The DPP Protest March and Its Ersatz Leftist Rhetoric

The DPP Protest March and Its Ersatz Leftist Rhetoric
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 24, 2010

On Saturday the DPP will kick off its "Great Anti-ECFA Protest March." The theme of its protest march will be "The KMT and CCP are singing a duet. The rich and the poor are locked in a class struggle." Of the two, the charge that "The KMT and CCP are singing a duet" is old hat. But the allegation that "The rich and the poor are locked in a class struggle" is new for the DPP.
The DPP alleges that "The rich and the poor and locked in a class struggle." It would have the public believe that ECFA is beneficial to huge conglomerates, but not to "weaker industries," to agriculture, or to the lumpen proletariat.

Actually this line of argument is nothing new. Direct flights between Songshan Airport and Hongqiao Airport are transforming Songshan Airport into a business airport. The DPP has alleged that business airports are beneficial only to the wealthy, but not to ordinary members of the public. Thirty years ago it was the highway system. At the time the "dang wai" movement alleged that the highway system was beneficial only to the wealthy, not the ordinary citizen.

ECFA will have different impacts on different industries. Some favorable, some unfavorable. At the macro level, one must weigh the benefits against the deficits. At the micro level, impacted industries must be protected. In other words, one must simultaneously liberalize and protect. One must not focus solely on one's political agenda, demagoguing the issue by inciting rich vs. poor class struggle. Unfortunately the "dang wai" movement and the DPP have relentlessly turned the highway system, commercial airports, and ECFA into grist for the political mill.

In fact, the DPP is not a class-based political party. Nor is it a left-wing political party. Its rich vs. poor rhetoric is merely a tool in its political struggle. The clearest example is the year 2000. Before the Chen administration assumed power, various social movements within the DPP were highly active. But soon after the DPP assumed power, these social movements withered on the vine. Collusion between the Chen regime and Big Business created a major stink. Now that the DPP has been forced out of office, these fringe groups have gradually been revived. As we can see, the DPP's proletarian and leftist coloration is mere opportunistic posturing, devoid of substance or meaning.

In fact, the DPP is one of the few political parties among the world's emerging democracies without any trace of anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist political coloration. The reason is the Democratic Progressive Party and the "dang wai" movement have their roots among wealthy "huang min" (Subjects of the Japanese Emperor), land owners, and foreign missionaries. That is why the DPP lacks an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist mindset. That is why the DPP's "proletariat" and "leftist" posturing does not come naturally, but is mere political posturing.

ECFA must simultaneously liberalize and protect. It must seek liberalization for key industries. It must seek protection for weaker industries. Tsai Ing-wen was once involved in WTO negotiations. She knows this perfectly well. So does the Democratic Progressive Party, which oversaw its signing. Yet in order to demagogue the ECFA controversy, the DPP is shouting slogans such as "The KMT and the CCP are singing a duet" and "The rich and the poor are locked in a class struggle." It is linking "opposition to [mainland] China" with "opposition to the rich." This is no different from allegations that commercial airports and the highway system are beneficial only to the rich. It has merely raised the ante.

The ECFA early harvest list has yet to be made public. Yet the DPP is already screaming "The government failed to demand what it should have demanded. It failed to defend what it should have defended." It is clearly shooting first and asking questions later. No matter what the issue, it is determined to apply this same rote formula. The DPP is not interested in a rational policy debate. It is waging a political war.

In the past, the DPP demagogued the issue of "old age allowances" and "elderly farmers allowances." But these were merely local issues. Now the DPP is turning ECFA into a class struggle between conglomerates and the underprivileged. It is equating the interests of conglomerates with "pandering to [mainland] China." It is equating "opposition to the rich" with "opposition to [mainland] China." It is equating "hatred of the rich" with "hatred of [mainland] China." Isn't such political demagoguery just a wee bit excessive? Every time the DPP wants a baby, it advocates taking a knife and cutting the baby out of the mother's womb.

The DPP is not a left-wing political party. It is merely an "ersatz leftist" or "pseudo-leftist" political party. The ECFA controversy is the first time the DPP has linked "opposition to the rich" with "opposition to [mainland] China" and "hatred of the rich" with "hatred of [mainland] China." It is playing upon the resentment felt by weaker industries and the insecurity felt by disadvantaged groups. The DPP's demagoguery is not helping the public balance liberalization with protection. It is merely enabling the DPP to use ECFA to divide the rich and the poor, the cities from the countryside, and the nation as a whole.

Tsai Ing-wen comes from a wealthy family. Yet she has now become the most "leftist" chairman ever of the Democratic Progressive Party. Confronted with the impact of ECFA, she advocates "forsaking our economics first priorities" and "repudiating our export-oriented model." Is this "genuine leftism" or "ersatz leftism?" Is it a "alternative policy" for national governance? Or it is merely an agenda for partisan political struggle?

民進黨遊行與「假左」路線
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.06.24 02:47 am

民進黨周六發動「反ＥＣＦＡ大遊行」，主調是「國共唱和，貧富鬥爭」。其中，「國共唱和」已是老調，「貧富鬥爭」的操作則有後來居上之勢。

「貧富鬥爭」的主論述是：ＥＣＦＡ（兩岸經濟協議）只是對財團有利，卻對「弱勢產業」不利，對農業不利，對基層勞工不利。

其實，這種論述模式並無新義。日前「松山 ／虹橋」對飛，松山機場將朝「商務機場」轉型；民進黨也說，商務機場只是對有錢人有利，對社會大眾不利。更早的事例是三十多年前高速公路通車，當時的「黨外」也說，高速公路只利於「有錢人」，但對庶民不利。

ＥＣＦＡ對各種產業有不同影響，有利有不利。從宏觀角度看，應當考量是否「利大於弊」；從微觀角度看，對受到衝擊的產業，則應設法保護。也就是說，應當注重「開放」與「保護」的政策比例，而不宜只著眼於政治算計，動輒將之操作成貧富對立的階級鬥爭。但是，黨外及民進黨卻將高速公路、商務機場及ＥＣＦＡ，一律操作成貧富階級鬥爭。

民進黨其實不是一個階級政黨，也不是一個左翼政黨；它的貧富鬥爭論，只是政治鬥爭的補充。最顯著的例證是，在二○○○年陳水扁政府執政以前，民進黨種種社運組織的外圍團體皆十分活躍；及至二○○○年民進黨執政，這些社運團體竟紛告萎縮，扁政府的政商勾結卻反而臭不可聞；如今，民進黨又下野，這些外圍團體又漸活躍起來。可見，民進黨的階級色彩或「左」的表現，只是政治操作的工具，而非其內涵或本質。

其實，民進黨是世界新興民主國家中，極少數自始不具反帝及反資色彩的新興政黨之一。因為，民進黨及黨外的社會根源，是來自皇民、地主及外來教會的資產階級；所以在精神思維上不致反帝及反資。因而，民進黨的階級性及「左」的表現，不是出自內在，而只是政治操作的權謀而已。

ＥＣＦＡ必須注意「開放」與「保護」的政策比例，為關鍵產業爭「開放」，為弱勢產業爭「保護」。這一點，曾經參與ＷＴＯ談判的蔡英文，及主導簽署的民進黨皆深知熟悉。但是，民進黨如今卻以「國共唱和／貧富鬥爭」來操作ＥＣＦＡ的爭議，將「反中」與「反富」聯結，這與指商務機場與高速公路只利於「有錢人」並無不同，且是變本加厲。

ＥＣＦＡ的早收清單猶未公布，但民進黨已經宣示，將以「該要的要不到／該守的守不住」進行抗爭。這擺明的是「先射箭，再畫靶」，不論三七二十一，只要往這個「公式」裡頭套即可；這不是理性的政策辯論，而是政治鬥爭。

過去，民進黨亦曾運用「老人津貼」、「老農津貼」等題材，但皆只是「局部」的議題。如今民進黨將ＥＣＦＡ炒作成一個「財團vs.弱勢」的階級議題，又將財團利益與傾中聯結，於是把「反富」與「反中」、「仇富」與「仇中」混在一起；這樣的政治操作，會不會太超過？每到爭取嬰兒之時，民進黨皆是主張用刀分嬰的母親。

民進黨不是一個左翼政黨，而始終只是一個「假左」或「偽左」的政黨。ＥＣＦＡ的爭議，則是民進黨首次將「反富／反中」、「仇富／仇中」作為聯結操作；玩弄弱勢產業的相對剝奪感，煽動弱勢族群的不安全感；其效應不是協助國人共同面對ＥＣＦＡ「開放／保護」的兼籌並顧，而只是要利用ＥＣＦＡ來撕裂貧富，撕裂城鄉，撕裂國家。

蔡英文是富豪之女，如今她竟然成了民進黨有史以來最「左」的黨主席。面對ＥＣＦＡ的衝擊，她居然主張「放棄經濟掛帥／否定出口導向」。試問：這是「真左」，還是「假左」？是國家的「替代方案」，還是政黨的「鬥爭方案」？