Most people don’t even realise, Tianamen Square was about Free Speech, and keeping China communist (They were protesting China becoming more open to Capitalism).
The people being massacred - WERE THE COMMUNISTS AND UNIONISTS…
They weren’t pro-markets… They believed (as communist education teaches) that Capitalism would cause class divisions and greater poverty for the majority. The protestors wanted China to stay communist, just with more democratic rights and protections.
That’s also what most people in the USSR and Eastern Europe wanted - basically to have social systems with greater freedoms - but instead they got IMF shock treatment.
The Chinese government claimed that what the protesters wanted would make China have class divisions and greater poverty. I don’t know if that’s true there, but that is what happened in the USSR.
Most people also don’t know that the entire tankman saga happened as Chinese forces were LEAVING Tiananmen Square and he wasn’t run over. The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people. And this all happened outside the foreign press hotel in an area that had been largely blockaded during that time.
Where western reports were going out speaking of tons of violence in areas near the square.
Which tankman has always been a peculiar moment in history cause in context it very much comes off like it was possibly staged by the CCP, or at least the CCP thought it might work in their favor PR wise, but ends up getting used in a way that is suggestive of that moment being a moment of CCP violence against the innocent.
And of course the even larger context of what was being protested was never and still is not really contextualized.
What in the mental gymnastics is your comment meant to be?
Your edit comes across as, “Oops, looks like I was trying to rage against someone without realizing we agree; better edit to add a subtle retraction. Oh, and I’d better add a whataboutism out of nowhere too.”
It’s a bit of that… Arguing on the internet is just easy to fall into so sorry if you feel hard done by in my figuring out we’re agreeing.
I’m also spread a bit thin because I’ve put a lot of comments out under this post, as I have strong opinions on being anti-tankie and anti-communist under American Capitalist Fascism/Trumpism.
But you do understand it makes you and yours look ridiculous - and is thus counterproductive - when you can’t help yourself (due to your stated strong opinions) but to participate in such bad faith, right?
Between that and the suspicion I have that you were implying the massacres would be more acceptable if they weren’t pro-communist protestors and it’s just one more anecdote of tankies having bizarre and unconscionable stances.
Yeah I agree with the idea of a more democratic communist country. But meme is about how tankies suck chinese and Russian assholes with blind adherence.
Yes, and I doubt American Communism would be that way.
It’s often overlooked that Communism isn’t a singlular unbending set of rules or type of government - every single instance of Communism has come with its own modifications and differences.
I imagine American Communism (which is extraordinarily unlikely to ever come about) would involve Free Speech, the right to bear arms, and Religious freedoms.
Ideally it would retain a multi-party system, and be open to being voted out (with a smooth transition of government garanteed).
It would have totally new and American qualities to it - for better and for worse. That’s what history has shown to occur. Each Communism has been different. Vietnamese Communism isn’t like Chinese Communism isn’t like Russian Communism, and frankly the new versions tend to be better.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but I think communist societies do have thier own conceptions of democracy… It’s very complicated though (from what I can tell).
Having lived under Capitalism my whole life, I feel under cooked on this myself. I couldn’t tell you much other than I know the Chinese have the five year Plenary session, opposition parties within the communism party, and systems of local provential governments that compete on resolving social problems.
Vietnam has a shit load of unions.
So there’s mass participation in these systems… Maybe that’s part of why they’re still around. Idk… I have to plead ignorance on the topic.
To be fair parties themselves aren’t monoliths. I like Hu jintao’s politics a lot more than I like Xi pings. Factionalist abound. But as far I’ve seen with any communist state, they’ve always banned other parties defacto or dejure and they usually did that in the initial years of the state.
USSR, PRC, PRV, DPRK.
Having multiple parties allows for two important things: accountability and representation. Despite me disagreeing with someone’s politics I’d still want them to have some sort of representation. But it’s accountability that matters more to me.
The aforementioned governments do have accountability in whether the keys of power and people support them or not. But it’s a far less direct form than in an actual democracy and usually very proportionally disbalanced in the favor of the keys (ministers, army, or corporations).
Unions are good, but not enough in my opinion. But this is from my own rudimentary understanding of how it.
Most people don’t even realise, Tianamen Square was about Free Speech, and keeping China communist (They were protesting China becoming more open to Capitalism).
The people being massacred - WERE THE COMMUNISTS AND UNIONISTS…
They weren’t pro-markets… They believed (as communist education teaches) that Capitalism would cause class divisions and greater poverty for the majority. The protestors wanted China to stay communist, just with more democratic rights and protections.
That’s also what most people in the USSR and Eastern Europe wanted - basically to have social systems with greater freedoms - but instead they got IMF shock treatment.
The Chinese government claimed that what the protesters wanted would make China have class divisions and greater poverty. I don’t know if that’s true there, but that is what happened in the USSR.
Most people also don’t know that the entire tankman saga happened as Chinese forces were LEAVING Tiananmen Square and he wasn’t run over. The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people. And this all happened outside the foreign press hotel in an area that had been largely blockaded during that time.
Where western reports were going out speaking of tons of violence in areas near the square.
Which tankman has always been a peculiar moment in history cause in context it very much comes off like it was possibly staged by the CCP, or at least the CCP thought it might work in their favor PR wise, but ends up getting used in a way that is suggestive of that moment being a moment of CCP violence against the innocent.
And of course the even larger context of what was being protested was never and still is not really contextualized.
That’s an important thing to educate others on, but… so?
The problem is they massacred protestors, not what the protest was about.
If the people want to speak in support of communism, let them. If they want to speak in support of capitalism, let them.
Okay so they were protesting to get Free Speech, and to keep China communist.
You’re saying what they were protesting for (Free Speech and Communism) isn’t important…
…only Free Speech (one of the things they were protesting for) is important… Not Free Speech (one of the things they were protesting for).
A bit of anti-communist blindness is happening here. It’s really okay for Chinese communists to want a more democratic Communism.
[EDIT: On that much we are agreeing. I’m just also adding US pro-Capitalist massacres on too.]
What in the mental gymnastics is your comment meant to be?
Your edit comes across as, “Oops, looks like I was trying to rage against someone without realizing we agree; better edit to add a subtle retraction. Oh, and I’d better add a whataboutism out of nowhere too.”
It’s a bit of that… Arguing on the internet is just easy to fall into so sorry if you feel hard done by in my figuring out we’re agreeing.
I’m also spread a bit thin because I’ve put a lot of comments out under this post, as I have strong opinions on being anti-tankie and anti-communist under American Capitalist Fascism/Trumpism.
But you do understand it makes you and yours look ridiculous - and is thus counterproductive - when you can’t help yourself (due to your stated strong opinions) but to participate in such bad faith, right?
Between that and the suspicion I have that you were implying the massacres would be more acceptable if they weren’t pro-communist protestors and it’s just one more anecdote of tankies having bizarre and unconscionable stances.
Okay - I’m not a tankie. I’m not even a communist, and no I wasn’t saying that.
Your assumptions are your own.
Fair enough, but you do see that you’ve quacked like a duck here, right?
Especially in the context of a post that’s bound to draw tankies to run to the defense of fellow tankies, as you can see elsewhere in the comments.
Yeah I agree with the idea of a more democratic communist country. But meme is about how tankies suck chinese and Russian assholes with blind adherence.
Yes, and I doubt American Communism would be that way.
It’s often overlooked that Communism isn’t a singlular unbending set of rules or type of government - every single instance of Communism has come with its own modifications and differences.
I imagine American Communism (which is extraordinarily unlikely to ever come about) would involve Free Speech, the right to bear arms, and Religious freedoms.
Ideally it would retain a multi-party system, and be open to being voted out (with a smooth transition of government garanteed).
It would have totally new and American qualities to it - for better and for worse. That’s what history has shown to occur. Each Communism has been different. Vietnamese Communism isn’t like Chinese Communism isn’t like Russian Communism, and frankly the new versions tend to be better.
It seems like such an important and obvious forethought. I can’t imagine how any of these communist countries missed on that.
I keep thinking back to animal farm. The temptation of power must be very intoxicating.
Communism with American characteristics.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but I think communist societies do have thier own conceptions of democracy… It’s very complicated though (from what I can tell).
Having lived under Capitalism my whole life, I feel under cooked on this myself. I couldn’t tell you much other than I know the Chinese have the five year Plenary session, opposition parties within the communism party, and systems of local provential governments that compete on resolving social problems.
Vietnam has a shit load of unions.
So there’s mass participation in these systems… Maybe that’s part of why they’re still around. Idk… I have to plead ignorance on the topic.
To be fair parties themselves aren’t monoliths. I like Hu jintao’s politics a lot more than I like Xi pings. Factionalist abound. But as far I’ve seen with any communist state, they’ve always banned other parties defacto or dejure and they usually did that in the initial years of the state.
USSR, PRC, PRV, DPRK.
Having multiple parties allows for two important things: accountability and representation. Despite me disagreeing with someone’s politics I’d still want them to have some sort of representation. But it’s accountability that matters more to me.
The aforementioned governments do have accountability in whether the keys of power and people support them or not. But it’s a far less direct form than in an actual democracy and usually very proportionally disbalanced in the favor of the keys (ministers, army, or corporations).
Unions are good, but not enough in my opinion. But this is from my own rudimentary understanding of how it.