There's a difference between quickly suppressing a color revolt that is killing soldiers vs. invasions and coups that kill and displace millions of people. If Tiananmen revolt had spread or succeeded then a LOT more people would have died, and China would now be a western puppet instead of a sovereign nation.
They killed dozens of unarmed soldiers, hanging them by their necks and immolating their corpses. Many of the deaths were done by the mob and they started the lethal violence. They had hundreds of guns out of nowhere, likely supplied by the CIA. Good riddance to these fascist, west-collaborating "students" and the dupes who followed them.
Liberals always handwring at their enemies suppressing internal problems with unsophisticated violence, but that's often the only tool these nations have to sustain their own existence. They don't have sophisticated surveillance deep states with media narrative control, just simple brute force. It's why Liberals were aghast at "Assad using barrel-bombs on his own population" - the preferred method is to destroy street movements via a complex suite of spying, targeted media narratives, sheepdogging, hidden plain-clothes operatives, targeted assassinations of leadership like how Ferguson and the 2020 riots were handled. Assad had one button to have his nation continue to exist, and it was "drop the barrel bombs on the jihadists hiding in apartment complexes" so he pressed it. That makes him a giant villain to Liberals, despite their own funding of jihadists being the very reason he had to push that button.
China at the time of Tiananmen was an unsophisticated state in its suppression capabilities. It had one button to deal with the revolt and continue to exist. I don't believe it was a mistake for them to push it. You can contrast this to how the Hong Kong colonialist petty bourgie revolt was squashed, with 0 deaths. China would obviously prefer 0 deaths, they just didn't have the capabilities at the time.
This isn't accurate at all. The fighting happened when would-be insurgents ambushed pla troops. The pla had unarmed soldiers in the square for a long time. And i mean really unarmed. No helmets, no shields, no batons, no tear gas. When things finally touched off with the cia-backed "pro democracy) faction that was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people involved the pla ordered everyone out of the square and everyone left. That was it. When the cia backed wannabe insurgents started attacking the pla everyone was ordered to leave and they left. They didn't do any brutal state repression. The cpc was in an extremely awkward position bc the vast majority of people involved in the June 4th incident were protesting against Dengist market liberalization, asking for a return to a more socialist economy. Others were protesting the restrictive social norms of contemporary China, arguing that the restrictive social norms were anti-communsit and that people should have more freedom to do simple stuff like publicly date and be publicly affectionate.
Ultimately a big part of the reason there was little reprisal is bc the cpc couldn't crack down on pro-socialist protestors, and because in the end the whole thing ended mostly peacefully. The narrative around it is so utterly twisted and distorted. And if you ask people in China about it they don't understand why westerners think it's important. It's just a minor incident in history from a long time ago.
Almost all of the violence happened away from the students and no one was killed in the square itself. There were other incidents around the city done by workers who were armed with guns and took a joyride in an APC. There were multiple protests being done by multiple groups without unity in their demands. To even unify the students with as broad of a demand as democracy is disingenuous. They were fighting one another for access to loudspeakers.
The students broadly represented the class of people favored by the 70s economic liberalization reforms. The workers were on the bad end of the reforms and were largely calling for a return of earlier, Maoist policies. It would be more accurate to say the students were more or less calling for increased liberalization, i.e., capitalism.
From what i understand the vast, overwhelming majority of students were protesting against the Dengist reforms.
About 300 people died, including PLA soldiers, in street fighting blocks away from the square, which started when unarmed pla soldiers were attacked with firebombs in their trucks and apcs and burned alive.
The students in the square left when ordered with little if any violence. The whole narrative around the June 4th incident is unalloyed propaganda and revisionist history.
Standard issue Reddit format opener is already a bad start.
every government commits atrocities at some point or another
What is the point of such a claim? Is the implication that all governments are equally bad? That is both lazy and absurd. Is this some veiled libertarian pitch in favor of ostensibly less government, except still a government and less accountable?
It's almost like every government commits atrocities at some point or another.
Reading comprehension. Learn it.
I didn't imply shit, but you do you.
If you supposedly implied nothing in that first line, what was the point of that empty and unprovably vague first statement to begin with? Since you're euphoric and enlightened by your own intelligence, show some spine and tell us.
How dare you imply meaning in my statements tankie
They really never want to take an actual position. They always retreat to "that's not what i said!" I don't understand that, no matter how many times i see it.
It takes it to a whole new level that "you don't understand" and "you are illiterate" were said alongside "no, I will NOT state what you were supposed to read out of the vague statement."
Let us look at a specific example. A claim like “There’s cultural genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang” is simply unreal to most Westerners, close to pure gibberish. The words really refer to existing entities and geographies, but Westerners aren’t familiar with them. The actual content of the utterance as it spills out is no more complex or nuanced than “China Bad,” and the elementary mistakes people make when they write out statements of “solidarity” make that much clear. This is not a complaint that these people have not studied China enough — there’s no reason to expect them to study China, and retrospectively I think to some extent it was a mistake to personally have spent so much time trying to teach them. It’s instead an acknowledgment that they are eagerly wielding the accusation like a club, that they are in reality unconcerned with its truth-content, because it serves a social purpose.
What is this social purpose? Westerners want to believe that other places are worse off, exactly how Americans and Canadians perennially flatter themselves by attacking each others’ decaying health-care systems, or how a divorcee might fantasize that their ex-lover’s blooming love-life is secretly miserable. This kind of “crab mentality” is actually a sophisticated coping mechanism suitable for an environment in which no other course of action seems viable. Cognitive dissonance, the kind that eventually spurs one into becoming intolerant of the status quo and into action, is initially unpleasant and scary for everybody. In this way, we can begin to understand the benefit that “victims” of propaganda derive from carelessly “spreading awareness.” Their efforts feed an ambient propaganda haze of controversy and scandal and wariness that suffocates any painful optimism (or jealousy) and ensuing sense of duty one might otherwise feel from a casual glance at the amazing things happening elsewhere. People aren’t “falling” for atrocity propaganda; they’re eagerly seeking it out, like a soothing balm.
Removed by mod
There's a difference between quickly suppressing a color revolt that is killing soldiers vs. invasions and coups that kill and displace millions of people. If Tiananmen revolt had spread or succeeded then a LOT more people would have died, and China would now be a western puppet instead of a sovereign nation.
And the color revolt was only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the people there. The revisionism is disgusting.
Ah yes, dangerous, dangerous students asking for democracy.
They killed dozens of unarmed soldiers, hanging them by their necks and immolating their corpses. Many of the deaths were done by the mob and they started the lethal violence. They had hundreds of guns out of nowhere, likely supplied by the CIA. Good riddance to these fascist, west-collaborating "students" and the dupes who followed them.
Liberals always handwring at their enemies suppressing internal problems with unsophisticated violence, but that's often the only tool these nations have to sustain their own existence. They don't have sophisticated surveillance deep states with media narrative control, just simple brute force. It's why Liberals were aghast at "Assad using barrel-bombs on his own population" - the preferred method is to destroy street movements via a complex suite of spying, targeted media narratives, sheepdogging, hidden plain-clothes operatives, targeted assassinations of leadership like how Ferguson and the 2020 riots were handled. Assad had one button to have his nation continue to exist, and it was "drop the barrel bombs on the jihadists hiding in apartment complexes" so he pressed it. That makes him a giant villain to Liberals, despite their own funding of jihadists being the very reason he had to push that button.
China at the time of Tiananmen was an unsophisticated state in its suppression capabilities. It had one button to deal with the revolt and continue to exist. I don't believe it was a mistake for them to push it. You can contrast this to how the Hong Kong colonialist petty bourgie revolt was squashed, with 0 deaths. China would obviously prefer 0 deaths, they just didn't have the capabilities at the time.
This isn't accurate at all. The fighting happened when would-be insurgents ambushed pla troops. The pla had unarmed soldiers in the square for a long time. And i mean really unarmed. No helmets, no shields, no batons, no tear gas. When things finally touched off with the cia-backed "pro democracy) faction that was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people involved the pla ordered everyone out of the square and everyone left. That was it. When the cia backed wannabe insurgents started attacking the pla everyone was ordered to leave and they left. They didn't do any brutal state repression. The cpc was in an extremely awkward position bc the vast majority of people involved in the June 4th incident were protesting against Dengist market liberalization, asking for a return to a more socialist economy. Others were protesting the restrictive social norms of contemporary China, arguing that the restrictive social norms were anti-communsit and that people should have more freedom to do simple stuff like publicly date and be publicly affectionate.
Ultimately a big part of the reason there was little reprisal is bc the cpc couldn't crack down on pro-socialist protestors, and because in the end the whole thing ended mostly peacefully. The narrative around it is so utterly twisted and distorted. And if you ask people in China about it they don't understand why westerners think it's important. It's just a minor incident in history from a long time ago.
Almost all of the violence happened away from the students and no one was killed in the square itself. There were other incidents around the city done by workers who were armed with guns and took a joyride in an APC. There were multiple protests being done by multiple groups without unity in their demands. To even unify the students with as broad of a demand as democracy is disingenuous. They were fighting one another for access to loudspeakers.
The students broadly represented the class of people favored by the 70s economic liberalization reforms. The workers were on the bad end of the reforms and were largely calling for a return of earlier, Maoist policies. It would be more accurate to say the students were more or less calling for increased liberalization, i.e., capitalism.
From what i understand the vast, overwhelming majority of students were protesting against the Dengist reforms.
About 300 people died, including PLA soldiers, in street fighting blocks away from the square, which started when unarmed pla soldiers were attacked with firebombs in their trucks and apcs and burned alive.
The students in the square left when ordered with little if any violence. The whole narrative around the June 4th incident is unalloyed propaganda and revisionist history.
"democracy" China was/is already more democratic then any western "democracy"
Standard issue Reddit format opener is already a bad start.
What is the point of such a claim? Is the implication that all governments are equally bad? That is both lazy and absurd. Is this some veiled libertarian pitch in favor of ostensibly less government, except still a government and less accountable?
Removed by mod
Is it even possible for you to reply without coming across as smug and condescending?
Of course you didn't. You used the wormy Reddit plausible-deniability format where you imply your position without actually committing to it.
I didn't imply shit, but you do you.
If you supposedly implied nothing in that first line, what was the point of that empty and unprovably vague first statement to begin with? Since you're euphoric and enlightened by your own intelligence, show some spine and tell us.
Now you're dictating how I feel? Jesus. I'm not going to say something I don't mean/beleave because you want me to.
"I didn't imply shit" about how you feel.
So you say that people fail at reading comprehension if they don't derive the meaning you desire them to, and you won't say what that meaning is.
How dare you imply meaning in my statements tankie
They really never want to take an actual position. They always retreat to "that's not what i said!" I don't understand that, no matter how many times i see it.
It takes it to a whole new level that "you don't understand" and "you are illiterate" were said alongside "no, I will NOT state what you were supposed to read out of the vague statement."
You’re a liar and a loser and no one is deceived, dickhole
Can you please tone down the unnecessary aggression? I understand politics can be sensitive but we prefer to keep this place civil.
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/
100% to be a government is inherently to exist and operate in the realm of real bad shit