洲许多兄弟党的修章发展逻辑,基本一致。
这个反差现象值得研究。
在火箭党争的历史上,派系挑战者(如KOKS派系)都曾指责林吉祥背弃“马来西亚人的马来西亚”;然指责行动党不重视“民主社会主义”者,唯独柯嘉逊博士一人。
在我看来,林吉祥领导行动党的时代,确实不很重视左翼意识形态的论述和理论建设,因为自513后,“左右对峙”和“阶级矛盾” 从未在大马的朝野政党竞争中突出过。林吉祥也似乎不很在意对手的意识形态批判,因为他知道社会各界普遍不感兴趣,亦不会影响选举大局。
我这麽说,不意味大马没有阶级剥削问题,而是“阶级意识”(class consciousness)被“种族意识”遮蔽,导致前者不彰。加上社会经济结构的转型,工人的“阶级意识”根本就无法促进工运的发展,反而促退。而行动党作为社会民主主义政党,五十年来从未靠工运来做阶级动员,这跟欧洲的兄弟党状况有所不同。
即便如此,我不认同一些激进左翼人士所曰,“种族意识”是伪问题,是剥削阶级(执政的资产阶级集团)蓄意製造出来转移社会矛盾的政治烟雾。
原因很简单,我认为,人,不会只有一种社会属性。
他/她有阶级属性,也有民族属性、宗教属性、性别(性向)属性,甚至如东马两邦,有地域属性。故此,他/她面对的身份认同,遭遇的社会歧视,面对的社会压迫,或者说包括享有的社会特权,其实都是多面向的。
好比一个人,一个女人,一个穆斯林女人,一个在一夫多妻制下“共夫”的女人,一个家庭经济拮据的女人,一个在马来甘榜不具备现代化教育所赋予白领阶级谋生技能的女人,你说,她活在当今的大马所面对的多种压迫和剥削,独尊左翼的阶级斗争理论,可以提供全面的分析和答案吗?
一个人,一个男人,一个出自基督教传统家庭背景的男人,一个同性恋男人,一个华小毕业,有独中文凭,放洋留学的男性中产阶级,但经济状况却逐步向下流动的大都会工薪管理人员,请问,他在国阵统治下的马来西亚,难道只面对单一的压迫和歧视?
故此,行动党作为“进步政治”(progressive politics),它要代表被压迫、被歧视、被剥削的马来西亚人,就必须认识到国阵这股保守的统治力量,从阶级、民族、文化、宗教、性别各个面向都是压迫者和剥削者。
然而,多元的大马,历经国阵60年的种族威权统治,已沦为一个严重分化的社会。伊斯兰原教旨的崛起,又成为新添加的反动势力,让穆斯林和非穆斯林,面对多一重的社会压迫。
恕我直言,行动党近年来因为“政治正确”,为开拓“选举蓝海”、“爱马来人”以及“不要让马来人感到不安”的思路,隐隐约约地盘旋在某些党高层的脑海裡,以致逐渐将政治工作的重点,转移到“争取马来人的支持”,而非“争取被压迫马来西亚人的支持”。
在我看来,马来人不是铁板一块,应该按社会属性,区别对待。
首先,我们在招收马来党员时,切记要重质而非重量,更不能“凡马必收”。马来人有进步的、中庸的、开明的,具现代化脑袋的,甚至是激进的,这些才是我们要招收和培养的对象(未来议员)。那些属民族保守的、政治投机的、宗教反动的、敌营跳槽的,一定要审慎审核,不然后患无穷。
再则,行动党的支持力量,主要是“被压迫的马来西亚人”,这尤以“民族压迫”和“文化压迫”最为显著。所以非马来老百姓除了面对马来老百姓在日常生活中所面对同样的阶级剥削外,前者还多受一层民族压迫和文化歧视的苦难。故此,行动党不能将非马来社会所面对的多种压迫问题,为顾全“争取马来人支持”这个大局(big picture)而淡化处理。
第三,行动党应该按自己的“原我正面形象”在多元的社会裡大展拳脚,而非因顾及巫统在马来社会所塑造的“假我扭曲形象”而绑手绑脚。我们是清廉的,不会因为巫统污衊“林冠英买便宜算贪污”而受累。我们是信仰多元世俗价值的,不要因为伊斯兰党和巫统的反动教条而害怕马来人误解我们。我们是主张民族平等的,不要因为“爱马来人”,怕“引起马来人的不安”而搁置我们“马来西亚人的马来西亚”之鲜明旗帜。火箭原本就是1965年马新分家的历史产物,不要因为马来人害怕李光耀而在处理党史时蓄意遮蔽民主行动党和人民行动党的历史渊源。还有,火箭的第一任秘书长蒂凡纳曾是新加坡总统,这是事实,也是荣耀,无需害怕马来人知道。
第四,我们在政治战略上当重视巫统,但在选举战术上不能忽视国阵华基成员党。近期有中央领袖表示,行动党今后的主要敌人是巫统,不必在乎马华民政,恕我不能苟同有关分析。马华民政虽然在505后大败,但并未彻底崩盘,它们在华社传统的商会、宗乡团、神庙、地方组织、报社都还有桩脚,华校董事局也都是他们的势力范围,力量发展大到甚至可以攻陷董教总,所以行动党绝不能等閒视之。再则,我们505中选的新科议员,包括马来和印裔议员,也有地方服务记录欠佳,口碑很差的州级领袖,这都是我们的软肋。最为关键的是,行动党出战的选区,主要还是面对马华民政和人联党。好比在柔佛州,除了林吉祥硬撼巫统,其他候选人主要还是对垒马华。所以,华社面对的议题,非马来人面对的多重压迫,我们都要积极应对,否则下场就是“安顺补选”扩大化的悲剧。
如果我们真的认为巫统才是火箭敌人,那麽我们在马来乡镇有否配置“软实力”佔据回教堂?我们在马来公务员系统有多少统战人脉?我们是否准备由马来同胞担任秘书长一职?我们是否准备修改党章,在各个党组织设“宗教司局”,然后再向希望联盟的友党争取更多马来选区上阵,和巫统全面开打?
很显然,上述的假设是不存在的,因为没有社会客观条件作为战略和战术部署的基础。尤其在明年,国会通过新的选区划分后,大马的政治版图基本是在“红海竞争”,即“行动党的红海”和“巫统的红海”,彼此间没多少交叉的“蓝海”可以再被对手开拓。
纵观50年走过的风雨路,我建议行动党今后应该定位在捍卫马来西亚“宪政世俗”和“多元民主主义”的进步政治。基于种族比例的结构性制约,加上民族和宗教压迫的多重性矛盾,行动党的选举,不可能奢望“红蓝通吃”,欧洲兄弟党曾经有尝试要设“左右通吃”的“全民党”(catch all party)定位,但最终这个路线被证明走不通,不仅让自己的传统支持者离散,也助长了极右翼民粹主义的抬头,顾此失彼,得不偿失。
“政治正确”走过了头,真理也会变成谬误。
实事求是,脚踏实地,积极耕耘,固本培元。我就送给行动党人这16个字。
democratic socialism 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Conservatives and Liberals | Lee Yee
In the 1960s and 1970s, the American Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the European movement were in the rage. At that time I was still young, and saw that in Western ideologies there were the liberals and the radicals. The middle-aged and older people were mostly liberals, and young people were mostly radicals. Nobody called themselves conservative at that time. It was as if there was a consensus that society should reform, that being conservative means not progressive. It was not until 1979 and 1981 when Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Reagan came to power and implemented conservative policies, succeeded, before the British and American politics went back to being traditional. However, the yearning for equality brought about by these civil movements has since become the mainstream driving ideology and consciousness in Western academics and media.
In the United States' two parties, the Republicans are generally considered conservatives, and the Democrats are liberals. Of course, there is mutual influence and infiltration into each and among each other. There are no generally accepted standard definitions for liberalism and conservatism, for they reflect socio-ideological trends and political practices of politicians.
Liberalism basically has four pillars: one, it recognizes that there are unavoidable conflicts of interest and beliefs in society; two, distrust of power; three, that people are progressive, and subjectively promotes the progress of human civilization; four, regardless of people’s ideology, identity, race, gender, or sexual orientation, they should be respected and accepted for their diversity, minorities are tolerated, and equality is pursued.
Conservatism is by no means an antonym to the pursuit of freedom. Both Mrs. Thatcher and Reagan are the most resolute guardians of freedom; conservatism does not deny power, but emphasizes that power must be monitored, checked and balanced.
In terms of welfare policies, liberalism pursues equality, protects minority rights, protects disadvantaged groups, and promotes and enhances social welfare. Since the increase in welfare would come from government spending, therefore there have to be tax increases. It is not like conservatism disregard the disadvantaged groups, but rather, it believes that there can be no true equality except before God and a fair court. It must first recognize the various differences and groups in people, and the pursuit of equality regardless of differences will only create new inequalities. If society eventually moves towards the equal distribution in socialism, people will move towards the path of slavery. Conservatism does not oppose welfare, but rather, it believes that charitable organizations, churches, civic organizations, or foundations should help the weak and helpless in society. The government ought to provide only policy assistance from the side, because if the government is to lead welfare, it will lead to excessive governance and intervention, and the price to pay will be an increase in taxation, leading to inflation. One of the founding spirits of the United States is that everyone is self-reliant. For those with the ability to make their own living to rely on government welfare for a prolonged period will actually make people live a life without self-esteem.
Liberalism seeks equal distribution from anti-discrimination, anti-difference, and equal opportunity, which is a road towards socialism. Conservatism does not seek rapid progress,; it believes that customs, conventions, and continuity should be followed. Ancient customs allow people to live together in harmony; those who destroy customs can destroy beyond what they want to destroy. The Cultural Revolution revolutionized the fate of culture. Conservatives also do not oppose social progress, but progress will not fall from the sky. If certain parts of society are progressing, other parts usually are declining. A healthy society must be both “enduring” and “developing”. For society to sustain endurance for a long time, there must be lasting faith. If that cannot last, the root source of righteousness will collapse.
In order not to interfere with people’s freedom, conservatism advocates small government, deregulation, tax reduction, in an attempt to create an environment conducive to the operation of private enterprises. Before Reagan was elected, both society and the economy were in difficult situations. The Americans hoped that Reagan could save the economy when he came to power, but in his inauguration speech, he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Loosening up, reducing taxes, and adopting inaction, Reagan rejuvenated the U.S. economy.
Despite advocating for small governments, successive Republican governments, from Reagan to Bush to Trump, have increased military spending and maintained a strong military power; the Democratic Party’s Obama, on the other hand, wanted to be tolerant of totalitarian countries and cut military spending. Reagan developed a space war plan, and Trump developed the space army, because they believe that neither democracy or totalitarianism is people’s choice between different systems, but between people’s choice or the system imposed upon them by those in power; it is the difference between righteousness and evil, no middle ground, no moral relativism. Goodness must become the strong one, or else evil fascism will encroach, control, and ultimately defeat you.
democratic socialism 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
democratic socialism 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
democratic socialism 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
democratic socialism 在 What is Democratic Socialism? 的相關結果
The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 90,000 members. We believe that working people should ... ... <看更多>
democratic socialism 在 The Difference Between a 'Socialist' and a 'Democratic Socialist' 的相關結果
Democratic socialists also believe strongly in democracy and democratic principles. They are by no means proponents of authoritarian government ... ... <看更多>
democratic socialism 在 Social democracy - Wikipedia 的相關結果
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy. As a policy regime, ... ... <看更多>