Taiwanese Communist Party - Organization and Ideology

Organization and Ideology

Organizationally the 1928 charter subjected the Taiwanese Communists to the Japanese party. Politically it described the "Taiwanese nation" (Taiwan Minzu) as those descendants of Koxinga's army and later settlers from southeastern China. Both Koxinga and the Manchu rulers established a feudal system, which in its view began to disintegrate with the introduction of 19th century Western capital into the island. The Republic of Formosa represented a revolutionary movement of feudal landowners, merchants and radical patriots, but one doomed to failure given the immaturity of the native capitalist class. It saw Taiwan's capitalism as utterly dependent upon its Japanese counterpart. The proletariat revolution would be driven by the "contradiction" between the dominant Japanese capital and the native (and poorly developed) capital and rural feudalistic elements. The goal of the party was to unite the workers and the peasants. Toward that goal the party would use the left-leaning Taiwanese Cultural Association as a platform and legal front, as well as expose the "lies" of the Taiwanese People's Party, which had been moving toward the left under Chiang Wei-shui's leadership.

Although Japanese Communists had been entrusted with the task of guiding the Taiwanese branch, massive repression in Japan proper, starting in 1928, left the Taiwanese adrift. Some leftist students were also forced to return to Taiwan. Leadership fell to Hsieh Hsüeh-hung to re-organize in light of the development.

Read more about this topic:  Taiwanese Communist Party

Famous quotes containing the words organization and/or ideology:

    When a man’s partner’s killed, he’s supposed to do something about it. It doesn’t make any difference what you thought of him, he was your partner and you’re supposed to do something about it. As it happens, we’re in the detective business; well, when one of your organization gets killed, it’s, it’s bad business to let the killer get away with it. Bad all around. Bad for every detective everywhere.
    John Huston (1906–1987)

    Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation.... The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too. Everything ideological possesses semiotic value.
    —V.N. (Valintin Nikolaevic)