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2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過83萬的網紅serpentza,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Years of living in China have shown me that life in China is actually significantly more free and relaxed than in other Western countries that I've li...
「socialism countries」的推薦目錄:
- 關於socialism countries 在 范疇文集 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於socialism countries 在 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於socialism countries 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於socialism countries 在 serpentza Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於socialism countries 在 James Hong Official 項明生 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於socialism countries 在 Socialist Systems in Action 的評價
- 關於socialism countries 在 Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference? - YouTube 的評價
socialism countries 在 Facebook 的精選貼文
《兒子說想跟我聊聊北韓》
連著好幾晚,躺在我右側的女兒吵著我唸《My Weird School》這套故事書給她聽;兒子則吵著要跟我聊「北韓」話題。
我實在分身乏術,心想如果他跟我談的是德國納粹種族主義(Nazis )(Holocaust),我還可以推薦他先閱讀幾本青少年讀物如《The Diary of Anne Frank》《The Boy in the Striped Pajamas》《Number the Stars 》暫且打發。
怎奈關於「北韓」,我唯獨想到的作品竟只有那部瘋迷主婦圈的韓劇《愛的迫降》。家庭主婦不知北韓人間疾苦,滿腦子想到的只有玄彬與孫藝珍在於北韓那段令人揪心的浪漫戀情👩❤️👨。
等女兒入睡後,我走進兒子的房間,他正拿著Kindle閱讀,
『來吧!我們來聊聊北韓!』我鑽進他被窩。
他先跟我分享了幾部關於北韓的Youtube短片,直呼這國家的存在太不可思議,令他困惑。
其實我更困惑,這議題是如此龐大高深。要先了解人類社會的演進,要牽扯到封建走向資本主義的革命歷程,再進階到社會主義,共產主義。再談點馬克思主義及柏拉圖哲學裡的理想國及烏托邦。
其實我知道的也都只是雞皮蒜毛,隨便胡湊瞎掰,想證明媽媽也是有讀過萬卷書。
兒子聽得一頭霧水一臉茫然,他很難理解我話中的意思,因為我百分之八十都是用中文亂掰。
但要用英文去談馬克思主義,天哪!我甚連這單字都不知道怎麼拼?
只不過是想跟兒子聊個天,竟得先孤身深夜裡寒窗苦讀,除了重頭搞清楚人類社會歷史的來龍去脈外,還得查詢所有重要英文單字。
這母職怎麼會高深莫測到我無法招架😔。
為了加強兒子的深刻思考,我只先在紙上列出的幾個重點單字及問題,再請兒子自己Google找出答案,並與我討論。
🤓這一年來,我跟兒子之間若有難以溝通的問題,不論情感上、想法上、知識上,我都會列出問句,請他紙上答覆。他很喜歡用這樣的方式與我交換想法。
🥺好想念那段親子時光,只需手裡捧著隨便一本繪本,開嗓亂唸,便能把他們逗得笑呵呵,哄得傻楞楞啊!
若您的孩子恰巧對於這主題有興趣的,也可以參考。
---------------------------------------------------------
-
Definition:
Feudalism→ Capitalism → Socialism / Communism / Marxism (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)
封建主義→資本主義→社會主義/共產主義/馬克思主義(卡爾.馬克思及弗里德里希·恩格斯)
The Republic by Plato (柏拉圖之理想國)
- What countries have been socialist? (那些國家曾經是社會主義?)
- What countries still have socialism? (現在仍存在社會主義的國家為何?)
- What are the characteristics of a socialism?(社會主義國家主要特色有哪些?)
- Why does Socialism fail ?(為什麼社會主義失敗?)
- We once read the book《The Giver》together. Is there anything that resembles Socialism in this book?(我們曾一起閱讀過《The Giver》這本書,書裏頭有那些類似社會主義的地方?)
- What are the characteristics of capitalism?(資本主義的主要特色為何?)
- Could you tell me the pros and cons of capitalism?(你能告訴我資本主義的優缺點嗎?)
- Do you think American capitalism is good for the 2020s? (你認為資本主義對美國未來的近十年是正向的嗎?)
- How can capitalism be improved?(資本主義該如何改善?)
- Are Nordic countries socialist or capitalist?(北歐五國是社會主義還是資本主義?)
- Could you share me more about North Korea in detail?(你可以更詳盡再分享多些你對於北韓的看法嗎?)
.
.
#青少年安德烈
socialism countries 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳解答
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.
socialism countries 在 serpentza Youtube 的最佳貼文
Years of living in China have shown me that life in China is actually significantly more free and relaxed than in other Western countries that I've lived in and visited. However this freedom does come at a huge cost!
Nightclub scenes kindly provided by Kodak from IRG:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZO2fd3bVGSXmYuCfQRjNNg
Support me on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za
My other channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/advchina
Music used: Virtual Vice - E. Calderone
Artist's bandcamp: https://new-world.bandcamp.com/album/off-duty
socialism countries 在 James Hong Official 項明生 Youtube 的最讚貼文
在古巴入住大使女兒的民宿, 做一晚的加勒比海孤兒;在《老人與海》的酒吧, 和海明威對飲他最愛的Mojito;呼吸夏灣拿的空氣, 還有Buena Vista Social Club的餘音裊裊!
項明生最近著作, 《十日敢動系列: 墨西哥、古巴》, 這是一個非一般的勇敢旅程──利用十日大假, 深入體驗新大陸四千年來的五大文明、六個世遺、兩種社會制度的文化古蹟、天文地理、音樂文學、政治民生、語言宗教、人文藝術、建築飲食等。版稅收益捐贈慈善機構【小母牛】。
古巴政府代表Elizabeth說: 「項明生的著作《十日敢動假期: 墨西哥、古巴》, 必定能讓更多朋友認識 "安的列斯羣島最大的島嶼", 那 "真正的古巴"!」
Cuba is the only island of Socialism on this globe. There are plenty of heroes, including Che Guevara, Ernest Hemingway, Buena Vista Social Club, etc. James Hong new work "10 stunning days in Mexico & Cuba" is the first Chinese travelogue on these two amazing countries.
socialism countries 在 Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference? - YouTube 的推薦與評價
CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM & COMMUNISM EXPLAINED SIMPLY · These Are The Last Five Communist Countries · POLITICAL THEORY - Karl Marx · The Absurdity of ... ... <看更多>
socialism countries 在 Socialist Systems in Action 的推薦與評價
Command Socialism in the Soviet Union. Stalin began by seizing virtually all remaining privately-owned capital and natural resources in the country. ... <看更多>