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: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2013, 03:04
Loz wrote:
So? That was a good thing.


Because that worked out so well in Russia?

Loz wrote:
It was a massacre of innocent people, the protesters were unarmed while the government had armed soldiers and tanks.


Yet soldiers and police died during the protests..
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2013, 03:15
Quote:
Because that worked out so well in Russia?

No. But China isn't Russia.

Quote:
Yet soldiers and police died during the protests..

So? Cops died during Haymarket too.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Jun 2013, 21:03
I voted protestors, tho I'd prefer Maoist protestors. However even a bourgoise-democratic government would be better than Deng's socialfascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2014, 05:34
Protesters
They were fighting the bureaucratic state of the PRC.
The CCP is nothing more than a bunch of self serving, Stalinist pigs.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2014, 07:01
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 14 Jun 2014, 07:46
The students and protesters who attacked the PLA were no more than thugs and hooligans, and their actions turned most people against them and discredited their movement because the PLA is viewed as the people's army. The PLA is seldom used to suppress anything in China but in 1989 the entire existence of the PRC was at stake: had the protesters got their way, then the CPC and PRC would have been overthrown; US imperialism would have regained hegemony, and China would have been looted and pillaged by capitalists like what happened in the former USSR after 1991.

If the protesters prevailed, Zhao Ziyang would have consolidated his power and implemented Glasnost and Perestroika campaigns, paving the way for full-scale capitalist restoration. Zhao Ziyang admitted in his memoirs that he was just a social democrat and wished to restore capitalism. The CPC took the necessary measures to guard against counter-revolution in 1989, as it does to this day. China is in a primary stage of socialism characterized by a State Capitalist phase of economic development under the guidance of the CPC, which is in accordance with the thought of Mao Zedong. The dogmatic ultraleft Trotskyists who wish to simply bypass this stage of development under the dire conditions of imperialist hegemony serve the bourgeoisie and US imperialists under the guise of bourgeois multi-party democracy. They also have a dogmatic and fetishistic view of the working class as an abstract commodity even though the working class is not always automatically progressive or revolutionary.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2014, 16:44
Are you getting paid for this shit or just being edgy for edginess' sake?

I understand that justifying anti-worker dictatorships has its joys but this is just absurd. What were Deng's reforms if not the full restoration of capitalism ( full with 19th century work "regulations" and the absence of free healthcare and education and everything else the workers managed to fight for ) and a Chinese Perestroika ( albeit without the "glasnost" part )?

You can't even call yourself a Stalinist because this has nothing to do with actual "Marxism-Leninism".
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 16 Jun 2014, 20:35
Quote:
Are you getting paid for this shit or just being edgy for edginess' sake?

I understand that justifying anti-worker dictatorships has its joys but this is just absurd. What were Deng's reforms if not the full restoration of capitalism ( full with 19th century work "regulations" and the absence of free healthcare and education and everything else the workers managed to fight for ) and a Chinese Perestroika ( albeit without the "glasnost" part )?

You can't even call yourself a Stalinist because this has nothing to do with actual "Marxism-Leninism".


Actually, there is a lot in Marxism which justifies Chinese policy. For instance, classical Marxism (that is Marx and Engels) clearly says that you had develop from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to socialism (you couldn't "skip" over stages; Marx and Engels referred to people supporting these policies as leftists/utopian...).. China, as Mao and everyone else in the CPC agreed upon, was a predominant semifeudal society (but capitalism was developing) in 1949... Then they decided to "skip" a stage in 1956 i think China had officially reached socialism.. When Deng & co came to power, they said that China hadn't reach socialism per se, but the primary stage of socialism (they couldn't say China hadn't reached socialism since that would mean, logically, that the CPC had implemented the wrong policies for several years).. The Primary stage of socialism is, paradoxically, both pre-socialist and pre-capitalist ... I wouldn't normally ask people to read Wikipedia (since it shouldn't be a primary source), but since I wrote the article, I'd recommend that you Loz (and other of course) read the article a "primary stage of socialism"... It should be a decent enough summary for a person who doesn't know what it is. For those who are interested in the CPC's worldview, you should find articles (or books) on their views of capitalist globalization, socialist civilization and their view of the market.

Of course, I understand that people don't support Chinese communism, but to say they are not communist doesn't really make sense; why would they waste so much money claiming to be communist? Nowadays claiming to be communist bears a (more) negative connotation then good. Secondly, the CPC could have done the same as the post-Nasser leadership in Egypt or the Cambodian People's Party (totally discarding any connection with past policies and ideologies, but they don't).. At last, you would have thought that if they were not communist, they wouldn't waste that amount of money on stating that they are communist.. Comparison, the Syrian Ba'ath Party (a party which officially proclaims the goal of uniting the Arab countries into a single Arab Nation) publishes propaganda which is Syrian nationalist (which calls the Syrians the greatest people, which says that the Syrian people stand alone, talk about the Assad family and so on, but very little is on actual ideology - with the exception of faint slogans, such as "Socialism, liberty, unity" for instance, but that slogan has lost its meaning since they are Syrian nationalist).. The Communist Party of China clearly believes its still communist, that its still Marxist. That may be a problem for the communist movement some contend, but to claim that China is not communist just because is simplistic (and its futile and wasteful exercise since you don't learn anything about either China or the Communist Party of China)..
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 17 Jun 2014, 05:39
I don't care who and/or what (supposedly) claims justification for the killing of protesters; I won't agree. I believe Marx would easily agreed with the protesters, but that doesn't matter because I don't see Marx (or anyone for that matter) to be infallible, and god like. The labeling of the protesters as "counter-revolutionary" is absolutely preposterous(!), It was the CPC that was "counter-revolutionary"; they gunned down people because their "radical" idea of actually being socialist!
Then you want to call trotskyist "dogmatic." Read what your writing! You sound like a religious fundamentalist!
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 17 Jun 2014, 10:50
Quote:
The labeling of the protesters as "counter-revolutionary" is absolutely preposterous(!), It was the CPC that was "counter-revolutionary"; they gunned down people because their "radical" idea of actually being socialist

I agree
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 17 Jun 2014, 14:02
Red Specter wrote:
I don't care who and/or what (supposedly) claims justification for the killing of protesters; I won't agree. I believe Marx would easily agreed with the protesters, but that doesn't matter because I don't see Marx (or anyone for that matter) to be infallible, and god like. The labeling of the protesters as "counter-revolutionary" is absolutely preposterous(!), It was the CPC that was "counter-revolutionary"; they gunned down people because their "radical" idea of actually being socialist!


Who knows who Marx would have agreed with? He lived in a different time, before the emergence of powerful socialist states. Workers and students protesting does not automatically mean that what they're fighting for results in a better world. Consider the Soviet coalminers' strikes from the late 1980s on, or the Solidarity Movement in Poland; both were worker dominated, but did their actions improve real existing socialism in their countries? China is a complex case; Mao's dogma-based 'alternative' to Soviet style economics failed, and the post-Mao leadership too was unwilling to reorient themselves toward the Soviets, and so came up with the NEP-inspired model that we have come to know today. Has this worsened the living and working conditions of many people and built a new capitalist class in China? Sure. Could Tiananmen Square have saved Chinese socialism? Doubtful. Considering global anti-communist trends at the time, there's a big chance that a successful uprising would have resulted in the collapse of the state, and reversion to a weak, pre-war China, divided and ripe for abuse by global imperialism. Western imperialism would only be strengthened globally. Today, we have a situation where the CPC continues to rule China, in some sense informally, but what's important is that the structure for restoration of socialism exists; all it takes is the right circumstances and the will from the left faction of the Party. The preservation of the CPC, and the prevention of the breakup of united China are two colossally important results of Tienanmen. Has China since then become a socialist superpower? Not really, not yet, but it's better for the Chinese people and for the world than a broken, weak China akin to what Russia became in the 1990s and is still suffering from today.
"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
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Jun 2014, 14:22
And here we see the essence of left-wing nationalism that for all its "communist" rhetorics doesn't dare to go over the most crucial threshold. Who cares about the revolution, what matters is the State and whether it's strong or not and whether the ruling tyrannies fall apart or not.
Socialism in words, supporting the ruling class and its tanks in practice.

Why should communists care about the preservation of bourgeois states?

It's already all been said here anyway:
viewtopic.php?f=117&t=52800

Quote:
Who knows who Marx would have agreed with? He lived in a different time, before the emergence of powerful socialist states.

As far as i know Marx usually didn't stand with the bourgeoisie and tyranny. Whether it's "red" or not. The revolution doesn't spare any exploiters be they "communist" or not.

Quote:
The preservation of the CPC, and the prevention of the breakup of united China are two colossally important results of Tienanmen

The preservation of the CPC is the worst that could have happened to China. Not only is the country ultra-neoliberal but it doesn't even have the most basic bourgeois democratic parliamentary system.

Quote:
Has China since then become a socialist superpower? Not really, not yet, but it's better for the Chinese people and for the world than a broken, weak China akin to what Russia became in the 1990s and is still suffering from today.

China is an imperialist superpower. I don't know why more such powers and blocs would be a good thing, but suit yourself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 Jun 2014, 21:25
Loz while you do touch on some real concerns about the CPC, shit like this:
Quote:
The preservation of the CPC is the worst that could have happened to China.

is just plain bullshit. It's like you're purposefully ignoring how chaotic it would be in China were the CPC to fall.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Jun 2014, 21:38
Quote:
It's like you're purposefully ignoring how chaotic it would be in China were the CPC to fall.

Really. How chaotic? The gates of hell itself would have opened had that party lost the monopoly on power leaving the Chinese people with a multi-parliamentary bourg. democracy where they could at least vote for those standing for free healthcare and education ( something no true Stalinist forgets to mention several times whenever you point out the failure of all those ex-socialist countries ).
China had its worst chaos in the 20th century precisely because of and thanks to the CPC. Remember the Cultural Revolution?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 17 Jun 2014, 22:33
What would it really result in if the CPC were to fall? It would leave all of the ultra-capitalists vulnerable to worker overthrow! The rich westerns still suck the blood from the workers of China! Low wages and the lack of labour unions gives the capitalists full reign to produce shit products, and needlessly exploit the workers of china. When workers rise up in protest demanding change, the CPC has its goons hold them back, and in the case of the Tiananmen protests, gun them down. The CPC is no better than the state in a fascist dictatorship.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2014, 11:06
Quote:
The CPC is no better than the state in a fascist dictatorship.

Where are the concentration camps then? ... Come on, its like people throw slur on the CPC for whatever reasons imaginable..... Considering that half of the economy is state-owned, it can't really be described super capitalist either.... You are making it way to easy for yourself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 18 Jun 2014, 22:42
When I speak of fascism (95% of the time) I'm talking about Trotsky's definition. But if you want to talk about forced labour camps. Have you ever heard of laogai? There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of forced labour camps. I'm tired of communists who just take sides because some one else claims they're are communist. When it turns out they're no better than the imperialist westerners. What makes China better? They have "Peoples Republic" in their name? They're flag is red?
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 18 Jun 2014, 23:54
You're not using Trotsky's definition at all.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2014, 00:17
Oh. Wow, thanks for clearing it up. How so?
"The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery." - Trotsky
Sounds like the a description of revolutionary, as well as modern China.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Jun 2014, 14:07
The capitalists are perfectly able to rule in China, and do not rely on terror to stay in power. Thus you are wrong.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2014, 14:26
Quote:
"The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery." - Trotsky

So you are claiming that Mao Zedong of all people was a capitalist? ... Poor analysis I must say.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron