六四运动; Twenty Years Ago Today

[Bud Struggle]

1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square
Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic protest in Peking's (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.
Tanks rumbled through the capital's streets late on 3 June as the army moved into the square from several directions, randomly firing on unarmed protesters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm

Some pictures of the event:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tiananmen.html

It killed Maoism but not dictatorship.

And also:

China Censors: The Tiananmen Square Anniversary Will Not Be Tweeted

Chinese authorities have instituted censoring measures to block access to several internet sites and services in anticipation of Thursday’s 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protest and massacre.
The censoring began at 5 p.m. local time on Tuesday as access to sites was blocked, though users could still reportedly reach some of them through proxies, VPNs and third-party desktop clients.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/china-censors-internet-before-tiananmen-square-anniversary/

[RGacky3]

Whats your point in posting this?

[Bud Struggle]

Whats your point in posting this?

It a Communist website and this was an important event in the history of Communism. It marked the end of any real attempt by the Chinese to implement Socialist/Communistic beliefs and was the beginning of China's march toward Capitalism.

The other interesting thing is it's a good example just how "undemocratic" this particular attempt at Soicialism/Communism was.

It was also 20 years ago to the day.

[RGacky3]

It a Communist website and this was an important event in the history of Communism. It marked the end of any real attempt by the Chinese to implement Socialist/Communistic beliefs and was the beginning of China's march toward Capitalism.

The other interesting thing is it's a good example just how "undemocratic" this particular attempt at Soicialism/Communism was.

Most people here don't condsider china to be socialistic at all, most don't even consider it to be a decent example of socialism in the begining, most don't belive china was trying to impliment socialism from the begining, all that shifted was the ruling class (the parties) tactics for wielding power.

It ws'nt an important event in the history of communism, because it had nothing to do with communism.

Your arguing against the wind here. Posting about how despotic Saddam Hussein was would be just as relevant.

[Bud Struggle]

Most people here don't condsider china to be socialistic at all, most don't even consider it to be a decent example of socialism in the begining, most don't belive china was trying to impliment socialism from the begining, all that shifted was the ruling class (the parties) tactics for wielding power.


I think China just the SU is a good example of what Marxism looks like when it's implemented in the real world. I certainly believe that Mao, Castro, Che, Trotsky and Lenin (though not Stalin) had the best intentions of instituting Socialism with it one day morphing into a true Communist world.

You seem to attibute bad intentions to all of these Revolutionaries. Me, not so much--I think they were true Revolutionaries and true Communists. The problem is what the history of Communism has looked like over the last 100 years is in the genetic makeup of its political philosophy not in the bad faith of Revolutionary Communists.

As far as what people on this site think--there are plenty of Leninists and Stalinists and Maoists and Hoxhaists and Trotskyists and other fans of assorted Revolutionaries that made Marxism look like it does in the 20th and 21st Centuries wandering around here.

You can even find an occasional Nietzschian. :)

[#FF0000]

Weren't the Tienanmen Square protests organized to protest economic liberalization?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It marked the end of any real attempt by the Chinese to implement Socialist/Communistic beliefs and was the beginning of China's march toward Capitalism.
Actually, the beginning of China's march towards capitalism was in 1978, over a decade before Tienanmen. It was in 1978 that Deng began his (small, at first) program of market reforms.

[RGacky3]

You seem to attibute bad intentions to all of these Revolutionaries. Me, not so much--I think they were true Revolutionaries and true Communists. The problem is what the history of Communism has looked like over the last 100 years is in the genetic makeup of its political philosophy not in the bad faith of Revolutionary Communists.


it has nothing to do with intentions, it has to do with the nature of power, "power corrupts" "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[Robert]

it has nothing to do with intentions, it has to do with the nature of power, "power corrupts" "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So what's going to power the revolution?

Gacky, there are Stalinists on this board, right now, posting this week in this forum. Look at the religion sub-forum and read al8's posts.

I see your dilemma as this: there will be no revolution of the kind you envision without very strong men with lots of weapons and no mercy.
When me and my brother reactionaries are all liquidated, do you really think that men like this will share power with men like you? Why?

I think about Gandhi when I write things like this, and I admit he helped chase the British out of India, maybe he more than anyone, and without force or weapons. But of course he didn't really want political power. Plus he was murdered. The only thing that could have saved him was a retinue of armed bodyguards.

Maybe that's just happenstance, but I don't think so.

[RGacky3]

So what's going to power the revolution?

Nice Pun, ummm, people ... That does'nt mean they need Authority (I'll use that word so you can't Pun it).


I see your dilemma as this: there will be no revolution of the kind you envision without very strong men with lots of weapons and no mercy.

WHY? Strength in numbers? Solidarity? Why won't those work?


I think about Gandhi when I write things like this, and I admit he helped chase the British out of India, maybe he more than anyone, and without force or weapons. But of course he didn't really want political power. Plus he was murdered. The only thing that could have saved him was a retinue of armed bodyguards.

Maybe that's just happenstance, but I don't think so.

Thats one example, he had charisma. There have been many revolutions large and small, that have never had a central leader with innate authority, maybe some charismatic figureheads, but that does'nt mean they have more rights or authority than anyone else. You don't need authoritarian leadersihp to have a revoltion, authoritarian leadership kills revolution.

You say thats a delema, but its not at all the case.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I see your dilemma as this: there will be no revolution of the kind you envision without very strong men with lots of weapons and no mercy.
When me and my brother reactionaries are all liquidated, do you really think that men like this will share power with men like you? Why?
An important part of being a revolutionary is understanding that power is not something you have, but something that other people give you. For all its guns and ruthlessness, the most oppressive government in the world would collapse tomorrow if a sufficiently large number of its subjects decided they were going to simply ignore its orders from now on. The police can't be everywhere at once.

Oppression relies on fear. A people who is not afraid cannot be oppressed.

So to answer your question, we will keep those merciless men with guns in check by not being afraid of them, and by not following their orders unless they have been democratically decided.

[RGacky3]

So to answer your question, we will keep those merciless men with guns in check by not being afraid of them, and by not following their orders unless they have been democratically decided.


great, why not just not let them have all the guns in the first place, theres enought guns to go around.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg


I've heard that the tanks that ran over that guy tried going around him, but he kept moving into their path. Is this true?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

great, why not just not let them have all the guns in the first place, theres enought guns to go around.
I was taking it for granted that everyone else would have guns, too. That hardly needs saying. You can't exactly have a revolution without arming the people.


I've heard that the tanks that ran over that guy tried going around him, but he kept moving into their path. Is this true?
They didn't run over him at all. They tried going around him but he kept blocking their path, and then he either ran or was chased away by policemen (I can't remember which).

[#FF0000]

I've heard that the tanks that ran over that guy tried going around him, but he kept moving into their path. Is this true?

It didn't run over him. They kept turning around him but he got in their way, until he eventually decided to climb up on one tank, open the hatch, and have a chat with the tank crew.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

until he eventually decided to climb up on one tank, open the hatch, and have a chat with the tank crew.
^ That's right, my bad.

[Robert]

we will keep those merciless men with guns in check by not being afraid of them, and by not following their orders unless they have been democratically decided.

Oh, I think you'll do exactly what they say. Or get shot.

[Agrippa]

Most people here don't condsider china to be socialistic at all, most don't even consider it to be a decent example of socialism in the begining, most don't belive china was trying to impliment socialism from the begining, all that shifted was the ruling class (the parties) tactics for wielding power.

If that's the case, the 20th anneversary of the Tienanmen Square riots is even more important to be remembered as a heroic act of anti-capitalist resistance.


It ws'nt an important event in the history of communism, because it had nothing to do with communism.That's not true. The majority of the demonstrators were Maoists and there was a large libertarian Marxist/anarchist faction. the pro-Western Democracy faction was relatively small....


Your arguing against the wind here. Posting about how despotic Saddam Hussein was would be just as relevant.

It's not irrelevant to the people he oppressed. "Anti-capitalist" doesn't just mean "anti-American" and "anti-Western".

[MikeSC]

I think China just the SU is a good example of what Marxism looks like when it's implemented in the real world. I certainly believe that Mao, Castro, Che, Trotsky and Lenin (though not Stalin) had the best intentions of instituting Socialism with it one day morphing into a true Communist world.

You seem to attibute bad intentions to all of these Revolutionaries. Me, not so much--I think they were true Revolutionaries and true Communists. The problem is what the history of Communism has looked like over the last 100 years is in the genetic makeup of its political philosophy not in the bad faith of Revolutionary Communists.

As far as what people on this site think--there are plenty of Leninists and Stalinists and Maoists and Hoxhaists and Trotskyists and other fans of assorted Revolutionaries that made Marxism look like it does in the 20th and 21st Centuries wandering around here.

You can even find an occasional Nietzschian. :)

I agree- we can define authoritarian socialist movements as "State Capitalism" and so on- and while these definitions may suit, we shouldn't be using them as a way to disown such things.

It's like accidentally creating explosives while trying make a cure for a disease- we don't want it to happen, but when it has happened instead of going "not our business because it doesn't do the things our cure should do by definition" we should learn from them so as not to do it again... if that makes sense.

I think this goes along with the whole "Communism isn't a religion" argument. It's not that Lenin and Mao "just didn't believe hard enough" in socialism or anything like that! And there's no single program that will work to get society from capitalism to socialism to communism. I've been reading "Ten Days that Shook the World" and there's a story of a Bolshevik made Finance Minister because he worked for a few months in a French bank- because they needed a cabinet at short notice!

We shouldn't be saying "these guys weren't socialists because it went pear-shaped and socialism wouldn't". And we shouldn't pay any attention to the anti-communist argument of "it's been tried and it failed. Therefore it will fail every time." They're two sides of the same mindset- neither are productive.

So... yeah, I agree with TomK. Maoism and the path it took is relevant and Tiananmen Square is big part of that history.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh, I think you'll do exactly what they say. Or get shot.
Bear in mind this is supposed to be happening just a few years after we overthrow the capitalist state, which made exactly the same threat.

[Robert]

Bear in mind this is supposed to be happening just a few years after we overthrow the capitalist state, which made exactly the same threat.

Exsqueeze me?

[Bud Struggle]

Exsqueeze me?

Robert, you have to KNOW that guys like you and me will be running the Communist world just like we run the Capitalist one and just like we would have run the Feudal state.

After the Revolution we should do lunch--your dacha or mine, Comrade? ;) :D

[Il Medico]

1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square
Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic protest in Peking's (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.

Some pictures of the event:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg

Look at the brave tank! Who knows what that guy could have done to it! I mean, he had a jacket, there could have been keys in it or something!:scared:

But really your post has no point. This was a massacre carried out by a State-capitalist dictatorship. Not communist, only people claiming to be so. If I claim to be from Mars does it make it so? No. Unless this is capitalist propaganda, then there will be signs in every town say "Beware of the 'Red" Planet menace!" :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

But really your post has no point. This was a massacre carried out by a State-capitalist dictatorship. Not communist, only people claiming to be so.

Much like RevLeft posters don't you think? Communist seem to be like gobliens or fairies. People talk about them all of the time but no one has ever seen a REAL one. ;)

[Il Medico]

Much like RevLeft posters don't you think? Communist seem to be like gobliens or fairies. People talk about them all of the time but no one has ever seen a REAL one. ;)
One you misspelled goblin. Two, there are a lot of real communist, myself included. The thing that is really a fairy tale, and you'll never see one (i guarantee it!), is a capitalist with a heart, and a reactionary with a brain.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Everyone who claims to be whatever they are are exactly that. I claim to be Napolean.

[Robert]

a reactionary with a brain.

And yet, with all our manifold shortcomings, we're still in complete control.

Amazing, n'est-ce pas?

[Rosa Provokateur]

I've heard that the tanks that ran over that guy tried going around him, but he kept moving into their path. Is this true?

Yeah. He put his life on the line to halt their asssault. That's true martyrdom, brothers. That's a revolutionary at his best.

[Forward Union]

I've heard that the tanks that ran over that guy tried going around him, but he kept moving into their path. Is this true?

Yes and he's still alive. He climbed up on top of it and got arrested. Naughty Naughty.

Of course that's because it's a evil communist dictatorship. If you stand in front of a tank and climb up on it in the UK or USA there is no legal action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

[Hiero]

I don't see how it was a massacre. It was a scuffle where people died. The fighting took palce outside of the square. But no one really wants to know that fact.

Also that guy didn't get arrested. The footage I remember, someone in plain clothes runs along and moves him along. It could be an undercover cop, but it actually looks more like someone from the public came to his rescue and got him out of their before being arrested.

[Il Medico]

And yet, with all our manifold shortcomings, we're still in complete control.

Amazing, n'est-ce pas?
To be a reactionary you have to have power and like the way things are. All reactionaries have had power, but they lose it at the hands of those they oppress. King Louis XVI was a reactionary, that ended well for him! :D
Enjoy power while you can, the revolution is coming!

[RGacky3]

If that's the case, the 20th anneversary of the Tienanmen Square riots is even more important to be remembered as a heroic act of anti-capitalist resistance.


anti-state resistance.


That's not true. The majority of the demonstrators were Maoists and there was a large libertarian Marxist/anarchist faction. the pro-Western Democracy faction was relatively small....

My point was that China was'nt a real socialist State, so essencially that protest has the significance as a protest in the United States.


It's not irrelevant to the people he oppressed. "Anti-capitalist" doesn't just mean "anti-American" and "anti-Western".

Again my point was that its pointless to try and attack socialism by attacking China, because China isnt socialist, he might as well have attacked Saddam hussain, that was my point.


Robert, you have to KNOW that guys like you and me will be running the Communist world just like we run the Capitalist one and just like we would have run the Feudal state.

I doubt that, considering thered be no institutions or way for you to rule.


Much like RevLeft posters don't you think? Communist seem to be like gobliens or fairies. People talk about them all of the time but no one has ever seen a REAL one.

Are you senile?


Of course that's because it's a evil communist dictatorship. If you stand in front of a tank and climb up on it in the UK or USA there is no legal action.

Great point.

[Jia]

It a Communist website and this was an important event in the history of Communism. It marked the end of any real attempt by the Chinese to implement Socialist/Communistic beliefs and was the beginning of China's march toward Capitalism.


This is utter nonsense. China began its liberalisation of the economy in 1978, and almost no socialist attempts at all attempted. China did not begin its march towards capitalism in 1989. In fact, it had to be more careful on how fast it was already making this progress.

Not all of the protesters were anti-government just for the control either, several were against the abolishment of the Iron rice bowl, high inflation etc.

There were several peaceful demonstrations in other cities, but in Beijing it gets all the attention because it was violent and had foreign media there.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Exsqueeze me?
We were debating what would happen after the revolution. You argued that, after the revolution, the people would be taking orders from the first guy to brandish a gun at them. I pointed out that this is highly unlikely for a people who just overthrew their government.


And yet, with all our manifold shortcomings, we're still in complete control.

Amazing, n'est-ce pas?
Yes. Yes it is, actually. I'll be the first to admit that the main reason you're still in control is because of avoidable mistakes on our part.

[Sir Comradical]

Most of the protestors were disillusioned communists, trotskyists and leftists in general. Yes they wanted democracy, but then again democracy does not equal capitalism.

You fail.

[danyboy27]

i think tomk post is revelant, we all know here this massacer wasnt the result of communism itself but the whole world does.

this event is verry important beccause its about power, it show how people can steal our ideology in order to legitimate horrible crime such has sending tanks and soldier killing innocent protester in the name of state security and the common good.

we shall not forget this tragedy, beccause that something that might happen again if we are not vigilant enough to watch the powermonger.

[RGacky3]

i think tomk post is revelant, we all know here this massacer wasnt the result of communism itself but the whole world does.

The 1970 Kent State massacre was a result of capitalism. Oh and every Massacre that happened in Mexico because of the Mexican army/police (there are a few) are also a direct result of Capitalism.

You see how stupid this is?

Even so, Mexico and the United states are actually are Capitalist.

[Dimentio]

It a Communist website and this was an important event in the history of Communism. It marked the end of any real attempt by the Chinese to implement Socialist/Communistic beliefs and was the beginning of China's march toward Capitalism.

The other interesting thing is it's a good example just how "undemocratic" this particular attempt at Soicialism/Communism was.

It was also 20 years ago to the day.

I think China was crap during Mao's government, and I think it degenerated into worse crap under the dengists. But Deng's reforms began in 1979, not 1989.

[Bud Struggle]

I think China was crap during Mao's government, and I think it degenerated into worse crap under the dengists. But Deng's reforms began in 1979, not 1989.

Things may have gone on since 1979 but the point I was making is that in 1889 the Chinese government stopped pretending that China was some sort of Communist paradise and got into the serious business of Capitalism.

Tanks trump politics every time. When the history of Capitalism is writ the Chinese Communists will be the heros of all time.

[Dimentio]

Things may have gone on since 1979 but the point I was making is that in 1889 the Chinese government stopped pretending that China was some sort of Communist paradise and got into the serious business of Capitalism.

Tanks trump politics every time. When the history of Capitalism is writ the Chinese Communists will be the heros of all time.

Ultimately, the protests varied in their economic demands. There were students who demanded more market reforms, and workers who demanded less. But ultimately, everyone wanted the ability to speak their mind freely.

[Bud Struggle]

Ultimately, the protests varied in their economic demands. There were students who demanded more market reforms, and workers who demanded less. But ultimately, everyone wanted the ability to speak their mind freely.

Well they got market reforms. No one's speaking their minds freely. :(

[Robert]

I just saw this:

[QUOTE]King Louis XVI was a reactionary, that ended well for him! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif
Enjoy power while you can, the revolution is coming! [QUOTE]

What exactly did Louis XVI do to merit beheading? I would argue that the French Revolution and the murder of Louis XVI accomplished precisely nothing. Except to produce an Emperor who brought extensive misery to points east and west of Paris.

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:z6BlAczzmur9uM:http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/img/Napoleon_Great.jpg

Louis XVI is reported to have expressed, as his last words, hope that his fate not befall the French people. Sounds to me like he anticipated the Thermidorean Reaction.



Plus ça change, ....

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I just saw this:


King Louis XVI was a reactionary, that ended well for him! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif
Enjoy power while you can, the revolution is coming!

What exactly did Louis XVI do to merit beheading?Being an autocratic despot who exploited his people even beyond the usual standards of the time, for a start. He also clung to an outdated mode of production and form of government that stifled progress, he poured vast amounts of money into absurd luxury while the people starved, he fought imperialist wars, and he enforced every imaginable kind of corrupt, parasitic hierarchy.

So yes, he deserved exactly what he got, and all other kings deserve the same.


I would argue that the French Revolution and the murder of Louis XVI accomplished precisely nothing. Except to produce an Emperor who brought extensive misery to points east and west of Paris.
Napoleon's regime was indeed reactionary, but it did not erase the accomplishments of the Revolution. Complicated and discriminatory medieval laws were replaced with a much simpler civil code that, for the first time in history, guaranteed all citizens equality before the law. The idea of democracy and popular sovereignty arrived on the European continent. Human rights and liberties were enshrined in a constitution for the first time. The power of the feudal nobility was crushed in France, paving the way for the rise of the bourgeoisie (which was playing a very progressive role at this time in history). The age of the "career open to talents" began - no longer did your social standing depend exclusively on that of your parents. The first secular state in Europe was created.

And so on and so forth. The French Revolution gave birth to politics as we know it today, from our concept of law to the idea of Left and Right.

[Robert]

The French Revolution gave birth to politics as we know it today, from our concept of law to the idea of Left and Right.

Oh, b.s. The Brits, Australians and the Canadians enjoy more rights than the French do (I know this is debatable) and they didn't have to murder the sovereign to get there. I'm not even sure that the American Revolution accomplished anything that could not have been done peacefully and gradually.

As for imperialist wars, are you sure you aren't thinking of his father or grandfather?

Vive le réformisme!

[Random Precision]

Oh, b.s. The Brits, Australians and the Canadians enjoy more rights than the French do (I know this is debatable)

[citation needed]


and they didn't have to murder the sovereign to get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England#Execution


I'm not even sure that the American Revolution accomplished anything that could not have been done peacefully and gradually.

Sure. Britain could have been convinced to just give up its mercantile stranglehold on the colonies' economy. In fact the American revolutionaries tried compromise again and again, but Britain refused to make any meaningful concessions.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...and they didn't have to murder the sovereign to get there.
A country's history and politics is not isolated from the history and politics of the rest of the world. The French Revolution had consequences for the Brits, Canadians and Australians just as much as it did for the French.

And among those consequences was a weakening of the prestige and mystique of monarchs, a surging tide of liberalism, and a fear of popular uprising which made your beloved reformism possible in the first place.

It is the fear of revolution that drives all successful reforms.

[Robert]

With regard to the French, I refer to their stupid speech taboos, which I thought was common knowledge. Google Bardot and Muslim and try to imagine her being tried in London on those charges.
As for Charles I, thank you for the cite. Now tell us about Charles II and the current queen.

As for the USA, that fight was as much with parliament as it was with
the king. Besides, hasn't the USA been just as imperialist in the aftermath? More so?

Vive le Roi!

BTW, I look smasing in purple if you ever want a Restoration, American style.

[Robert]

Pretty good, KH. Damned good, in fact. But they didn't have to cut his head off, nor institute La Terreur afterwards. And you know it.

Now rise and ...

Counter the Revolution!

[Random Precision]

With regard to the French, I refer to their stupid speech taboos, which I thought was common knowledge. Google Bardot and Muslim and try to imagine her being tried in London on those charges.

She was tried under a law established in 1972. You do the math, is that more likely related to civil liberties the Revolution forgot to address, or the high amount of immigration to France during that period from Africa and the overseas departments?

Furthermore, the United Kingdom has its own laws prohibiting hate speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred#United_Kingd om


As for Charles I, thank you for the cite. Now tell us about Charles II and the current queen.

How much state power does Elizabeth II have? The right-wing of the bourgeois revolution in England was able to reinstate the monarchy as a symbol, which was then stripped of all its meaningful powers by Parliament over a period of time. This is what the Girondists in France had wanted to do.


As for the USA, that fight was as much with parliament as it was with the king.

I'd say more so with Parliament, which was responsible for the mercantile policy and repressive laws like the Stamp Act. But so what?


Besides, hasn't the USA been just as imperialist in the aftermath? More so?

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

[Robert]

then stripped of all its meaningful powers by Parliament over a period of timeRight. So it was reformed without revolution? I say that's good. What do you say?


Furthermore, the United Kingdom has its own laws prohibiting hate speech: Well, shit. I withdraw my claim. They're both insane. Has anyone been tried and convicted in the UK for doung what Bardot did?
By the way, do you support those hate speech laws in the UK and in France?


I'd say more so with Parliament, which was responsible for the mercantile policy and repressive laws like the Stamp Act. But so what?

So the English Parliament wasn't the Iraqi parliament under Saddam Hussein; with a Parliament in place, there existed mechanisms for negotiating a redress of the American grievances. Was the redress of those particular grievances worth 50,000 casualties?

My query about American imperialism was somewhat playful, but it is another argument to my suggestion that all that hooey about "self-evident [truths] that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness)" was just hypocritical noise. The founders no more recognized "equality for all men" than the king did.

And the carnage that followed the establishment of all these republics here and in Europe, like the Napoleonic Wars following the French Revolution, made prior wars look like tea parties.

Hey, why am I the one condemning imperialism and world war here and advocating peace? Isn't that your job?

Vive la régression!

[Bud Struggle]

Happy 1000th post Robertus Magnus!

[Robert]

1,000 posts? Well I'll be hanged!

Uh, figuratively speaking. Ahem. Right, comrades? Pals? Hello?? Anybody??? :scared:

Thanks, Bud.

[Random Precision]

Right. So it was reformed without revolution? I say that's good. What do you say?

Sigh. The absolute monarchy in England was abolished by a revolution, the leaders of which had Charles I executed. When Cromwell died and the right wing emerged victorious, they reinstated the monarchy with the understanding that Parliament would have more power, then reformed the rest of its meaningful powers out of existence. A combination of reform and revolution. Which is sort of what happens in the revolutionary process that turns capitalism into socialism.


Well, shit. I withdraw my claim. They're both insane. Has anyone been tried and convicted in the UK for doung what Bardot did?

I don't know.


By the way, do you support those hate speech laws in the UK and in France?

I'm ambivalent toward them. On one hand, I recognize that if a bourgeois state can ban hate speech directed toward other races and religions, then it can also ban revolutionary speech and propaganda. On the other hand I recognize the importance of blocking the extreme right from the public discourse. So I like that people can't rant about the Muslim threat, but I don't like what is stopping them.


So the English Parliament wasn't the Iraqi parliament under Saddam Hussein; with a Parliament in place, there existed mechanisms for negotiating a redress of the American grievances.

Of course, the American colonies had no representation in Parliament, as every schoolchild in the United States is taught. It's where the phrase "taxation without representation" comes from. They had a right to send an observer to Parliament, who had no voting powers. Furthermore Parliament was made up of the richest men in the nation, and many of them had a vested interest in the mercantile policy over the colonies, which retarded their economic progress. The First Continental Congress petitioned Parliament for redress of their grievances numerous times, which were ignored. So you tell me, was that a body that the American revolutionaries could expect a lot from?


Was the redress of those particular grievances worth 50,000 casualties?

I don't judge revolutions based on the number of bodies.


My query about American imperialism was somewhat playful, but it is another argument to my suggestion that all that hooey about "self-evident [truths] that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness)" was just hypocritical noise. The founders no more recognized "equality for all men" than the king did.

Sure, the founders were hypocrites. But I don't judge revolutions based on the character of their leaders, either.


And the carnage that followed the establishment of all these republics here and in Europe, like the Napoleonic Wars following the French Revolution, made prior wars look like tea parties.

Hey, why am I the one condemning imperialism and world war here and advocating peace? Isn't that your job?

See above. :)

[RedStarOverChina]

Ok, I'm seeing some gross misunderstanding of the event here.

First of all, the students innitially saw themselves as pro-CPC, but only against corruption.

However, they were not protesting AGAINST privatization, they were protesting FOR more privatization.

I know, it's conflicting, but that's what you get for having years of CPC indoctrination mixed with American propaganda broadcasts.

[Green Dragon]

An important part of being a revolutionary is understanding that power is not something you have, but something that other people give you. For all its guns and ruthlessness, the most oppressive government in the world would collapse tomorrow if a sufficiently large number of its subjects decided they were going to simply ignore its orders from now on. The police can't be everywhere at once.

Oppression relies on fear. A people who is not afraid cannot be oppressed.

So to answer your question, we will keep those merciless men with guns in check by not being afraid of them, and by not following their orders unless they have been democratically decided.

Naturally, in a democracy, the majority rules the minority. The objective, as must follow from your above statements, is to convince the majority of the people that their community is not oppressive and tyrannical, but open and free.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1458308]Nice Pun, ummm, people ... That does'nt mean they need Authority (I'll use that word so you can't Pun it).


"power to the people" of course ignores:
1. The nature of that power.
2. Power to do what?




WHY? Strength in numbers? Solidarity? Why won't those work?


Solidarity for what? Everyone, or more accurately, the majority of the people has to more or less agree with each other.




Thats one example, he had charisma. There have been many revolutions large and small, that have never had a central leader with innate authority, maybe some charismatic figureheads, but that does'nt mean they have more rights or authority than anyone else. You don't need authoritarian leadersihp to have a revoltion, authoritarian leadership kills revolution.


"Small" would probably be more accurate. "Small" and "short-lived" would be more accurate still.

The dillema is that you forget is that democracy is a form of authoritarianism. Somebody, or some group of (elected) officials is going to have to guide the people in the "correct" direction, to help foster all that solidarity upon which you depend. That "authoritarian leadership" you fret about? Its the leadership which goes in a different direction that you would go.

[RGacky3]

"power to the people" of course ignores:
1. The nature of that power.
2. Power to do what?

Your question was if there is no group with "power" what is going to "power" the revolution, your using the word in 2 different ways that have different meanings.

I never said "power to the people", I said that the people can "power" (make run, like a baterry makes appliances run, going along with you rediculous pun) the revolution. They don't NEED power (authority over others).


Solidarity for what? Everyone, or more accurately, the majority of the people has to more or less agree with each other.

The majority of the people have to agree that they want freedom and equal rights, thats it, and thats not that hard to get.


"Small" would probably be more accurate. "Small" and "short-lived" would be more accurate still.

When I say small I'm not talking about geographical area, a workplaces takeover is a little revolution, getting someone thrown out of office is a little one, and so forth.

You don't need someone, or some elected officials to foster solidarity, people can do it themselves, also if there were a few people fostering solidarity, that does'nt make them leaders or with nay authority.

Democracy is not a form of authoritarianism if it does'nt have any innate authority attached to it.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1462397]Your question was if there is no group with "power" what is going to "power" the revolution, your using the word in 2 different ways that have different meanings.

I never said "power to the people", I said that the people can "power" (make run, like a baterry makes appliances run, going along with you rediculous pun) the revolution. They don't NEED power (authority over others).


Yeah. But the people have to "power" it in a certain direction, in a xertain manner.




The majority of the people have to agree that they want freedom and equal rights, thats it, and thats not that hard to get.


Depends upon how "freedom" is defined. That fellow you are debating with regarding free speech certainly argues that HIS freedom will be enhanced by following his ideas.




When I say small I'm not talking about geographical area, a workplaces takeover is a little revolution, getting someone thrown out of office is a little one, and so forth.


Not really. Because then the office still has to be "powered."


You don't need someone, or some elected officials to foster solidarity, people can do it themselves,

Which historically has not been the case.


also if there were a few people fostering solidarity, that does'nt make them leaders or with nay authority.

If the majority of the people listen to them, it most certainly does.



Democracy is not a form of authoritarianism if it does'nt have any innate authority attached to it.


Of course it does. The authority of democracy is that of the authority of the majority of the population over the minority of the population.

[RGacky3]

Yeah. But the people have to "power" it in a certain direction, in a xertain manner.

Yeah its up to them, thats the point of both communism and anarchism.


Depends upon how "freedom" is defined. That fellow you are debating with regarding free speech certainly argues that HIS freedom will be enhanced by following his ideas.


Thats fine, as long as your not taking other peoples freedom away (which he wants to do).


Not really. Because then the office still has to be "powered."

Perhaps, but the power situation does change somewhat, its not a completete revolution, but it makes a difference.


Which historically has not been the case.

Historically its happend many times, also historically most of the times a revolution happend where a few people had innate authority and power the revolution ended up in a tyranny.


If the majority of the people listen to them, it most certainly does.

why? Why is authority needed?


Of course it does. The authority of democracy is that of the authority of the majority of the population over the minority of the population.

When I talk about democracy, I'm talking about it in the sense of it being a tool of desicion making, not a government form. So it would'nt be a permanent institution, just a way to get things done.

[Robert]

why? Why is authority needed?

To maintain order.

[RGacky3]

Quote:
why? Why is authority needed?
To maintain order.

Its not needed to maintain order, ther is no proof of that, and historically authority has never been to maintain order and infact has been to maintain and expand authority and to exploit.

I would say its even easier to maintain order without authority because everyone must cooperate in order to get things done, rather than one person ordering people, with oner person ordering all it takes is that one person, or a few of those people to have a screw loose and there we go.

[Robert]

Its not needed to maintain order, ther is no proof of that

Proof? Well, as I think you argued elsewhere, we have to accept some things -- you say everything, right? -- on faith. I have no faith that order can be maintained without authority.

[RGacky3]

I have no faith that order can be maintained without authority.

Well let me put it this way, has "order" been maintained with authority? What type of order, would the negative consequences of stripping that authority and the "order" it creates outweigh the benefits.

This "order" your talking about is nothing more than the order of class rule, thats it, its not protecting man from his own barbaric self, its protecting the ruling class from loosing power.

[Green Dragon]

Yeah its up to them, thats the point of both communism and anarchism.


Sure, and it will need a form of authority to direct and guide. Unless your conception is 100% agreement 100% of the time.







When I talk about democracy, I'm talking about it in the sense of it being a tool of desicion making, not a government form. So it would'nt be a permanent institution, just a way to get things done.[/QUOTE]

Of course. It means the majority of the population has the authority over the minority of the population to power the community in the direction the majority thinks best.

[Green Dragon]

Sure, and it will need a form of authority to direct and guide. Unless your conception is 100% agreement 100% of the time.








When I talk about democracy, I'm talking about it in the sense of it being a tool of desicion making, not a government form. So it would'nt be a permanent institution, just a way to get things done.

Of course. It means the majority of the population has the authority over the minority of the population to power the community in the direction the majority thinks best.[/QUOTE]