Tiananmen 6-4-1989 Anniversary: A Perspective

[Xwaxtaxper]

Wait so can a group like the Falun Gong protest in Tianamen Square much like the same way that a group like A.N.S.W.E.R can protest in front of Capital Hill?

[antisocialism]

奴隶制(共产主义)，奴隶主(共产党)拥有奴隶(人民)的制度。­奴隶(人民)须为奴隶主(共产党)干活，无报酬，且无人身自由。­法律确认奴隶为奴隶主的私有财产，共产主义跟奴隶制也一样，国家­所有财产归共产党。人民跟本不可能享受自己生产所得的回报。奴隶­主(共产党)对奴隶(人民)握有生杀予夺的权力，可随意奴役、杀­害。奴隶(人民)没有独立的人格，没有任何自由和权利。

[mccheese0]

If you want to compare the Chinese handling of Tienanmen to similar events, more accurate parallels can be found. Try the recent reaction of Iran's government to the people who objected to the apparent election fraud. The government has answered with excessive violence, a media blackout, and lies And you can bet arrests and trials will follow - just like after Tienanmen. Now there's your similarities.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Spin it however you want. You just can not accept that your twisted views of the Chinese government is largely fallacious.

The Chinese government allowed ample time for them to disperse voluntarily. Some did, but were soon replaced by unwitting new-comers.

Most of them came for the kick of it. Few had specific political demands like, to have XYZ policy amended in ABC ways. No apt government would allow itself to be hijacked by a mob.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf If you want to spin my view as twisted feel free - I'll dispute that. All these events were televised live in the west if not in China. Per our own eyes the TIenanmen Massacre was just that - a massacre. The Chinese government used excessive force. If such an event happened in the west the government would have fallen in the next election. China avoided that fate by suppressing knowledge of Tienanmen and not allowing real electoral recourse. Where is the fallacy?

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 All event you say? That's laughable. There were far more events than met your eyes. Those that did were necessarily selection by the media to drive home their point of view to the audience. You have fallen for your own propaganda. My mother was in BEIJING at that time, very near the Tianmensquare, she participated in some of the demonstration earlier and some of her friends were involved in the incident.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf We are all somewhat at the mercy of editorial slant - you too. The difference is the US has a free and adversarial press. I'll be the first to say our press doesn't always get things right. (and I could give you tons of examples). But the media here has the right to vigorous dissent, and so do readers. Part of what makes our press free is accountability to readers - when they get things wrong circulation drops and letters to the editor fly... and are published.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Where's the adversarial press on the China issue?.

"when they get things wrong circulation drops and letters to the editor fly... and are published. "

-----Clearly not the case on this issue.

[liebstandarteadolf]

This is what I call a circular proof. You're using an item in question to prove itself.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf The western press has a variety of opinions about "the China issue" (thought thats a silly label for many issues). There is free and open debate in all media, letters from readers, insults, canceled subscriptions... all the good, bad and in-between that happens in a "free marketplace of ideas." So where is the Chinese right to public dissent? Where the right to undermine power with words & facts? Without this you are not free.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Electoral recourse is your way of making sure things improve. China doesn't have a large scale electoral system, but one way or another, as long as things improve right? In China, people are allowed to talk freely about the incident, so long as you don't do it in public and foment dissent, which are usually anti-government in nature, rather than in the interest of the people.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Where to start? First, electoral recourse isn't "my" way of making sure things improve, it is the way democracies attempt to do this. It is a far surer way to make things right than relying on the goodness of self interested officials who answer only to peers and cronies. Second, if the Chinese people can't discuss the incident in public, and if dissent (criticism of the government) is still criminal, how are things better? Politically things seem the same.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 My "your" refers to the general population.

How do you know all officials are self-interested? That's clearly not the case. Many officials also rose up from the rank of ordinary citizen, like Hu Jintao. He had no connection within the party before he took power. If corrupt officials are hated everywhere by the populace, why would you expect the likes of Hu Jintao to be any different? Granted some will change, but some will not. Again, you've made assumptions propagated by your media

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf You've dodged the issue. It isn't whether "all" public officials are self interested.  It is the lack of accountability of officials to the people. it is the lack of freedom for regular people to speak their minds without fear of arrest for expressing ideas outside of self-serving government parameters. This freedom exists in the west and helps make the state just. If that freedom would undermine your state, ask yourself why (what's wrong with the state)?

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Dissent is not criminal, so long as it doesn't emanate through the masses. The reason being that the masses are not dicerning enough.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Please explain this post. Is disssent criminal if common people say it or it is repeated by the uneducated? Also who are the masses? In the west it is the electorate - regardless of how discerning they are.

[mccheese0]

So the point of this video is that there is no difference between American events and Tianamen suppression? Well here are two differences:  First, American's know all about the Verteran's March and MacArthur's bloody charge. Documents and histories are readily available about it . It is not concealed by the government. Second: Hoover got tossed out of office, and that event most certainly contributed, though it wasn't the main reason (botching the economy was).

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Chinese all know about the Tianmen incident too. Although the government to a certain degree tries to hide it, it has learned its lesson and will surely do better in the next incident like this.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf I'll be very happy if that's the case. But the proof will be in how they handle incidents of dissent or protest in the future. After the ethnic riots and media clampdown earlier in the ear, I'm not convinced things have changed to the extent you suggest. But I'm willing to be disproved by facts.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 I find it hypocritical that you care more about Chinese people than Chinese people. The Chinese government didn't want to kill those people, it contrained for a long time. Had they had non-lethal weapons, no one would have died, but they had to make do with lethal weapons, because that was what had got. .

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf HAHAHA, it would be nice if rulers cared for the people as much as the people care for the people. :) Even a regular person in the US has a lot more in common with the folks who got killed in Tienanmen than the politicians who ordered the crackdown. If that's hypocritical than I guess the Marxist idea of "class interest" is too. The crackdown was ordered by the RULING CLASS. It was ordered to end to calls for democracy and accountability. Sorry to get all Marxist on you.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 See, your hypocricy goes unabated. They the politicians had other sets of priorities than the average citizen. National unity and stability were higher on the aganda than individuals's rush-of-blood callings.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Who is being hypocritical? You are defending actions which even old emperors have taken with the same justifications. National unity and stability are not the only goods, and they can coexist with others. Democracy and transparency allow justice to be optimized at least, maximized at best. China has neither the optimum nor maximum of justice at present, I'm sorry to say. No country is perfect, but China can do better.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 As of right now, a authoritarian government likely works better than a democracy would have in China. China doesn't have the democratic culture that is required to run a functioning democracy. A Chinese certainly wouldn't want to test it out with their country at stake for if it fails would ruin their livelihood, officials or not. On the other hand, Americans seem to be eager to do so? Is it that if the great experiment fails Chinese not Americans will be left to pay the price?

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Pinochet would say as much; so would Hitler & Stalin. Mao of course is all over the map on the subject but I won't criticize him here... ;) You are right that the groundwork has to be laid democracy - otherwise you end up with a Mafia-state like in Russia. Your leaders were right to pursue prosperity since freedom destroys itself in the absence of an economic minimum. However China has achieved more than that, so It's time to move forward. You can sustain democracy now.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 The ground work isn't just material prosperity. USSR was a developed nation, it had far more chance of sustaining a democracy than China has today. USSR failed because of a lack of grass root support and their arrogance prevented them from drawing useful experience from the Chinese reform, instead they confided in a bunch of neo-classic economists. The concept of grass root support is difficult for me to grasp in the Russian context.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Let me concentrate on the folly of the Russian policy makers. Those Western economist thought the free market was the holy grail of economic system. If you couldn't get there, you should do second best, having something as close it to it as possible. But the fact is it's not second best. Deregulation was their answer to all the economic woes. And Russia was deregulated to the extent that competitive business-running were no longer the fastest way to affluence.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Rorting the system was, and so began a mass theft of the country resources, sold on the international market, causing capital flight and degradation in the living standards of the Russian people. On the otherhand, the same idotic economists fell on deaf ears of the Chinese leadership, who lead a cautious, step-by-step reform which bore fruit. The people stood ready for such change. There were already private business units across the country.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Everyone was gunning for their chance to make money. When the market was legalised, economic acivity duly increase many fold. This story of 2 tales only vindicates that any political reform of epic proportions needs participation by the people at the individual level, and to be slow and cautious. And no, China is still too poor. There are still people who would do anything to make a living.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Your last four posts are an excellent analysis of the Russian economic failings, though the relation between organized crime and existing government institutions isn't addressed. Even now Russians want democracy, but the lack of the economic minimum prevents it. Instead they have local mafia government and corruption. But how does that relate to the Chinese situation? See next post...

[mccheese0]

@mccheese0 China is in a different situation. You have authoritarian rule but a strong economy. China is economically where the US was at the beginning of the 20th century... a manufacturing powerhouse but with state power vested in the small elite that controls the "mode and mean" of production (to toss a little Marx out...;)

China has the financial means to advance into greater political freedom. What stands in the way: Like the USSR you have a "nationals" problem.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf One other thought on this- How do you know china can't sustain democracy? So many countries in the "third world" have managed it now, why can't one of the biggest economies in the world do so? Taiwan has the same background as the mainland and they sustain democracy just fine. At risk of putting a match to a touchy subject, my guess is that if mainland China was democratic Taiwan would have no objections to reunification. 

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 They have managed a nominal democracy with their problems gone unnoticed in the West. Everyone's busy sensationalising what China is doing. Sure, on paper, China is a democracy to, it's just that corruption and abuse are more common, and the People's Congress rarely defeats any bills put up by the CCP. Taiwan has a developed economy, but its government too was a dictatorship, same with most of the Asian economies before the Asian financial crisis.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 I don't know if China can, but I'm not about to find out. What if it fails? This is the questions that goes through the mind of most Chinese people. Why risk something we have for sure, for something we will not have for sure? Some Westerners don't care, because subliminally, they're itching to see China collapse.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf That fear is standing in the way of real Chinese success that will benefit the entire world. Nobody is itching to see such a failure. The world wants a free China and a free China would be a boon to the rest of the world. I won't even go into the benefits the Chinese people would get - but all you have to do is look at Europe for an example. I'd say the US too, but we have a few issues due to that "market worship" you mentioned.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 The ethnic riots were definitely dealt with better. This time around, the armed forces had non-lethal weapons and the death toll was significantly smaller than that of the Tianmen Square incident. The media clampdown was well done, some Western media can only be described as grosteque

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf How can a media clampdown be "well done"? A media clamp down hides what is being done. What do we know about the ethnic riots and the government response now? Only what your government wants to reveal... It's the same crap as in Myanmar, which most everyone condemns. It's the same as the US military and govt attempt to hide numerous offenses against civilians and rules of engagement in Iraq. Seriously Lieb, that media clamp down only served the police and the government.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 And what your media decide to make up. As if it is not bad enough already. Image the crap Western media would have spewed, if it wasn't for the media clamp down. Most Chinese can't even tell an ethnic minority from a group of people. Many civilian officials and military officers are ethnic Tibetan too. This is logically incongruous with the common Western media reporting that those rioting Tibetans were intentional mistreated

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf This conversation reminds me of friendly debates I have with conservatives here. The media lies, they say, when the media says something contrary to their own point of view. But lets not talk about my media... the clampdown applied to your media as well. The govt imposed control of words and images just like in Iran. And this of course takes us back to the original parallel I drew regarding Chinese handling of Tienanmen. Was there less loss of life recently? Who knows.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 @mccheese0 It could be for reasons other than a cover up. Let's for 1 second assume that what the chinese government is saying is true that the riot was instigated externally. Factoring in sympathy for the weak, assumption of guilt of the government, veiled racism of retards who don't even know they're racist, media sensationalism and anti-China sentiment in the media. I can only imagine that the alternative outcome would be much smearing than it is.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 I'll reply more later, I'm quite busy atm.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Hey Lieb... since I've said some critical things I'll add that I appreciate your intelligent replies, even if I don't agree with them. I'll give you my overall criticism of China so we can stop sparring. My worry, which I've heard from some Chinese here too, is that the old model of empire and rule by the powerful few is being restored in China. This is just fine for the few; the powerful are already free. But it's bad for the rest us who need freedom to achieve justice.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 Right. There is no disagreement on this. It's the remedy proposed by Westerners that is disputed. See my comment about experimenting with hard-earned stability and growth.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Rule by the few for the few can be extremely stable; tyranny has been the typical and enduring form of government through the ages. The western solution - democracy - which Chinese leaders fear (and crushed at Tianamen) has been the one successful break with the history of tyranny. It empowers the many, spreads prosperity among the "self governed" and protects minority rights. China must embrace this or it will alway be a police state living in fear of it's people.

[liebstandarteadolf]

@mccheese0 That's a misconception. Democracy is only successful when applied at the right time and the right place. It in itself can't be judged. It does spread , but doesn't necessarily help attain prosperity. History attests to this. The students at Tianmen square didn't demand democracy as you put it, but rather more accountability and transparency within the system. The details are complicated. Both parties were at fault, but a black/white story is easier to sell. And you buy.

[mccheese0]

@liebstandarteadolf Obviously there is "complication" including calls for transparency, accountability, etc. Don't let too many trees prevent you from seeing the forest. BTW Democracy was called for by some there, if the video we saw was true. "Democracy" is a label for particular way to respond to the problems you mentioned.. Call it by a different name - but the solution is popular government, accountable to the governed, and transparent so that the governed know what govt is doing.

[MrLeviEshkol]

china gouverment is evil

[lasojuju]

I asked an old American gentleman lately why their politicians are tossing the constitution out the window, robing tax payer wallets to bailout wallstreet now...etc but still cannot get the Americans out to the streets? He told me with a smile: Because they know they will be attacked by dogs. That is part of the legacy of American history. I think he's talking about this!

[lasojuju]

Interesting video. America is a country born out of revolution and certainly had her low point and violence past as well.

[tyhsu99]

I believe the military commander in charge that day should be tried for incompetence.

Of course behind the scene was the struggle between interest groups, but most of us were not part of that. We started as a Woodstock, but trapped in a martial law which none wanted to chicken away from. thanks to your voice that puts it in prospective.

[tyhsu99]

When hit, even if a non-lethal wound, there was no hospital properly staffed for battle wounds. One of my fellow classmate, another one of my relative were lost due to un-controlled bleeding.

It was not intended as killing, but happened due to mis-management of the policing operation.

[tyhsu82]

Unfortunately, it went way out of control and begin to spread to other cites. I was excepting some very phenomenal policing action to end it. I thought even if I'll get kicked by soldiers or even locked up for a few hours, the opportunity to witness it would be worth it. It surprised everybody that the only army units that were hard-headed enough to do the job were the bad asses from the Sino-Viet front.  They were trained as field army, had wrong equipments in their hands.

[tyhsu82]

from late April to early June, I saw just about all my classmates who were still in Beijing after graduation. In the square, I just look for the flag of a friend's grad. school, I have a 50-50 chance of seeing him or her. "Chinese Woodstock" is a very accurate way to describe half of it. The other half felt like 1919 5 4, Beijing students and citizens wanted to set an example of: Unity of enough number of-eople can make a martial law break it self.

[tyhsu82]

Greetings! Ben,

thank you for your voice of reason. I testify that you are very right on this incident. I bet 200 yrs from now, this voice will still be here, but I am not going to bet on others.

I can testify because I was there during the whole process. At that time, school thought i were at my work place in training, work place thought i went to school, I get to spend time in the square for the "Chinese Woodstock"

[sinomaniac]

Thank you tyhsu82 for your interesting and valuable experience and for sharing it with us.

Peace.

[tyhsu82]

This is the finale of my story:

The lives of the students and citizens, as well as soldiers were not lost in wane. It is now known that Martial law does not sit well in Beijing. Whoever declares a Martial Law there will run into severe consequences.

[daboohelix]

this incident killed and wounded well over 20,000 american people...compare to this, the tiananmen incident was so insignificant

[andrewelo]

Wow, this is such an interesting and educational video. I'm amazed that I'd never heard about the 1932 incident before.

[yabst]

Nice Video. I can not believe there is similar things happening in US history too. Well, "History repeat itself."