Who are you calling a Leninist?
The label of ‘Leninist’ is freely and regularly hurled at the KMT by its detractors. A Google search reveals for ‘Lenist’ and ‘KMT’ yields over 18,000 hits, with pseudo-scholar and rabid Taiwan Independence supporter Jerome F. Keating at the top of the list. Poorly-informed but perhaps well-intentioned commentators have picked up on the phrase, and happily continue connecting the KMT with the evils of the Soviet empire along with liberal sprinklings of ‘fascism’ to get just the right shade of mud.
It is difficult to find scholarly works that agree with this perspective. More professional assessments, such as this one at the Japan Policy Research Institute, note that the KMT is only Leninist in its political structure, like its counterpart the DPP- the pot truly calls the kettle black:
the KMT is not, nor was it ever, Leninist or even truly socialist in ideology. Politically, the KMT never endorsed "the principle of proletarian dictatorship or the monopoly of political power by a communist party.
According to Bertram D. Wolfe, Leninist parties had three elements: belief in the myth of Marxism, an authoritarian center with a dominant leader, and total party dominance over personal matters. We can dismiss the first requirement out of hand - about the only Marxist thing the KMT ever did was land reform. Granted, the KMT was dominated by the reclusive 蔣中正 Jiang Zhong-Zhen (Chiang Kai- Shek) and the progressive 蔣經國 Chiang Ching-Kuo, but there was no party line beyond the 3 Principles of the People, and never to the extent of Mao or Lenin. Third, Leninist parties control every aspect of members’ lives, something which the KMT never even tried to do. Those who complain about the ‘total’ domination of the ‘Leninist’ KMT under martial law should look to Mainland China, North Korea, Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia for a taste of what real domination looks like. Such consistent, planned horrors never happened in Taiwan outside of the provoked military response of 2/28.
So, are all of these commentators discerning enough to be describing only the KMT’s political structure every time they put the word ‘Leninist’ in front of the KMT? I seriously doubt that, otherwise we’d be hearing all about the Leninist DPP.
With thanks to Linda Chao.
It is difficult to find scholarly works that agree with this perspective. More professional assessments, such as this one at the Japan Policy Research Institute, note that the KMT is only Leninist in its political structure, like its counterpart the DPP- the pot truly calls the kettle black:
the KMT is not, nor was it ever, Leninist or even truly socialist in ideology. Politically, the KMT never endorsed "the principle of proletarian dictatorship or the monopoly of political power by a communist party.
According to Bertram D. Wolfe, Leninist parties had three elements: belief in the myth of Marxism, an authoritarian center with a dominant leader, and total party dominance over personal matters. We can dismiss the first requirement out of hand - about the only Marxist thing the KMT ever did was land reform. Granted, the KMT was dominated by the reclusive 蔣中正 Jiang Zhong-Zhen (Chiang Kai- Shek) and the progressive 蔣經國 Chiang Ching-Kuo, but there was no party line beyond the 3 Principles of the People, and never to the extent of Mao or Lenin. Third, Leninist parties control every aspect of members’ lives, something which the KMT never even tried to do. Those who complain about the ‘total’ domination of the ‘Leninist’ KMT under martial law should look to Mainland China, North Korea, Cuba, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia for a taste of what real domination looks like. Such consistent, planned horrors never happened in Taiwan outside of the provoked military response of 2/28.
So, are all of these commentators discerning enough to be describing only the KMT’s political structure every time they put the word ‘Leninist’ in front of the KMT? I seriously doubt that, otherwise we’d be hearing all about the Leninist DPP.
With thanks to Linda Chao.
posted by Taiwan's Other Side at 11:30 PM
13 Comments:
You're so dumb. You're saying some Leninist style parties were stronger in their oppression than others. Okay then. That doesn't justify killing maybe just tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands.
On Chinese--what if Taiwanese learned English or Japanese instead? They'd have a hell of a lot more developed languages, at least for the science and tech heavy society of today. You never consider the full possibilities. What if they didn't kick out Japanese experts, what would the contribution to Taiwan's economy and culture be today?
You are just a big racist that loves all things Chinese. Too bad you're so Anglicized that you wouldn't count as Chinese to most Chinese anyways.
P.S., because I know you will. I did not say Japan was justified in invading China or committing the atrocities they did. I said no such thing.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Leninist political structure is not the same thing as ideologically-based terror. The DPP is just as 'Leninist' as the KMT, and yet escapes the label.
What if? Your possibilities would require the Japanese to have not lost WW2 (ever hear of the Rape of Nanjing - nice friends) or for the US to have claimed Taiwan, an island that it really didn't and still doesn't care about. I'd consider your possibilities if they were possible.
How, pray tell, would you have kept those Japanese experts in Taiwan? You wouldn't, perhaps, have killed tens of thousands of KMT soldiers to achieve Taiwanese independence? You at least are justifying the reasoning for the 2/28 military response, and at worst are being hypocritical.
Now, let me get this straight. When I was Chinese I was brainwashed, and now I'm a racist boot-licker because I'm white? I think you should take a look in the mirror and consider your own attitude toward the people of Taiwan.
Oh, and the 'Chinese' and 'Taiwanese' are from the same race. I guess I must love everyone :)
What is your basis for calling Jerome Keating a 'pseudo scholar?' Did you say this because he supports Taiwanese independence or are his academic credentials suspect? Just curious.
Hi bigell, nice picture!
Although I respect Keating's political stance, I call him a 'pseudo scholar' because of the manner in which he presents them. His work is published on TaiwanHo! and taiwandc.com and is presented as 'historical', and his web site and writing maintain the same illusion. Just try a Google search on "Taiwan history' and see what hit #1 is.
However, his work shows little if any attempt to be balanced, and although he does present historical information, he is extremely selective. I don't approve of this sort of deception, intentional or not.
A "Leninist" party is one in which the party organization has total control over society, and is interpenetrated it with it. Emphasis is on the Party as authority, the Leader principle, indocrination of the young, etc. The KMT is most certainly a right-wing Leninist party. Marxism is a reference to political philosophy, Leninism to political organization.
The DPP is not Leninist for it lacks most of the accouterments of Leninism -- it doesn't have a pervasive doctrine to indoctrinate the young, it does not have the leader principle, the party is not dominant over society and government, etc, etc, etc. And of course, it doesn't have the 40 year long killing spree of the KMT either.
It is difficult to find scholarly works that agree with this perspective.
ROFL. TOS, your reading on Taiwan is far too selective to make claims like this. You can find lots of stuff written discussing this, although the word "Leninist" is seldom used because it has such negative connotations in English, and because much of what was written on Taiwan was written in the martial law days, when commentators did not honestly speak on Taiwan's politics. I also like the way you use a source that admits that, yes, the KMT is Leninist in its political structure. That's all anyone ever claimed, TOS.
You then go on to claim that the KMT was never "leninist" because it was never Communist." Nobody is claiming that the KMT was Communist. Only that its organization and tranmission of ideology and power in society were Leninist in structure. No more silly strawmen like this one, TOS.
Once again, in case anyone thinks TOS is saying something intelligent here, references to the KMT's Leninist nature are references only to its pervasive structure and desire for control and shaping of the minds of the people in its society. That the KMT was never as bad as the North Koreans or the Nazis does not mean that it is not Leninist structure at heart. Your personal core identity, that of "mainlander," is a creation of these Leninist policies, TOS.
Michael
"A "Leninist" party is one in which the party organization has total control over society, and is interpenetrated it with it."
Okay, assuming that your personal definition is on target, you're still wrong. 'Total control of society'? The KMT never had this, and never tried. It simply tried to co-opt successful locals and bring them into its ranks. Martial law did not encompass 'total control'. If the KMT had total control, then you must concede that it supported the DPP by allowing to form under its control. 'Interpenetrated'? If Taiwan's society was so interpenetrated by mainlanders, why does the majority still speak Taiwanese? There were no cultural revolutions or patterns of ethnic purging, because the KMT wasn't interested in that sort of thing - that's what the Communists were doing.
"your reading on Taiwan is far too selective to make claims like this. You can find lots of stuff..."
Umm where? How about some direct sources? Or is it too difficult to think of any
" Your personal core identity, that of "mainlander," is a creation of these Leninist policies, TOS."
For the second time on this page, I am NOT CHINESE. What do you need, a big picture on the index page? I used to be as white as Wonder Bread, true and true, well-educated, I'm American, and I DO support the KMT. And I'm not alone.
I have to agree with Michael Turton. Just from an academic point of view, Leninism refers to the organizational style. It is the idea that the 'vanguard' party dominates the society, and interpenetrates it as Michael explained. FYI, my academic advisor, Bruce Dickson, wrote a book called "Democratization in China and Taiwan, The Adaptability of Leninist Parties." He's a serious scholar and pretty well-known.
There's always difference in degree, of course, but in your definition of 'interpenetration', the CCP never interpenetrated the society, either. Under CKS, there was no real opposing parties, no real elections; there was super limited freedom of press. There's plenty of evidence which shows that there were a LOT of misconducts of justice before and after 2/28. That is enough to 'interpenetrate' the society. You really think that the political institution has nothing to do with its style of domination?
If you want to stick to 'Marxism' as an intrinsic element of Leninism (it is really awkward to debate whether the KMT was/was not Communist in the first place: what was the whole civil war about?), we can call it "fascism". "State corporatism" and "administered mass organization" are good euphemisms if you can't accept the word fascism either.
If you really don't notice remnants of the KMT's suppression of Taiwanese culture while you live in Taiwan, you probably have super selected hearing and viewing. Ya, prohibiting Taiwanese at school is not suppression, huh?
I personally think you can make much better arguments for supporting the current KMT. I worked for the KMT for a while, actually. But it is not a good strategy to claim "the KMT wasn't Leninist" if you want other people to take your arguments seriously.
Sayaka, thanks for the thought you put into your comments. I beg to disagree, however, and I think you may be missing the broader point that the academic label is thrown around for very emotional ends.
Limited opposition does not define a Leninist party, and as for repression you say structure, I say historical circumstances and nation-building.
other side, I'm afraid Sayaka is correct on this one. Her response is directed, I think, and my own is also, simply to your claims in the posting:
"It is difficult to find scholarly works that agree with this perspective. More professional assessments, such as this one at the Japan Policy Research Institute, note that the KMT is only Leninist in its political structure, like its counterpart the DPP- the pot truly calls the kettle black:
the KMT is not, nor was it ever, Leninist or even truly socialist in ideology. Politically, the KMT never endorsed "the principle of proletarian dictatorship or the monopoly of political power by a communist party."
These are, alas, both incorrect. It is in fact a very established and quite mainstream approach to interpret the KMT as a Leninist party, and the structure of its power during its decades of rule are classic Leninist in many of its aspects.
Your posting, and especially its derisive tone, leave the impression that there is some absurdity to the accusation on the part of KMT opponents. While you are quite correct in pointing out that the accusation is emotional and could well point out that it has very negative connotations, the general drive of your posting is just not right. On the contrary, "The KMT has, and has always been, Leninist" - indeed anyone who has studied the origins and development of the party knows this.
It is certainly not unusual for those less familiar with the historical context behind KMT's history to make this mistake though, so this is not by any means a serious issue. As your instincts tell you, there is also a perfectly legitimate use of the word Leninist which ties its object much closer to many of the other aspects of Lenin's ideology.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the accusation against the KMT, emotional or not, is on solid ground. This of course, doesn't make it very productive in political debate, and Sayaka might agree, you could well critique the DPP for its growing nationalism in contrast to the ironically growing cosmopolitanism of the "nationalist" and once distinctly fascist KMT party. Our points are simply that your claims in this specific case are regrettably off the mark.
Muninn, I beg to (mostly) disagree.
First, if it is an established and mainstream approach, I'd appreciate some pointers to those actual works. Being told I'm wrong doesn't prove it. I admit that that there may be some similarities, but that in itself doesn't convince me enough to slap the label on. Much of my derisiveness comes from the frustration simply being labeled as wrong.
That brings me to my second point, which even if it is an established approach, that doesn't make it appropriate or even correct. I am absolutely shocked by the vast gulfs between the perspectives and understanding of the Chinese and those of Westerners. This blog hopes to address some of those differences, and hence questions the 'established' ideas about Taiwan and China in the hopes of presenting a more accurate picture.
Other Side, you are such a Homo.
BTW, adapting English as the primary language for Taiwanese is an excellent idea. Chinese is such a gay language. I don't believe I actually waste my early youth to learn this useless trash.
Iron_Jackal_TW
Just stumbled across your blog while doing research. Actually there are quite a number of Taiwan scholars, e.g. Thomas Gold (1986) , Chu Yun-han (1992), Wu Nai-te (1989), Ch'en Ming-t'ung (1995), who identify the KMT as a Leninist party and the KMT as a repressive regime that had extended Leninist lines of organisation throughout all segments of the military, party, and society during the 1950s and 60's. Few scholars, if any, ever claim that the KMT was 'Marxist', but they do agree that it had a 'Leninist' style of authoritarian rule. Whether or not the KMT was as repressive as the other regimes you mentioned is of course open to interpretation (one could also argue that the KMT regime was more repressive than the Polish People's Republic, but of course that is highly subjective). Moreover, just because the KMT was not as repressive as some communist regimes does not prove that it was not Leninist. The Polish People's Republic, by all measures, was less encompassing than the Soviet Union, but it was a Leninist regime ruled by state terror as well (Osa 2003). You also neglect to mention that Taiwan was ruled under four decades of emergency decrees (martial law and Temporary Provisions during the Communist Rebellion) and military rule under the command of the TGC and an extensive internal security apparatus--a level of authoritarianism that few communist regimes had ever achieved (in communist Poland, for instance, martial law was imposed in 1981 but lifted following Solidarnosc's crackdown).
I won't even go into your argument concerning 'pseudo-scholarship', but suffice it to say there are a large number of academic apologists (Ramon Myers being one of them) who would claim that Taiwanese society enjoyed substantial individual freedoms, political rights, and civil liberties under the 'benevolent dictatorship' of CKS and CCK.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home