A Blasphemy Against the Nobel Peace Prize

[Bud Struggle]

It seems that China while progressing very nicely in the economic sphere still has a long way to go in the political one. The think is that I doubt that China could have grown so fast financially if there wasn't a tightly controlled government.

BEIJING — Liu Xiaobo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/liu_xiaobo/index.html?inline=nyt-per), an impassioned literary critic, political essayist and democracy advocate repeatedly jailed by the Chinese government for his writings, won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in recognition of “his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.”

Mr. Liu, 54, perhaps China’s best known dissident, is currently serving an 11-year term on subversion charges.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry reacted angrily to the news, calling it a “blasphemy” to the Peace Prize and saying it would harm Norwegian-Chinese relations. “Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law,” it said in a statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/world/09nobel.html

[Revolutionair]

Yeah I just read that on a news website.

The Nobel Peace Prize is really becoming void. First Obama, now some pro-US imperialist anti-Chinese imperialist guy gets the prize.

[RGacky3]

Its progress economically was really for only a few people.

So I guess the political progress should only be fore a few people too :)

But I agree, Chineese human rights records are repulsive and its good in my opinion that things like this get out in the open, so that people take note.

But then again, imagen in Malcolm X, Eugene Debs, or whoever else won the nobel peace prize, the US would'nt have been to happy.


The think is that I doubt that China could have grown so fast financially if there wasn't a tightly controlled government.


But why should the vast majority of China care if it does'nt benefit them?

[RGacky3]

now some pro-US imperialist anti-Chinese imperialist guy gets the prize.

Pro-US Imperialist? Right now the Pro-IMperialist guys in CHina are the COmmunist party, not the people fighting for democracy.

[Revolutionair]

You misunderstood me.


But why should the vast majority of China care if it does'nt benefit them?
The Chinese working class shouldn't care anyway. Economic welfare means economic welfare for the ruling class.
A bigger hold of the Chinese ruling class on the economy means that Chinese imperialism will improve. Someone who tries to reduce the hold of the Chinese ruling class only helps US imperialism.

The game is imperialism vs imperialism. Not imperialism vs working class or w/e.


Nice as it sounds, basic income, or this kind of a trade with the rich, is not a solution.
- Zizek

Just change the more economic 'freedom' to more political 'freedom'.

[ZeroNowhere]

One may only blaspheme against something when it is holy. The Nobel Peace Prize, however, is not so much holy as it is holey from penetration of bullets. Therefore, I would have to disagree with this gentleman.

[RGacky3]

A bigger hold of the Chinese ruling class on the economy means that Chinese imperialism will improve. Someone who tries to reduce the hold of the Chinese ruling class only helps US imperialism.

The game is imperialism vs imperialism. Not imperialism vs working class or w/e.


So I guess the Chineese working class should just suck it up and take it, because God forbid another imperialist benefits from them persuing their own interests.

The game is the Chineese people against the ruling class of China, I don't think they care, or they should care, about the global power balance, the fact that you call him an pro-US imperialist is rediculous.


Just change the more economic 'freedom' to more political 'freedom'.

What does that mean?

[Revolutionair]

Again you misunderstood me.

This guy is playing INSIDE of the game of capitalism.
INSIDE the game of capitalism there is only imperialism vs imperialism. If you wish to fight for working class rights, this is not the way to go. Working class rights are inherently outside of capitalism. By staying inside of capitalism and by taking a position against the Chinese ruling class, he automatically takes up the position of pro-US imperialism.

What I meant with the quote is: the Nobel prize winner wants to trade with the rich. I used the Zizek quote because Zizek expressed the same as what I want to express now. Only Zizek used it in the economic sphere and this conversation is about political 'freedom'.

So again: Liu Xiaobo is working inside capitalism. Therefore he CANNOT take up a pro-worker position. He takes an anti-Chinese imperialist position INSIDE of capitalism. This will work in favor of US imperialism, even though that is not what Liu Xiaobo wanted to do.

[Dean]

Pro-US Imperialist? Right now the Pro-IMperialist guys in CHina are the COmmunist party, not the people fighting for democracy.

Seems like they're both pro-imperialist:


In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong's Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation. He replied in this way: "(It would take) 300 years of colonialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism). In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would take 300 years of colonialism for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough."

What a shit. No nation "needs colonialism," since that would mean nothing more than an exploitative position for the nation which colonizes them. Anyone who supports his nation being colonized does not really care about the human rights conditions there.

[Revolutionair]

Yes! Thank you Dean for saying what I was trying to express.
Sorry for my bad English.

[RGacky3]

I did'nt know about that quote that the guy said.

[RGacky3]

Seems like they're both pro-imperialist:

Are religious groups fighting against the Chineese state repressing their religion also pro-imperialist???

[Invincible Summer]

Seems like they're both pro-imperialist:



What a shit. No nation "needs colonialism," since that would mean nothing more than an exploitative position for the nation which colonizes them. Anyone who supports his nation being colonized does not really care about the human rights conditions there.


I think what the quote is is a thinly veiled "I like the United States a lot, I wish that they would come and turn China into a similarly fucked up place with capitalists running rampant."


Just goes to show how concepts like "peace," and "human rights" are meaningless concepts in themselves, and whose definitions are created by those in power.

[Lt. Ferret]

communist china > hong kong? get the fuck out of here.

[Ele'ill]

Perhaps it's the whole idea of a 'peace' prize that's the problem. It suggests that peaceful existance is noble when it only is to those in power because they are not challenged or threatened by such a stance.

[genstrike]

Yeah, what next, are they going to give it to warmongers like Henry Kissinger, Shimon Peres and Barack Obama?

Oh wait.

[RadioRaheem84]

While not condoning Chinese State Repression, I think the guy does deserve to have Chinese COINTELPRO come down on his ass. If his manifesto is a duplicate of Vaclav Havel's one (sponsored by US Freedom House) than he should be questioned for literally advocating for a total reversal of what ever is left of the revolution the CPC deformed.

The guys is an advocate of "shock therapy" for the most part. His grand hero are the treacherous Eastern Europe "dissidents" Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik and Lech Walesa.

I cannot believe that we're reliving the same shit and propaganda as was given to us in the media during the 80s.

[RGacky3]

I wish that they would come and turn China into a similarly fucked up place with capitalists running rampant."


Allready done man.


Just goes to show how concepts like "peace," and "human rights" are meaningless concepts in themselves, and whose definitions are created by those in power.

Not really, considering most serious people understand that the US state is anti-peace and violates human rights.


than he should be questioned for literally advocating for a total reversal of what ever is left of the revolution the CPC deformed.

Should socialists in America be questioned as well?

[Lt. Ferret]

wait you guys are against the guy that wants basic human rights for his countrymen? am i just reading this incorrectly?


goddamn its a good thing you are powerless.

[Invincible Summer]

Allready done man.

Hahah fair enough.




Not really, considering most serious people understand that the US state is anti-peace and violates human rights.

I'm not so sure about that. But what I'm referring to is more the likes of well-intentioned liberals that are all "YAAHHHH HUMAN RIGHTS!" and don't acknowledge that it is a nebulous concept that usually involves imperialism and hegemony.

[Bud Struggle]

Not really, considering most serious people understand that the US state is anti-peace and violates human rights.



You ever think of moving someplace that suits you better? Move to bean world if you think that is so good.

[RGacky3]

You ever think of moving someplace that suits you better? Move to bean world if you think that is so good.

Bean world? Racism aside are you talking about the places WHERE the US violates human rights and fights against peace???

[Trigonometry]

I agree it is stupid choice, the PRC government is IMO more right wing than even the USA but simply puts out an image of Socialism/ Communism, the whole 'Chinese Socialism' is just another euphemism for capitalist dictatorship.

That said, the nobel choice is absolutely pointless, I have not ever heard of this person until this prize, and to think some people on the net now think this is a Chinese Martin Lutherking really annoys me.

[Dermezel]

CIA puppet. Obvious Contra is obvious.

[Dermezel]

I agree it is stupid choice, the PRC government is IMO more right wing than even the USA


It is more authoritarian but at least it has a collectivized economy. It is better then Imperialism.

[Bud Struggle]

It is more authoritarian but at least it has a collectivized economy. It is better then Imperialism.

I think there are still large parts of the Chinese economy that is collectivized, but there is also a large part that is state run Capitalism.

As far as the government goes--there is nothing "Communist" about it. People don't have any real say in how the government is run. It's isn't democratic in any sense of the word.

I can understand a Communist supporting China for what it once was, but for what it IS NOW--I don't think the Nobel Prize was misplaced.

[Devrim]

The noble 'Peace' Prize has been awarded to three prime ministers of Israel, for their obvious great success in bringing yet more massacres of Palestinians to the Middle East, and to Henry Kissinger, who shoulders a great deal of responsibility for the attempt to bomb İndo-China back into the stone age.


When Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the distinguished musical satirist Tom Lehrer decided that he could no longer perform. "It was at that moment that satire died," says Lehrer, "There was nothing more to say after that."

Devrim

[Bud Struggle]

But the prizes are given by Social Democratic NORWAY. You'd think they'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Socialist agenda. :cool:

[Dimentio]

While it's certainly aggravating for him to dare to protest to the Chinese government, people who say that their countries would need 300 years under colonial domination are usually viewed either as crazy cranks or traitors. If Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn had said anything like that...

The Chinese government is too paranoid. Now they have made him into a martyr. They should just have created newspaper fury against him ("ANTI-PATRIOTIC SCHOLAR INVITES COLONIALISTS BACK TO RAPE OUR WUMMIN! RARRRGGGHH!").

That is how to discredit dissidents in a western country. The Chinese have a lot to learn from here.

[Queercommie Girl]

But then again, imagen in Malcolm X, Eugene Debs, or whoever else won the nobel peace prize, the US would'nt have been to happy.


Do you seriously think Liu is in any way comparable to people like Malcolm X? Are you crazy? Do you imagine people like Malcolm X or Martin Luther King would ever say something like "Africa needs 300 years of Western colonialism"?

Liu is a pro-imperialist right-wing liberal, not a left-wing liberal like the greens or social democrats. Get your facts right.

[Queercommie Girl]

While it's certainly aggravating for him to dare to protest to the Chinese government, people who say that their countries would need 300 years under colonial domination are usually viewed either as crazy cranks or traitors. If Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn had said anything like that...

The Chinese government is too paranoid. Now they have made him into a martyr. They should just have created newspaper fury against him ("ANTI-PATRIOTIC SCHOLAR INVITES COLONIALISTS BACK TO RAPE OUR WUMMIN! RARRRGGGHH!").

That is how to discredit dissidents in a western country. The Chinese have a lot to learn from here.

Making a joke out of a serious issue like anti-colonialism is not funny. Making fun out of something like rape is also not funny. Guess you've never heard of the Rape of Nanjing?

[Trigonometry]

It is more authoritarian but at least it has a collectivized economy. It is better then Imperialism.

Well I think to think that to think the PRC has still any revolutionary life blood or putting the interests of the prolertariat at first is farcical. In fact the revolution in its birth was doomed, it was borne out of an expression of national identity rather than working class identity, it was an expression of anti colonialism and anti imperialism, when the Communists fought with the Japanese, people were anti Japanese not anti Japanese bourgeosie.

However if you mean by imperialism the systems of USA, I do agree in your view it is better in the long run, as it is bound to collapse and make way for another democratic system, a whole new democratic system when the system of the modern 'democracy' collapses hence giving room for alternative political systems.

[RGacky3]

But the prizes are given by Social Democratic NORWAY. You'd think they'd be a bit more sympathetic to the Socialist agenda.

Its just a couple of dudes deciding who they think is important.


Liu is a pro-imperialist right-wing liberal, not a left-wing liberal like the greens or social democrats. Get your facts right.

I did'nt say anything to the contrary?

[Bud Struggle]

Its just a couple of dudes deciding who they think is important.


The bottom line is that there is nothing vaguely Communist or Socialist about the rulers of China.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well I think to think that to think the PRC has still any revolutionary life blood or putting the interests of the prolertariat at first is farcical. In fact the revolution in its birth was doomed, it was borne out of an expression of national identity rather than working class identity, it was an expression of anti colonialism and anti imperialism, when the Communists fought with the Japanese, people were anti Japanese not anti Japanese bourgeosie.


You don't seem to understand Marxism, it seems. Anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism are integral parts of socialism and anti-capitalism, and the CCP removed the Chinese capitalists from power too, not just the foreign capitalists in China.

National liberation struggles against colonialism and imperialism can indeed be progressive, they are not the same as nationalism.

There was no "anti-Japanese" sentiments in general among the CCP members, only anti-Japanese imperialism, since Japanese PoWs captured by the CCP were actually treated really well.

Among the general population perhaps there were some general anti-Japanese feelings regardless of class or political alignment, but you can't expect ordinary illiterate peasants to have the same level of political consciousness as vanguardist socialists.

[Queercommie Girl]

I did'nt say anything to the contrary?

Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. You can't compare Liu Xiaobo with the likes of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King.

[RGacky3]

The bottom line is that there is nothing vaguely Communist or Socialist about the rulers of China.

THat we can agree on.


Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. You can't compare Liu Xiaobo with the likes of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King.

I was'nt making that comparison, I was comparing how the US government would react to CHinas reaction.

[Dimentio]

Making a joke out of a serious issue like anti-colonialism is not funny. Making fun out of something like rape is also not funny. Guess you've never heard of the Rape of Nanjing?

I didn't make fun of anything. I just illustrated what would happen to the guy if the Chinese government had worked like the American. They would have relaxed and allowed the newspapers to do the slaughtering.

The nobel peace prize laurate has once said that China would have needed 300 years of colonialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

I didn't make fun of anything. I just illustrated what would happen to the guy if the Chinese government had worked like the American. They would have relaxed and allowed the newspapers to do the slaughtering.

The nobel peace prize laurate has once said that China would have needed 300 years of colonialism.

Well, you should note that the Chinese government today doesn't exactly represent the interests of the Chinese people anymore, even in a nationalist or populist sense. The conflict between Liu and the Chinese state in a sense is the conflict between two sections of the capitalist class, liberal capitalists vs. bureaucratic capitalists. I could list quite a few policies the bureaucratic capitalist rulers in China have enacted in recent times that have objectively damaged the interests of the Chinese people.

So who is the bigger sell-out, Liu or the Chinese government? Not completely clear.

English isn't my first language, but *thanks* for your back-stabbing against me by using negative rep as a weapon on something relatively trivial...obviously I responded in kind.

[Dimentio]

Well, you should note that the Chinese government today doesn't exactly represent the interests of the Chinese people anymore, even in a nationalist or populist sense. The conflict between Liu and the Chinese state in a sense is the conflict between two sections of the capitalist class, liberal capitalists vs. bureaucratic capitalists. I could list quite a few policies the bureaucratic capitalist rulers in China have enacted in recent times that have objectively damaged the interests of the Chinese people.

So who is the bigger sell-out, Liu or the Chinese government? Not completely clear.

English isn't my first language, but *thanks* for your back-stabbing against me by using negative rep as a weapon on something relatively trivial...obviously I responded in kind.

I'm no follower of the current Chinese government, but it is quite stupid to imprison a dissident no matter what ideology the state is having. If you want to get rid of a person, discredit him or her. That is constantly used on troublesome individuals in western countries.

Much more efficient than imprisoning.

It's a pretty damning accusation to claim that someone is making fun of colonialism and sexism. In fact, an accusation which have got people repelled from these boards quite quick. Thus, it could quite quickly turn into a serious and not a trivial affair.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm no follower of the current Chinese government, but it is quite stupid to imprison a dissident no matter what ideology the state is having. If you want to get rid of a person, discredit him or her. That is constantly used on troublesome individuals in western countries.

Much more efficient than imprisoning.


I guess Western capitalist states are the model for Marxists to follow in the area of political decision-making now, right? :rolleyes:

Marxists generally support freedom of speech and democratic rights, but not universally. Sometimes reactionaries need to be put down. Frankly my disagreements with the Stalinist purges is not that they are purges, but rather they purged largely the wrong people. Some people, like fascists, frankly deserve to be purged.

But in Liu's case, yes Liu is definitely a reactionary, but not quite as bad as a fascist, and the Chinese state today isn't really Marxist either, so it's debatable what should be done with Liu.

By the way, I wasn't in any way implying that you are supportive of the Chinese state, of course not. I was simply saying that one reason why the Chinese state is not really doing much to counter Liu effectively is because the Chinese state today isn't honestly anti-colonialist itself anymore, it's not cracking down on the likes of Liu because of his pro-colonialism and the damage this has caused for the Chinese people, but rather simply due to the intense antagonisms between the bureaucratic capitalists that rule China today and liberal capitalists like Liu Xiaobo.

[RedStarOverChina]

("ANTI-PATRIOTIC SCHOLAR INVITES COLONIALISTS BACK TO RAPE OUR WUMMIN! RARRRGGGHH!").


You know that's what Liu Xiaobo actually purposes, right?

[Dimentio]

I guess Western capitalist states are the model for Marxists to follow in the area of political decision-making now, right? :rolleyes:

Marxists generally support freedom of speech and democratic rights, but not universally. Sometimes reactionaries need to be put down. Frankly my disagreements with the Stalinist purges is not that they are purges, but rather they purged largely the wrong people. Some people, like fascists, frankly deserve to be purged.

But in Liu's case, yes Liu is definitely a reactionary, but not quite as bad as a fascist, and the Chinese state today isn't really Marxist either, so it's debatable what should be done with Liu.

By the way, I wasn't in any way implying that you are supportive of the Chinese state, of course not. I was simply saying that one reason why the Chinese state is not really doing much to counter Liu effectively is because the Chinese state today isn't honestly anti-colonialist itself anymore, it's not cracking down on the likes of Liu because of his pro-colonialism and the damage this has caused for the Chinese people, but rather simply due to the intense antagonisms between the bureaucratic capitalists that rule China today and liberal capitalists like Liu Xiaobo.

Well, have you seen anyone apart from a little group of extremists hold protests against the treatment of David Irving, David Icke, Robert Faurisson and David Duke? Solzhenitsyn have always held similar, antisemitic views, but were viewed as a "hero of the freedom of speech" in the west. If Pravda had just shown Solzhenitsyn's russophobic and antisemitic views and published excerpts from his books, people would have become angry at him instead of the west awarding him the Nobel Literature Prize.

If western states had imprisoned them on ridiculously long sentences or executed them, they would have become martyrs. People tend to root for the underdog when authors are punished for what they're publishing, even if what they're publishing is crap.

And yes, I prefer the western model of filtering crap before the "socialist" model in almost all situations (except an all-out war situation), because... it creates loons and not martyrs. You seem to hold some kind of fetischism for purges only based on the virtue that such things happened in the Soviet Union.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is a positive step and progress towards the recognition of universal human freedom.

Yeah, really a positive step, given by the same institution that once gave out the Nobel Prize to a war criminal of the Vietnam War, and the right-wing pro-free market views of Liu Xiaobo will really promote universal human freedom. :rolleyes: