China tightens access to Tiananmen Square while 32 are detained in Hong Kong
China tightens access to Tiananmen Square while 32 are detained in Hong Kong
You're viewing a single thread.
Hey, tankies, decent countries don't have to violently suppress their populations and then lie about it. Oh, and socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, not whatever the fuck they're doing in China.
(inb4 people assuming I must support the US since I hate China)
Decent countries. What a slippery slope for supremacist thoughts.
Ah yes.
Being against China's racist genocide is racist.
China, the imperialist ethno-state, is clearly innocent.
Lol. Thinking some countries have better governments than others is supremacist? Whatever, dude.
By the way. If there are any countries with decent governments, I don't know of them. But like. If there were decent countries, they wouldn't behave like China.
Saying "decent countries" clearly has a perverse slip within the thought, the idea of a collective I in the our countries and an objectifying negation of the I in the other group. Basically good ol' civilisation and barbarians. The same rhetoric you and your people have been using to oppress me and my third world brothers and sisters all around the world. You really think you need to do the missionary work of educating the beasts, don't you?
Well. The person you replied to is a moron IMO, but I can kind of see what he's saying. 'Decent' can 'potentially' be a reasonable standard by seeing the way that people vote with their feet. American citizens aren't looking to escape the US to get into Afghanistan, but plenty of Afghan's would love to escape into the American heartland if they had the opportunity. 'Godless secular republic', all things considered.
What he wouldn't understand is that the US was a leading forerunner that explains why that country remains an undeveloped shithole in the first place.
Eyeroll. Literally said in the first message that I don't support the US, but yes, clearly it's us (countries I don't support) vs. them (countries I also don't support). The only possible reason one could think China is an oppressive hellhole is racism, I guess. Never mind that I also think Western countries are oppressive hellholes. But clearly thinking two things are bad at once means you actually like one of them. Christ, you're like the bizarro world version of conservatives who think that hating America means you support China. Tankies really are just libs who simp for different countries.
Educating the beasts in third-world countries? I don't have time for that. I'm too busy trying to fix my own shithole country. Are a lot of people in third-world countries wrong about shit? Yeah, obviously. But I think most people in the world are wrong about shit, because most of them aren't libsocs. Me disagreeing with you doesn't make you special. If thinking a specific group has it wrong means you're prejudiced against them, apparently I'm prejudiced against 99.7% of the world. And I'm pretty sure most people in third-world countries aren't state capitalists, so I guess you must be prejudiced against them too for disagreeing with them.
Why is it that you tankies always ignore that anarchists, libsocs, and other non-tankie leftists spend much more time fighting libs and fascists than we do fighting you? We make fun of you online. We argue with you when you say dumb shit. We don't march against you in the streets, except in countries where you rule over us. The effort we dedicate to you is really minuscule compared to how we fight and die trying to change the right-wing status quo. And yet, somehow that counts for nothing when you need to claim that our disagreements with you are rooted in bigotry.
decent countries donāt have to violently suppress their populations and then lie about it
Yeah, "decent" (read: western) countries can just do it and not talk about it because liberals will gladly work on their behalf and deny that it ever happens or deflect to repost lies about global south countries like they do with China.
A Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in Beijing (sent in July 1989) also reveals the eyewitness accounts of a Latin American diplomat and his wife: āThey were able to enter and leave the [Tiananmen] square several times and were not harassed by troops. Remaining with students ā¦ until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings in the square or the monument.ā
https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massacre-facts-fiction-and-propaganda/
https://www.workers.org/2022/06/64607/
https://videos.files.wordpress.com/mPSOWUUU/tank-man-2_dvd.mp4
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html
Here's an interesting video that I hope will make you question if Marxist-Leninists are really the ones you should be calling "tankies": https://files.catbox.moe/rpzgus.webm
All states are fundamentally violent, what are you imagining to be a "decent" country where there is no violence by the state?
It also precludes the fact that prior to State formation and complex agriculture, tribal society wasn't exactly all that peaceful either. Violence is fundamental to human behavior.
In a Marxist sense, any class society has a state, but that's a little beside the point.
Well, to each his own. I'm not a Marxist.
Well, aside from that violence does still exist outside of states as you say, it was to explain my earlier comment about all states being violent, since their role is to mediate class antagonisms, which has historically manifested as the owning classes keeping the bulk of the working classes in a state of desperation for the sake of manipulating bartering power.
Right. I understand the point. But it shouldnāt be a surprise to anyone to think Stateās exercise violence in a much greater capacity, because Stateās are much more powerful than individuals.
To me itās a criticism that ranks right up there with the complaint that Stateās are inherently dishonest, and they are, to be sure. But if Stateās are inherently violent/dishonest, itās only because people are inherently violent and dishonest. Thatās something that sits at the root of what humans are, and by extension, wraps itself up in qualms of everything humans do and create for themselves.
Cooperation is definitely a part of who we are, to be sure. My whole point though is that if you look at civilization, their existence isnāt a spontaneous occurrence, despite the fact that civilizations require an āenormousā level of cooperation to sustain themselves. It isnāt ānaturalā, in that sense. Cooperation follows coercion, which is needed to keep the peace, just as itās more easily and eagerly used to conduct violence.
It always frustrates me a little when people look at a problem and say "that's just how things are." Here it's the thing about humans being violent. In a trivial sense, that is true, but I think that obfuscates that in most situations violence has a set of politically-meaningful sources, even if it's personal violence. Being beaten as a child, being forced into crime, being taught that violence is appropriate to protect your "pride", the Other being dehumanized, the list goes on.
Except that's not my argument. I'm not simply hand-waving it away, washing my hands of it and saying, "well that's just how people are." I'm saying that when you contend with the weight of history, you have a massive burden of proof to overcome to sustain that proposition.
Of course humans have the capacity to be both malevolent and benevolent, cooperative and competitive, good 'and' bad. You're not going to see me disagree that our violent characteristics get stimulated much more vigorously than our cooperative side. But the question I put to you, is why does that have a much stronger purchase on guiding our behavior than the alternative? It's because it's more expedient, as far as our nature is concerned. All State's do as a matter of conduct is amplify those same traits humans have; in much stronger form and with much greater reach. I'm all for blunting the darker side of humanity, but it takes political mechanisms, coercion, and yes, the implied threat of violence to drive that mode of conduct. The same things that State's need to exercise military violence against others.
People entertain a lot of contradictions in their lives. They believe 'far' too much of the moral marketing bullshit they run on themselves, and will endlessly salivate over their high minded moral ideals, and accomplishments, whatever have you. But in practice, 'nobody actually believes this'. Because anybody that thinks most people are good, will never voluntarily leave their social security card on the ground, expecting to pick it up right where they found it an hour later. For the same reason, I'm not going to tell you who I am. Where I work. Or post my credit card details in this comment. And guess what, 'neither are you'. Nobody 'actually' believes that. Even if I don't think you're a bad guy, just as the model of science is skepticism because the alternative is unintelligible, socially, I have to work with the model of distrust because it fits the general situation far 'easier' than the alternative. If you walked into 100% of situations with the model of full cooperation and trust, you'd be taken advantage of by everyone in your workplace; you'd believe all sorts of garbage and nonsense, and you'd be hollowed out and hung out to dry. And that generalizes. From the individual, to the State.
If you believe that State's are inherently violent (I do) but people are inherently cooperative (I don't), then it should be the easiest thing in the world to get all the right people into power. But it isn't.
Being human means that by our very nature, we possess the ability to change our nature. Just because violence is part of who we are doesn't mean it has to be a part of who we become.
Nature is violence, but its arguably more about cooperation. especially in highly social species like us.
Being human means that by our very nature, we possess the ability to change our nature. Just because violence is part of who we are doesnāt mean it has to be a part of who we become.
True, but I'd suggest that to anyone looking at the weight of history, it's far beyond any doubt to make the correct observation that people 'tend' to. Simply sort of hand-waving it away and saying "well there's no law of nature that says it has to be that way," to me is analogous to saying "yeah, and there's no law of nature that says we couldn't build an elevator to the moon, either."
Nature is violence, but its arguably more about cooperation. especially in highly social species like us.
Eh, I'd say this is debatable. I'm not saying cooperation isn't part of who we are, but humanity's overwhelming tendency to indolence explains why violence is often a consideration that makes its way through our minds at the first pass. Most people don't have a respect for the law out of high minded morality or a desire to be cooperative. They obey it because they're afraid of violent social retribution. Human beings are moral scavengers driven by opportunity and prudence, 'more' than, but not exclusively, moral ideals out of a sake of 'doing the right thing'.
It's always easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. It's always easier to steal money than it is to earn it. It's always easier to cheat your way through your work, than to do it the correct way. I don't see that attitude changing anytime soon. But I don't disagree with the core point I think you're getting at.
There's a difference between a country that has a monopoly on violence and can use that for enforcement, compared to a state that responds to people just making their voices heard with cannons and guns. A cat nipping my fingers is annoying. A lion gnawing my head off is deadly.
The crackdown wasn't against the peaceful protestors who they let just kind of do their thing under supervision for somewhere around 6 weeks despite it basically being the equivalent of the section of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. The CPC became less friendly as it became aware of NED bullshit and, critically, unarmed soldiers being immolated and lynched by militants who were using naive protestors as cover. The CPC nonetheless gave everyone some time to clear out (I forget the time table but I think it was 24 - 72 hours) and even once it was over the deadline they didn't just start blasting.
The problem with this is that we don't really know if it's true. It's the CPC's official story, but they've created an atmosphere so hostile to truth or transparency that it's not trustworthy.
Really? West have been blatantly manufacturing atrocity and you say China created "hostile atmosphere"?
I do. Where's the Chinese equivalent to the FOIA that allows citizens to force officials to release documents? There isn't one, because the CPC doesn't value that type of accountability.
That goalpost was moved so far the astronomy should go into that. There's a lot of links posted here, but from previous conversations you have unique ability of completely ignoring everything, so what's even the point?
See, this is a sort of epistemic nihilism that is used for question-begging the western narrative. I give you a counterproposition and you say "Well the CPC is so untrustworthy that we just can't know that that's true!"
Which part do you doubt? That the protest had been going on for many weeks? We have contemporaneous reports. That the CPC wasn't very hostile to the protestors for most of that period? We have footage of the protestors and unarmed soldiers coexisting -- sometimes even having something of a fun time together, each group singing songs!
We have photographs of the lynched corpses, with the protestors idly looking on (because what else could they do?). We have contemporaneous reporting on the CPC setting a deadline for the square to be fled. We have footage of one of the more radical student leaders, Chai Ling, saying that she will deliberately direct her clique to stay (even as she flees) so that they will shed blood.
We have a smaller amount of footage of the night itself, but that tells us many things. For example, there was a protestor (not a student) who was on a high-profile hunger strike. He negotiated the peaceful evacuation of a group of students who didn't quite realize what they were signing up for by staying. We also have some distant footage of the fighting in the surrounding area (because the square itself didn't see violence, as even western journalists confirmed).
The 1984 narrative Reddit spoonfeeds people is incredibly flimsy, even if all you do is look at reporting from Brits, Americans, and Germans.
Speaking of, have you ever watched the full Tank Man video? You can find it on Youtube quite easily. If you haven't seen it, please do me a favor and predict what happens and write it down for yourself -- no need to show anyone else, myself included. Then, watch what happens and compare that to your guess. I think you will find it to be an interesting exercise.
... responds to people just making their voices heard with cannons and guns...
And that's where the difficulty lies.
Yeah, China doesn't do those things, like UK arresting anti-monarquie protestors. Or Canada arresting truckers. Or France arresting people who doesn't want to work untill they die....
One thing western liberals will never understand is that once you branch out into the world, and really have the opportunity to live and experience the customs of difference societies, you'll quickly realize that different countries have 'vastly' different ideas about what they believe their relationship to the government should be.
I'll never forget the British chick on some UK television program, that was stumped by an ISIS sympathizer in the UK when she asked him "what happens to most people who don't want to obey the law in your country?," and he replied back, "what happens to most people who don't want to obey the law of Britain? 'They get arrested'." She froze on the panel and got dead silent, before pivoting to something else.
Your instance doesn't federate with the "tankies" so you won't even see my comment. Who is suppressing who?
false equivalence much?