Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Tiananmen Square

POST REPLY

Who would you side with?

CCP
17
33%
Protestors
20
38%
Other (explain)
15
29%
 
Total votes : 52
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2011, 02:46
Who would you have sided with in the Tiananmen Square protests, the protestors, or the CCP?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2011, 05:31
This is a no brainer. CCP. The protestors were Pro Western Students whose idea of a free democracy is neo-liberalism. Whatever you want to call China today, you can't call it neo-liberal.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2011, 07:33
The Protesters.
The way i see it,most of these young people were protesting the capitalist policies of the Denq clique and actually asking for more socialism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4779
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2011, 09:37
Do you guys want this site to get banned in China?


Fellow Comrade wrote:
This is a no brainer. CCP. The protestors were Pro Western Students whose idea of a free democracy is neo-liberalism. Whatever you want to call China today, you can't call it neo-liberal.


Loz wrote:
The Protesters.
The way i see it,most of these young people were protesting the capitalist policies of the Denq clique and actually asking for more socialism.


This is the problem. There are people of both stripes who participated. And to be honest, it's still hard to discern what would have happened had they succeeded or even the long-term effects of Deng's reforms. The whole thing's done and over with, and nobody's really asking for the same kinds of reform in China now, with most of the population being actually supportive of the CCP (whether they're really socialist or not), so wtf does it matter?
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 14 Jun 2011, 09:52
I may not have necessarily supported all the protestors, but neither do I support the government's decision to kill and maim the lot of them.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 139
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2010, 21:39
Pioneer
Post 14 Jun 2011, 10:12
I voted other. To be honest, I don't know too much about this subject. What I heard is that the demonstrators wanted more democracy but also protested against China being on the capitalist road, against corruption and so on. As far as I know, the reaction of the state was highly exaggerated and quite brutal, if you have in mind that they used tanks against non-violent demonstrators (as far as I know - you see, I don'T know too much)!

On the other hand, I'm not too sure that the demonstrators really were fighters for democracy and against capitalism. I think it probably was a quite heterogeneous movement. There certainly were many honest people with good motives, but I don't know anything about the backgrounds of the "leaders". Maybe they were tools of the imperialists or of Gorbachov, probably without even noticing it.

To sum it up, I'm rather critical of the Chinese state's behaviour, but I know too less about the demonstrators and their background, so I can't decide and voted other.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4779
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2011, 10:22
As for the violence that took place, there was an interesting article I saw a few days back on the Telegraph about diplomatic cables that were leaked (I believe it was from a Chilean diplomat in Beijing) revealing that the PLA did not massacre peaceful protesters en masse within the Square, though they did use force to some extent. The brunt of the force used by the state was outside the Square in various parts of Beijing where people had put up blockades and did fight against the soldiers. While the use of force was perhaps disproportionate, it's false to paint such a black-and-white picture of "peaceful protesters vs brutal soldiers and state power." I'll try and find it when I have the chance, but some of you might be able to look it up now that I've mentioned details about the article.

Honestly, part of the reason why I was so dismissive and cynical sounding up there is due to two people who were big during the protests. One is Liu Xiabo, who was famous as one of the leading professors and protesters who supported the students at Tiananmen, and who went on to suggest that China should be "colonized for 300 years" and supported George W. Bush's 2003 Iraq war (some Nobel Peace Prize winner). There was another person who was also popular then, and then fled to the US. When Lang Lang played a Chinese patriotic song to an American audience, he wrote wrote a letter to Congress to bitch about how the song was written during the Korean War when Chinese forces were fighting against American forces, and OMG HOW DARE HE PERFORM THAT SONG ON AMERICAN SOIL, when in fact most Chinese nowadays don't view it as a relic of the Cold War or anti-American, and simply a patriotic song. I think Lang Lang said he picked it because Hu Jintao liked it a lot, and it was during a recent visit by Hu to the US.
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2011, 11:30
Other

The protesters were a mixture of all sorts. Some were bourgeois liberalists who wanted to introduce a capitalist bourgeois government while others were leftists who were protesting against Deng's reforms. They were not a homogenous group with concrete ideas or a plan of action.

At the same time, I don't think the massacre was in any way the right step. Yes, the protesters were making their presence felt but it's not as if they were on the verge of breaking into Zhongnanhai and massacring the Politburo. It was still a protest, not an armed uprising. There are many other ways the Chinese government could have dealt with them and I think they very soon realised this. I doubt we would see something similar today.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 14 Jun 2011, 13:53
I'd say the CCP.
I undoubtly oppose Deng Xiaoping's reforms and about all of his policies, but at the end the protection of the People's Republic is more important than internal disagreements with the revisionist party line of that moment. I am aware that there were also honest Maoists protesting, but I think the majority of the protesters were pro-western and demanded the end of the People's Republic, and I believe giving in to the demands would potentially have led to a situation like in the Warsaw Pact of that time (I think Deng himself knew that very well, possibly explaining his harsh actions against the protest). So all in all, I support the CCP, like I support the Soviet intervention in Budapest and Prague.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2011, 14:12
Komissar_KW wrote:
Do you guys want this site to get banned in China?

Actually is it true the average Chinese citizen has no idea such event occurred?

Also I voted other due to my lack of knowledge as to what exactly the situation was.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2011, 14:13
So you're siding with the revisionists then,Wakizashi?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2011, 16:40
I should really stop putting other on the poll options. You guys use it way too much.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 139
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2010, 21:39
Pioneer
Post 14 Jun 2011, 17:41
Well, maybe the reason is that some topics are way too complicated to say just "Yes" or "No" ...^^
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 Jun 2011, 19:06
I voted other, myself. The demonstrators probally had the right to do so, under there constitution. However I also do not think that what happened to them was much if any worse than what happened at Kent State University, in my own country, and home state of Ohio. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1595 So I do not view it as an indictment of the People's Republic, as a whole. I just think that the whole thing got out of hand on both sides.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 14 Jun 2011, 20:11
Quote:
So you're siding with the revisionists then,Wakizashi?


In a conflict between revisionists and a movement that is potentially lethal to Socialism and can bring about the end of the People's Republic?
Yes.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2011, 20:16
Wakizashi the Bolshevik wrote:
In a conflict between revisionists and a movement that is potentially lethal to Socialism and can bring about the end of the People's Republic?
Yes.

Whats the point of having a People's Republic if it's ruled by revisionists and has a capitalists economy?
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 14 Jun 2011, 20:25
Quote:
Whats the point of having a People's Republic if it's ruled by revisionists and has a capitalists economy?


Because revisionism can be driven back, what partially happened in the PRC after Deng. The PRC is not a capitalist state, meaning that revisionism did not go as far as can be feared. Revisionism and market socialism is in any case better then the complete annihilation of the People's Republic and the restauration of capitalism. Say whatever you want, but facts have proven that China survived while the USSR (giving in to the "demands for reform") didn't.
Also note that the main goal of most Tiananmen protesters was not the end of revisionism but the end of the People's Republic itself.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 15 Jun 2011, 00:29
Quote:
Whats the point of having a People's Republic if it's ruled by revisionists and has a capitalists economy?


Because it is in the interests of the people to go through capitalist development at some point in their history? What's the point of a people's republic if the economic base has not been sufficiently built up to allow socialism to develop? I can't understand how people can think China under Mao was better than it was under Deng.
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 15 Jun 2011, 00:41
On one hand, perhaps it's true to think that it's better to have the PRC around still, since it's better to keep revisionists in power than to get rid of it entirely.

On the other hand, the revisionists could entrench their interests so firmly in the system they have created, that reform becomes almost impossible. Compare Russia with China for instance, and the rapidly growing popularity of socialist figures like Lenin and Stalin in the country coupled with dislike for Putin's neo-tsaristical [I'm pretending this is a real word] government. Bearing this in mind, it may be the case that Russia actually returns to socialism before the PRC does, but only time will tell.

I for one am completely undecided on the matter. I suppose if I knew more about the intricacies of internal CCP politics I'd be able to make a better judgement.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Jun 2011, 01:44
I voted yes, for the same reasons as FC and Wakizashi. To have a state that's been taken over to an extent by revisionists is still better than to have no state at all.

Komissar_KW wrote:
As for the violence that took place, there was an interesting article I saw a few days back on the Telegraph about diplomatic cables that were leaked (I believe it was from a Chilean diplomat in Beijing) revealing that the PLA did not massacre peaceful protesters en masse within the Square, though they did use force to some extent. The brunt of the force used by the state was outside the Square in various parts of Beijing where people had put up blockades and did fight against the soldiers. While the use of force was perhaps disproportionate, it's false to paint such a black-and-white picture of "peaceful protesters vs brutal soldiers and state power." I'll try and find it when I have the chance, but some of you might be able to look it up now that I've mentioned details about the article.


This is a valuable find. I imagine most people thinking of Tienanmen will conceive of a vast paved space filled with people and tanks ruthlessly running down protesters and soldiers shooting into the helpless crowd. What you're describing sounds almost like a civil insurrection.


There are a lot of communists in Russia today that regret the fact that Kantemirovskaya Division didn't get ordered to arrest or kill Yeltsin in the White House back in 1991. We'll never know how much death and suffering might have been avoided if the GKChP took a firm stand in Moscow like the Chinese did in Beijing.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.