Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim Twitter: @YaBoiHakim00:00 Introduction and Framing03:27 Background, Reform-History and Class Comp...
But am I pointing out a real and difficult problem?
To cut a long story short, the People’s Liberation Army was called in to break an insurrection surrounding protests in Tiananmen Square. Old PLA elites are on record as having opposed intervention, and there was considerable dissent within the Party over the heavy action employed to counter a protest that had gotten out of hand. And people died.
This is the essential problem with Western media ops; i.e, if they say that there’s corruption in China, you can’t deny it because Xi Jinping is running an anti-corruption campaign and people get taken away by MPS and MSS under the auspices of the Organization Bureau.
However, it gives them the opportunity to spin it, to exaggerate it, to deploy it for their own propaganda purposes.
In the corruption case, we have the case wherein we can point to improved (previously) Corruption Perceptions Indices by the Western-aligned Transparency International NGO.
But in the Tiananmen Square incident, it seems like plain denialism to deliver the necessary nuance.
I mean, you can downvote me for this, but it is a reasonable topic of discussion as to how to handle this talking point, and generally how to deal with “it’s true, but exaggerated and spun” propaganda as the West seems to currently prefer.
Put it simply, how would you, as a party official in China explain to the famalies of the unarmed police officers who where lynched, flayed and burned alive by protestors that you did not intervene?
Some level of intervention was needed unfortunatly, its a tragedy that it escelated so far. We just call it what it is, a tragedy.
But in the Tiananmen Square incident, it seems like plain denialism to deliver the necessary nuance.
Because you’re arguing against the liberal orthodoxy, facts that go against the religion would be filtered into ‘denialism’, any scepticsm of the dogma needs to be attacked violently.
You’re sort of making my point for me, though. It’s easy to get dragged down the road of defending the killings of civilians, whereas it just makes us look bad.
I’d hold it happened, and given wiser handling by Zhongnanhai, the deaths could have at least been reduced or even avoided altogether, as in Shanghai.
As is, Zhongnanhai thought they were on the verge of being toppled, called in the PLA to forcefully disperse both peaceful and non-peaceful demonstrators, and here we are.
The focus should be more on how the West weaponizes this in a neoconservative fashion to justify military threat against China, including how the incident is spun and exaggerated.
The full Tank Man video, published by CBS, should be the rabbit hole needed to pull misled Westerners in.
You’re sort of making my point for me, though. It’s easy to get dragged down the road of defending the killings of civilians, whereas it just makes us look bad.
Im not doing that, people stop becoming ‘civallians’ when they pick up rifles and start lynching unarmed police officers in a communist state.
I’d hold it happened, and given wiser handling by Zhongnanhai, the deaths could have at least been reduced or even avoided altogether, as in Shanghai.
This is blaming the response rather than the instigators that killed so many people the military had to respond.
This all comes with some level, criticizing the people who instigated the violence, which wasnt China, it was the rioters calling for ‘rivers of blood’ months before the protests.
Gaza was the Israeli response to Hamas militants (democratically supported by the people of Gaza) breaching Israeli defenses, attacking military bases, then seizing Israeli civilians as hostages.
Does Palestinian or Hamas violence justify the collateral killing of over 30,000 Palestinians and the likely famine-induced death of over 180,000 people? After all, the Gaza government’s attack suggests they’re no longer civilians. I think the answer is no.
Once again, the maximalist line is a trap. Dodge if you’re ill-informed, if you’re not, focus on how the Western media plays this up and distorts it to justify an anti-China narrative.
I’m not on the side of the protesters, in fact, I’m happy they were forcefully dispersed because that meant a hard end to liberal subversion in China, at least in the short-term. But we have to be careful about how we counter Western disinformation.
Gaza was the Israeli response to Hamas militants (democratically supported by the people of Gaza) breaching Israeli defenses, attacking military bases, then seizing Israeli civilians as hostages.
Does Palestinian or Hamas violence justify the collateral killing of over 30,000 Palestinians and the likely famine-induced death of over 180,000 people? After all, the Gaza government’s attack suggests they’re no longer civilians. I think the answer is no.
I mean these things arent comparable, I dont think anyone would argue against the IOF considering the hamas fighters to be valid combat targets when they started killing people. Like we can disagree with the ideology of the IOF while still recongising they had some cassius bell to open fire on armed combatents.
No it doesnt, but it isnt relevant to what we’re discussing. If hamas won the war, then a splinter group of hamas fighters started killing Palestine police officers who are unarmed id have more of an issue with it.
As Communists, do we really have to obsess over blood-for-blood violence? Applying this to the Brits justifies the complete genocide of the British people, given the starvation that occurred in India during colonialism.
I’m currently in China. Defending the party goes as far as saying “if the Party had a secure way to avoid civilian deaths without compromising the Revolution, it would have done so, but it had no choice. The loss of life is truly regrettable, on both sides.” We don’t need to say the protesters deserved it (although Chai Ling probably did, but she got out without a scratch.)
The loss of life is truly regrettable, on both sides.” We don’t need to say the protesters deserved it (although Chai Ling probably did, but she got out without a scratch.)
Thats a good way to put it honestly, but yeah I wouldnt go as far as to say ‘they deseved it’ but more, what did they expect to happen?
You lynch a police officer who didnt have a gun you better expect the military to get involved, where is the sympathy for the dead civil servants who where making good faith attempts at peacefully de-escelating the situation?
As Communists, do we really have to obsess over blood-for-blood violence? Applying this to the Brits justifies the complete genocide of the British people, given the starvation that occurred in India during colonialism.
Im really not obsessed over it, just if in a communist state you have rioters killing people ‘die by the sword’ starts to become a reality, you cant take a life and expect a peacefull response by any state. Personal accountability for the protestors exists as much as it did for the state in this situation.
What about the comrades who fight brutal and racist cops in America or Europe? Ideally, the persons responsible for the violence should be sent to Reform-Through-Labor for a long, long period of time, if the courts don’t sentence them to death.
Use of the military only shows that Zhongnanhai was really scared, and that the protests had gotten out of control.
Anyways, I’d like to end it here and leave you the last word, as we are really deep in the comment chain. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to refine my thoughts on this subject.
But am I pointing out a real and difficult problem?
To cut a long story short, the People’s Liberation Army was called in to break an insurrection surrounding protests in Tiananmen Square. Old PLA elites are on record as having opposed intervention, and there was considerable dissent within the Party over the heavy action employed to counter a protest that had gotten out of hand. And people died.
This is the essential problem with Western media ops; i.e, if they say that there’s corruption in China, you can’t deny it because Xi Jinping is running an anti-corruption campaign and people get taken away by MPS and MSS under the auspices of the Organization Bureau.
However, it gives them the opportunity to spin it, to exaggerate it, to deploy it for their own propaganda purposes.
In the corruption case, we have the case wherein we can point to improved (previously) Corruption Perceptions Indices by the Western-aligned Transparency International NGO.
But in the Tiananmen Square incident, it seems like plain denialism to deliver the necessary nuance.
I mean, you can downvote me for this, but it is a reasonable topic of discussion as to how to handle this talking point, and generally how to deal with “it’s true, but exaggerated and spun” propaganda as the West seems to currently prefer.
Put it simply, how would you, as a party official in China explain to the famalies of the unarmed police officers who where lynched, flayed and burned alive by protestors that you did not intervene?
Some level of intervention was needed unfortunatly, its a tragedy that it escelated so far. We just call it what it is, a tragedy.
Because you’re arguing against the liberal orthodoxy, facts that go against the religion would be filtered into ‘denialism’, any scepticsm of the dogma needs to be attacked violently.
You’re sort of making my point for me, though. It’s easy to get dragged down the road of defending the killings of civilians, whereas it just makes us look bad.
I’d hold it happened, and given wiser handling by Zhongnanhai, the deaths could have at least been reduced or even avoided altogether, as in Shanghai.
As is, Zhongnanhai thought they were on the verge of being toppled, called in the PLA to forcefully disperse both peaceful and non-peaceful demonstrators, and here we are.
The focus should be more on how the West weaponizes this in a neoconservative fashion to justify military threat against China, including how the incident is spun and exaggerated.
The full Tank Man video, published by CBS, should be the rabbit hole needed to pull misled Westerners in.
Im not doing that, people stop becoming ‘civallians’ when they pick up rifles and start lynching unarmed police officers in a communist state.
This is blaming the response rather than the instigators that killed so many people the military had to respond.
This all comes with some level, criticizing the people who instigated the violence, which wasnt China, it was the rioters calling for ‘rivers of blood’ months before the protests.
Gaza was the Israeli response to Hamas militants (democratically supported by the people of Gaza) breaching Israeli defenses, attacking military bases, then seizing Israeli civilians as hostages.
Does Palestinian or Hamas violence justify the collateral killing of over 30,000 Palestinians and the likely famine-induced death of over 180,000 people? After all, the Gaza government’s attack suggests they’re no longer civilians. I think the answer is no.
Once again, the maximalist line is a trap. Dodge if you’re ill-informed, if you’re not, focus on how the Western media plays this up and distorts it to justify an anti-China narrative.
I’m not on the side of the protesters, in fact, I’m happy they were forcefully dispersed because that meant a hard end to liberal subversion in China, at least in the short-term. But we have to be careful about how we counter Western disinformation.
I mean these things arent comparable, I dont think anyone would argue against the IOF considering the hamas fighters to be valid combat targets when they started killing people. Like we can disagree with the ideology of the IOF while still recongising they had some cassius bell to open fire on armed combatents.
No it doesnt, but it isnt relevant to what we’re discussing. If hamas won the war, then a splinter group of hamas fighters started killing Palestine police officers who are unarmed id have more of an issue with it.
As Communists, do we really have to obsess over blood-for-blood violence? Applying this to the Brits justifies the complete genocide of the British people, given the starvation that occurred in India during colonialism.
I’m currently in China. Defending the party goes as far as saying “if the Party had a secure way to avoid civilian deaths without compromising the Revolution, it would have done so, but it had no choice. The loss of life is truly regrettable, on both sides.” We don’t need to say the protesters deserved it (although Chai Ling probably did, but she got out without a scratch.)
Thats a good way to put it honestly, but yeah I wouldnt go as far as to say ‘they deseved it’ but more, what did they expect to happen?
You lynch a police officer who didnt have a gun you better expect the military to get involved, where is the sympathy for the dead civil servants who where making good faith attempts at peacefully de-escelating the situation?
Im really not obsessed over it, just if in a communist state you have rioters killing people ‘die by the sword’ starts to become a reality, you cant take a life and expect a peacefull response by any state. Personal accountability for the protestors exists as much as it did for the state in this situation.
What about the comrades who fight brutal and racist cops in America or Europe? Ideally, the persons responsible for the violence should be sent to Reform-Through-Labor for a long, long period of time, if the courts don’t sentence them to death.
Use of the military only shows that Zhongnanhai was really scared, and that the protests had gotten out of control.
Anyways, I’d like to end it here and leave you the last word, as we are really deep in the comment chain. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to refine my thoughts on this subject.