刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖

[Crux]

刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖

星期五, 8 十月 2010.
中国当局因在狱中的《08宪章》作者获奖而感到愤怒

中国劳工论坛（chinaworker.info）

美国总统奥巴马是去年诺贝尔和平奖的得主。但他是1945年以来在战争上花费最多的美国总统。这个事实本身 说明了诺贝尔和平奖在选择获奖得主时其背后可疑的动机和地缘政治的考量。

刘 晓波是中国最知名的异议人士之一。中国劳工论坛（chinaworker.info）网站和工人国际委员会 （CWI）的支持者自他2008年被捕和去年 12月25日被宣判11年有期徒刑以来一直积极呼吁释放刘晓波。同时我们要求中国政府释放数以千计在押政治 犯，因为外国资本希望从中国蓬勃发展的经济中有 所获益，他们的命运在很大程度上被外国资本主义政府和媒体所忽视。在这个意义而言，今年刘晓波获得诺贝尔和 平奖将对提高公众意识起到有益的作用。

中 国的监狱和劳教所中关押着大量反对一党专制的政治犯。今天的强力镇压甚至比十年前更为严重。资深的常驻中国 记者约翰-博姆菲莱塔（John Pomfret）在《华盛顿邮报》（10月8日）上指出："自从1989年血腥镇压学生领导的天安门民主运动以来，虽然中国表面上保持着强劲的震撼世界的 经济增长速度，但与此同时被检控"触犯国家安全的罪行"也达到了前所未有的数字。

目前国家安全机构越来越将注意力关注到了新兴的中国左翼身上：社会主义者、毛派和反资本主义人士。近来，倾 向于毛派的法律人士赵东民在陕西省遭到当局以破坏社会秩序罪逮捕与起诉，原因是在于他帮助数百名工人组建工 会。而这一案例却没有引起任何世界上主流媒体的关注。

刘 晓波在政治光谱上是属于坚定的右派，而并不归属上列之中。作为亲美自由派，他们所宣扬的《08宪章》不仅呼 吁实现社会主义者所支持的民主权利，同时他们要 求更快速的私有化和执行诸如开放"自由市场"等其他资本主义措施。我们支持释放他并不意味着我们支持这些主张。虽然我们不认同刘晓波的政治理念，因为我 们 相信这在政治上对工人和穷人而言意味着死路一条，但我们捍卫其表达和宣传这些思想的权利。

事件的矛盾之处在于被博姆菲莱塔称为执政党共产党的"忠诚反对派"的刘晓波如今变成了当局一个主要的外交和政治问题。被关押的刘晓波并没有在《08宪章》中呼吁进行革命性的 变革，而是向当局以建议的形式要求其进行"改良"。

毫 无疑问，位于挪威的诺贝尔和平奖委员会的决定反映了地缘政治的因素，虽然该委员会多次否认这一点。该委员会 之所以做出此决定，可能是希望将自己从2009 年有争议的授予奥巴马诺贝尔和平奖的受损形象中拯救出来。中国摆脱了全球资本主义危机第一波的影响，并在经 济、外交和军事上得到了进一步加强。其在全球资 本主义关系方面起到更积极的作用，但随着危机持续竞争会进一步加剧，会不可避免地引发与欧盟和资本主义美国 等其他世界强权的冲突。

多年来 当西方政客忙于与中方达成各种交易时，他们普遍忽视所谓的"人权"问题；但这可能在未来即将发生明显变化。为了加强其在战略冲突博弈的力量--如在货币、 市场和势力范围等方面--西方的资本主义"民主"国家可能会比此前在口头上更关注中国的民主和人权问题。授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖的决定可能就是 适应了这一 新兴模式。

正如可预见的，北京当局抨击诺贝尔委员会的决定是对该奖的"亵渎"，而且违反诺贝尔奖的宗旨！！！在周五评奖决定之前，中共当 局已经向挪威政府和挪威的诺贝尔委员会施加压力。挪威诺贝尔研究所的负责人吉尔-伦德斯泰德（Geir Lundestad）说，他受到了中方一位高级官员警告，奥斯陆和北京之间的贸易谈判可能受到影响。中国正 有意购买挪威近海石油和天然气的勘探技术。周五 宣布刘晓波获奖消息在中国的媒体上所屏蔽。

同时，各国的资本主义政客们都就此问题发表了自以为是和虚伪的声明。"这个决定体现了在世界各地捍卫人权的努力"，法国外交部长贝尔纳-库什内如此说到。但正是法国政府府精心策划了迫害和驱逐罗姆人（吉普赛人）的种族主义活动。

社 会主义者为争取民主权利反对镇压而斗争，同时我们明确反对刘晓波和中国政府共同认同的亲资本主义思想。虽然 这个奖项肯定会引起一些迫切需要的对中国专制镇 压问题的关注，但我们认为真正民主权利的建立只能通过中国和国际范围内工人和贫苦农民的群众斗争才能实现。 我们绝不将斗争的希望寄托在资产阶级机构、政府 或值得怀疑的政治性奖项上。

释放刘晓波、谭作人和其他政治犯！
支持群众性的民主和社会主义工农运动反对专制和镇压！

欲了解更多背景内容，请阅读： 《08宪章》与专制当局的镇压 (http://chinaworker.info/zh/content/news/1006/)

[RedStarOverChina]

虽然我们不认同刘晓波的政治理念，因为我们 相信这在政治上对工人和穷人而言意味着死路一条，但我们捍卫其表达和宣传这些思想的权利。嗯，对。当然也应 该支持纳粹主义、种族主义、法西斯主义表达和宣传他们思想的权利。

才怪。

不跟这些宣传反动的敌人、反动派斗争已经是太过纵容。今天到好，这么多自称左派的人反而还来支 持他们。

都回家改名易旗，皈依自由主义得了。


这是斗争，连chinaworker都承认刘晓波所鼓吹的对穷人和工人来说意味着“死路一条”，他们至少在 思维上明白问题严重性。如果刘晓波等人得逞，无产阶级运动将受到的挫败将是灾难性的。但很明显，无产阶级的 命运比起chinaworker对“言论自由”的信仰来说根本不算什么。

[Crux]

We do not support the chinese regime in any way shape or form. You however seem to hold the delusion that the chinese state is preventing neoliberalism and capable of fighting fascism. You are making a rather severe mistake.

[sunfarstar]

嗯，对。当然也应该支持纳粹主义、种族主义、法西斯主义表达和宣传他们思想的权利。

才怪。

不跟这些宣传反动的敌人、反动派斗争已经是太过纵容。今天到好，这么多自称左派的人反而还来支 持他们。

都回家改名易旗，皈依自由主义得了。


这是斗争，连chinaworker都承认刘晓波所鼓吹的对穷人和工人来说意味着“死路一条”，他们至少在 思维上明白问题严重性。如果刘晓波等人得逞，无产阶级运动将受到的挫败将是灾难性的。但很明显，无产阶级的 命运比起chinaworker对“言论自由”的信仰来说根本不算什么。

同志：政治斗争不是意识形态斗争。

[RedStarOverChina]

You however seem to hold the delusion that the chinese state is preventing neoliberalism and capable of fighting fascism. You are making a rather severe mistake.
Now where did I say that?

I specifically mentioned that the only thing that will put a rein on neo-liberalism is a strong, resolute leftist opposition:


I don't have to explain what will happen if Liu Xiaobo and his ideas prevail---and they will, in the absence of a strong leftist opposition. Even the ChinaWorker knows, at least on an intellectual level.

As much as I disagree with your position I have not accused you of being supportive of Western Imperialism. Because that would be a very serious accusation.

I hope you can be more careful the next time you accuse me of being supportive of the Chinese state.

[Crux]

Now where did I say that?

I specifically mentioned that the only thing that will put a rein on neo-liberalism is a strong, resolute leftist opposition:



As much as I disagree with your position I have not accused you of being supportive of Western Imperialism. Because that would be a very serious accusation.

I hope you can be more careful the next time you accuse me of being supportive of the Chinese state.
Then we are in agreement, but Liu is not imprisoned because of his neo-liberal positions but for his, perceived or real, pro-human rights and democracy stand-points. That is the edge of the attack by the chinese state, and that's why we speak out. It is also a possibility to highlight the general crack-down in china, which right now is mostly aimed at the left.
The point is it is important to oppose all political imprisoning by the regime, and you seemingly support it in this case.

[sunfarstar]

我建议这个话题不要说了。。。。:cool::laugh::D

[Queercommie Girl]

Liu is only a "reformist", he doesn't want to challenge the Chinese government fundamentally, because intrinsically it already supports the pro-market policies which Liu also advocates.

I take Liu's so-called support of "democratic rights" with a lot of salt, since obviously for him "democratic rights" don't include much of the human population.

[Queercommie Girl]

We do not support the chinese regime in any way shape or form. You however seem to hold the delusion that the chinese state is preventing neoliberalism and capable of fighting fascism. You are making a rather severe mistake.

China's national competition with the US objectively hinders the expansion of US imperialism and causes the capitalist class to split and fight amongst themselves.

It's better to have rival capitalist nation-states fighting one-another in a "multi-polar" world than to have an "uni-polar" world in which global capitalism is completely united and under the command of US imperialism, which would have more power to concentrate its forces against the working class.

[Crux]

China's national competition with the US objectively hinders the expansion of US imperialism and causes the capitalist class to split and fight amongst themselves.

It's better to have rival capitalist nation-states fighting one-another in a "multi-polar" world than to have an "uni-polar" world in which global capitalism is completely united and under the command of US imperialism, which would have more power to concentrate its forces against the working class.
And what are we doing if not taking advantage of a split between two imperialist bloc's? The PRC is, after all, one the main trading partners of both the US and the EU.
Liu's capabilites is not the issue. Of course his political line is a dead end, but the point is here what he represents, why the regime has attacked him, not for his neoliberalism or reformism but because of his advocacy of democratic reforms and human rights. Again, this is not me coming to defence of his politics, but stating a fact, a fact we must act from. This would tie in to the broader discussion I've had on here before about the issue of democratic right's and how and why they should be struggled for and how that ties into the struggle for socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

And what are we doing if not taking advantage of a split between two imperialist bloc's? The PRC is, after all, one th main trading partners of both the US and the EU.

Chinese imperialism is by no means on the same level as US or even European imperialism. US imperialism is still the no. 1 enemy of the working class in general.

Liu not only supports the market, he also does not really support "democratic rights" in any general sense. In this he is worse than the liberal left in the West, like the Greens, who at least superficially pay lip service to mass democracy. Liu himself explicitly admitted that he is an elitest and much of his political programme is of no real interest to most of the urban poor and peasants in China today.

I just don't see the point of any socialists giving Liu any kind of support. Opposing Liu doesn't mean one is in favour of the Chinese state. You could mention the suppression of leftists in China today, including radical Maoists, but you should also explicitly suggest that Liu is a pseudo-democrat, his kind of democracy is only elitest democracy, not mass democracy.

There is more than one kind of democracy in the world. Capitalist and socialist democracy aren't the same.

[Crux]

I think the article itself pretty much addresses all your points:

Increasingly, the attention of the state security apparatus has fallen on the emerging left in China: socialists, Maoists and anti-capitalists. Recently, a lawyer who sympathises with Maoism, Zhao Dongming, was prosecuted for helping several hundred migrant workers in Shanxi province organise a union to fight for their rights. His case has not attracted any puiblicity in the world media.

Liu Xiaobo does not rank among these, being firmly anchored on the right of the political spectrum. He is a pro-US liberal, whose ‘Charter 08’ manifesto not only champions democratic rights that socialists would fully endorse, but also calls for more rapid privatisation and other “free market” i.e. capitalist measures. This is no way conditions our support for his release from detention. While we do not subscribe to Liu’s political ideas, which we believe represent a political dead-end for workers and the poor, we defend his right to express and campaign for these ideas.

It is paradoxical that Liu Xiaobo, who Pomfret describes as part of the “loyal opposition” to the ruling Communist Party, has now become a major diplomatic and political problem for the regime. Rather than a call for revolutionary change, Charter 08, for which Liu was jailed, is crafted in the form of advice to the regime on how to ‘reform’ itself.

Undoubtedly the Norwegian-based Nobel committee’s decision reflects geopolitical factors, however much this will be denied. Perhaps also the committee wished to rescue its tarnished image after the controversial award to Obama in 2009. China has emerged from the first wave of the global capitalist crisis strengthened economically, diplomatically and militarily. Its more assertive role in the field of global capitalist relations and intensified competition as the crisis continues, is inevitably triggering new conflicts with other powers such as the EU, Japan, and particularly US capitalism.

Whereas top western politicians have generally ignored ‘human rights’ issues for years in their haste to sign deals with the Chinese regime, this may be about to change significantly. In order to strengthen their hand in strategic conflicts – over currencies, markets and spheres of influence – the capitalist ‘democracies’ of the West will be more prepared than previously to offer lip service to issues of democracy and human rights. The decision to award Liu Xiaobo the Nobel Prize fits in with this emerging pattern.


Predictably, Beijing lashed out at the Nobel committee’s decision as a “desecration”, an “obscenity”, and a violation of the principles of the Nobel Prize (!!). Prior to Friday’s decision, the Chinese regime exerted pressure on the Norwegian goverment and Nobel committee. The head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said he was warned by a senior Chinese official that trade negotiations between Oslo and Beijing could be jeopardised as could China's willingness to buy Norwegian offshore oil and gas exploration technology. Since Friday’s announcement, news of the award to Liu Xiaobo has been blocked on Chinese media.
At the same time capitalist politicians everywhere are issuing self-righteous and hypocritical statements on this issue. “This decision embodies the defence of human rights everywhere in the world,” said France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. This is the same French government that has orchestrated a racist campaign of persecution and deportation against Roma people.


Socialists fight for democratic rights, freedom of expression, and an end to repression and censorship, while making clear we oppose the pro-capitalist ideas that Liu Xiaobo stands for. While this award will surely focus some much needed attention on the issue of repression in China, we believe that the establishment of genuine democratic rights can only come from the mass struggle of workers and poor peasants in China and internationally. We place no confidence in bourgeois institutions, governments or politically questionable prizes to further this struggle.

[Queercommie Girl]

Apart from Liu's pro-capitalist statements, have you considered his pro-imperialist lines such as saying that "China should be colonised by the West for 300 years in order to bring about democracy"?

[Crux]

http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1006/


The evolution of China’s liberals

Liberalism, and later neo-liberal and conservative ideology, have grown among intellectuals in China since the end of 1970s when the Chinese regime began its capitalist economic reform. At that time, liberal scholars formed a “friendly bridge” between the CCP regime, which was “opening-up”, and the western capitalist world. Liu Xiaobo was part of this trend.

But the Democracy Movement of 1989 was a key turning point that also saw the “bridge” collapse. The CCP regime, in order to repress the revolt of the working masses and control capitalist development in China for its own bureaucratic benefits, brutally crushed the 1989 movement and its intellectual core, which had dared to show independence from the ruling group.

After this, part of the former liberal-conservative layer of scholars accepted the situation with the CCP regime leading the restoration of capitalism. This layer then became accessories of the regime in carrying out neo-liberal policies and attacks on the working masses. This is why currently on the internet in China, many pro-government scholars are called “jiaoshou” (the same pronunciation as “professor” in Chinese, but loosely translated means “wolf in sheep’s clothing”).

However, Liu and his pan-democratic co-thinkers have remained on the other side of the collapsed “bridge” since then. As a well-known and unrepentant opposition to CCP rule, but also to communist ideology, they have refused to cooperate with the repressive regime. Unfortunately, however, they have also refused to understand the reality in China and the social and political roots of the current state of affairs.

After 20 years of struggle with the regime, Liu and like minded liberal intellectuals have not discovered the true force of historical change – the working masses. In 1989, they tried to block workers and ordinary citizens from joining the student-led protests, and put their hopes in one wing of the CCP top brass (Zhao Ziyang). They resisted the only measures, such as a call for a workers’ general strike and organisation of democratic defence committees, that could have prevented the regime’s bloody crackdown.

As a part of the elite layer, Liu and his co-thinkers have never really trusted or sought to unite with working people in China, despite their calls for “equality and democracy”. They criticise Chinese peoples’ violence and revolutions throughout history, and see private ownership and the market economy as the bedrock for democratic development. “I have always opposed sudden reform taken at one step and, even more, have opposed violent revolution... The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy.” (From the statement Liu Xiaobo was prevented from reading at his trial).

In 1988 Liu Xiaobo was interviewed by a Hong Kong journalist and declared that China would have been better under a colonial system for 300 years, since Hong Kong, under British colonial rule for over a century, had become a “free-market” and a developed economy. This is completely refuted by reality in Hong Kong, where a small handful of pro-CCP tycoons exercise total control over the “free market”. It is a well known saying in Hong Kong that seven cents of every dollar spent goes to Li Ka Shing, Hong Kong’s wealthiest man, because of his economic control over telecoms, media, property, ports and retailing.

Similarly, based on Liu’s thinking, India should be a developed, equal and free society because it was a British colony for nearly 200 years and today is both a capitalist democracy and federal republic – as Charter 08 calls for. However, the reality is the total opposite: India still has the largest population of poor people in the world and is full of social conflicts, class struggle and even civil war in many of its states. With the exception of a minority of privileged capitalists states, most countries with a so-called market system and differing degrees of bourgeois democracy are still mired in social chaos, mass poverty and inequality.

[Queercommie Girl]

Liu is frankly objectively even worse than Western liberals, even people like Obama. At least Obama being a black man isn't going to explicitly say the kind of ridiculous pro-colonialist rubbish that Liu comes out with.

Liu is a right-wing liberal, not a left-wing liberal. Socialists can form an "united front" with left-wing liberals sometimes, but with right-wing liberals there can only be constant opposition. Left liberals like the Greens etc. at least still employs leftist and even some socialist rhteoric, right liberals like Liu don't even pay lip service to mass democracy.

Having said this, it is a mistake to take people like Liu too seriously as some socialists do. Liu really isn't such an important figure and he can't really do much damage anyway. As my signature suggests, we should worry more about the "Liu Xiaobos" and "Zhao Ziyangs" who already hold onto political power in the Chinese government rather than a single right-wing liberal author sitting in prison.

I'm just making my points here, not explicitly criticising the CWI on this matter.

[Crux]

Liu is frankly objectively even worse than Western liberals, even people like Obama. At least Obama being a black man isn't going to explicitly say the kind of ridiculous pro-colonialist rubbish that Liu comes out with.

Liu is a right-wing liberal, not a left-wing liberal. Socialists can form an "united front" with left-wing liberals sometimes, but with right-wing liberals there can only be constant opposition. Left liberals like the Greens etc. at least still employs leftist and even some socialist rhteoric, right liberals like Liu don't even pay lip service to mass democracy.

Having said this, it is a mistake to take people like Liu too seriously as some socialists too. Liu really isn't such an important figure and he can't really do much damage anyway. As my signature suggests, we should worry more about the "Liu Xiaobos" and "Zhao Ziyangs" who already hold onto political power in the Chinese government rather than a single right-wing liberal author sitting in prison.

I'm just making my points here, not explicitly criticising the CWI on this matter.
I don't disagree, we're certainly not about to make any kind of alliance with Liu Xiaobo, however since the spotlight is on him currently we have to address the issue, which I think we have done three-fold, 1) addressing repression in china in general, and against the left more specifically 2) making a political critique of Liu and distancing ourselves from his political project 3) show a way forward. I mean we couldn't possibly have a non-position on his imprisonment by the chinese regime and what else would we do than say he should be released?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't disagree, we're certainly not about to make any kind of alliance with Liu Xiaobo, however since the spotlight is on him currently we have to address the issue, which I think we have done three-fold, 1) addressing repression in china in general, and against the left more specifically 2) making a political critique of Liu and distancing ourselves from his political project 3) show a way forward. I mean we couldn't possibly have a non-position on his imprisonment by the chinese regime and what else would we do than say he should be released?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here. In principle Marxists should indeed always support freedom of speech as long as it's not fascists, even if we vehemently oppose their political ideas. It's a matter of "I don't agree with what you say, but I support your right to say it."

It's also interesting to point out that prior to the 1949 Revolution when the CCP acquired political power in China, the CCP often supported "pro-Western" liberal democratic political organisations such as the China Democratic League instead of the KMT government ruling China in the 1940s. In the eyes of ultra-left radical Maoists in China today like my friends in the MCPC, China today is already like another KMT regime in the 1940s, so they actually agree with the CWI line here and suggest that Liu Xiaobo is actually less reactionary objectively than the Chinese regime itself. (As Mao Zedong himself pointed out, revisionism is actually worse than real capitalism itself) The CWI is doing no more than what the CCP itself did before 1949.

However, being a pragmatist who doesn't always stick to political principles, given the fact that I think it is quite possible that Liu is explicitly supported by the US, I'm not so certain that objectively speaking it would be in the wider working class interests to defend him at all. Defending Liu in the limited sense is the right thing to do, but is it the smart thing to do? I'm not sure.

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here. In principle Marxists should indeed always support freedom of speech as long as it's not fascists, even if we vehemently oppose their political ideas. It's a matter of "I don't agree with what you say, but I support your right to say it."
Wait, you just said we should "support freedom of speech" and then you deny fascists their freedom of speech?

One should either be for freedom of speech or against it. It's one of those things that has no middle way. If you do not agree with freedom of speech for fascists, you don't agree with freedom of speech, period.

In my humble opinion, there is no such a thing called freedom of speech. No one has this so-called freedom of speech, and that's the way it should be. Reactionary speech should always be suppressed. Supporting the so-called "freedom of speech" isn't our job as leftists; in fact, I don't think it's anybody's job.

Therefore, fucktards like Liu Xiaobo whose servitude to Western Imperialism knows no bounds ("300 years of colonization is necessary for China"), should be silenced.

[Crux]

wait, you just said we should "support freedom of speech" and then you deny fascists their freedom of speech?

One should either be for freedom of speech or against it. It's one of those things that has no middle way. If you do not agree with freedom of speech for fascists, you don't agree with freedom of speech, period.

In my humble opinion, there is no such a thing called freedom of speech. No one has this so-called freedom of speech, and that's the way it should be. Reactionary speech should always be suppressed. Supporting the so-called "freedom of speech" isn't our job as leftists; in fact, i don't think it's anybody's job.

Therefore, fucktards like liu xiaobo whose servitude to western imperialism knows no bounds ("300 years of colonization is necessary for china"), should be silenced.
他们应该保持沉默的中国国务？
法西斯主义是主要的定义，不仅他们的反动思想，但他们的暴力手段。并再次，为什么刘晓波目标？不是因为他是 新自由主义，而是因为他认为人权的支持。这在这里是关键，但我觉得你太刘凝视了。即使我们对他撰写的文章， 因为他11年徒刑，因为他的诺贝尔文学奖并给予他的新自由主义思想，甚至他们已覆盖比你在做什么更广泛的讨 论。反对中国的国家持不同政见者的沉默应该是显而易见的。

我希望这是有道理的，但是我听说谷歌翻译已经变得更好，我觉得并非以中文书写的中文分论坛坏。

[Queercommie Girl]

Wait, you just said we should "support freedom of speech" and then you deny fascists their freedom of speech?

One should either be for freedom of speech or against it. It's one of those things that has no middle way. If you do not agree with freedom of speech for fascists, you don't agree with freedom of speech, period.


The world isn't black-and-white.



In my humble opinion, there is no such a thing called freedom of speech. No one has this so-called freedom of speech, and that's the way it should be. Reactionary speech should always be suppressed. Supporting the so-called "freedom of speech" isn't our job as leftists; in fact, I don't think it's anybody's job.


You are mistaken, since actually genuine Marxists should indeed support the maximisation of democratic rights as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory.



Therefore, fucktards like Liu Xiaobo whose servitude to Western Imperialism knows no bounds ("300 years of colonization is necessary for China"), should be silenced.

Liu is somewhat a different case since although he is not a fascist, he might indeed be considered as explicitly reactionary, and therefore is not covered by the protection of democratic rights in the socialist sense. His pro-colonialist stance is especially disturbing.

Strategically speaking however, it is not certain whether or not it is a good idea to defend him in a limited sense. The CCP did side with the China Democratic League against the KMT prior to the 1949 Revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

他们应该保持沉默的中国国务？
法西斯主义是主要的定义，不仅他们的反动思想，但他们的暴力手段。并再次，为什么刘晓波目标？不是因为他是 新自由主义，而是因为他认为人权的支持。这在这里是关键，但我觉得你太刘凝视了。即使我们对他撰写的文章， 因为他11年徒刑，因为他的诺贝尔文学奖并给予他的新自由主义思想，甚至他们已覆盖比你在做什么更广泛的讨 论。反对中国的国家持不同政见者的沉默应该是显而易见的。

我希望这是有道理的，但是我听说谷歌翻译已经变得更好，我觉得并非以中文书写的中文分论坛坏。

Actually the translation has not turned out that well. What exactly were you trying to say again?

[Crux]

Actually the translation has not turned out that well. What exactly were you trying to say again?
And my home-made learning of mandarin will probably take some time. In a nutshell: We can't possibly defend chinese state repression.

[Queercommie Girl]

And my home-made learning of mandarin will probably take some time. In a nutshell: We can't possibly defend chinese state repression.

Surely that's not universally true though, I mean suppose the CCP actually represses a fascist group, would that be wrong as well?

Of course, Liu isn't a fascist, and strategically it's not clear whether or not it is beneficial to defend him in the limited sense. Even some ultra-left Maoists in China today defend Liu in the limited sense, and what would you say to the liberal left in the West, sections of Western society which you co-operate with and tries to win over to some extent, if your organisation explicitly supports Chinese state repression? Indeed such a stance may not be strategically viable as far as the CWI is concerned.

But I'm just pointing out the fact that for Marxists, the defence of democratic rights isn't absolutely universal. Liu is not a fascist, but he is more reactionary than your typical Western-style liberal. No liberal would ever say stuff like "I wish China would be colonised for 300 years".

[RedStarOverChina]

The world isn't black-and-white.
You are mistaken, since actually genuine Marxists should indeed support the maximisation of democratic rights as long as they are not explicitly reactionary or discriminatory.

That's very contradictory. Regardless, I was under the impression that I joined a struggle for the truth, not for some liberal's right to say whatever the hell he wants.

The struggle for communism absolutely should not be confused with pushing forward the so-called "universal values" conjured up by the ruling class in the West.

And not giving a fuck about what happens to Liu Xiaobo is not defending Chinese state oppression. It's just that no one should give a fuck.

[Crux]

And what is that if not a tacit support? We as an organization do not have the pleasure of being able to take the non-position of "don't give a fuck".

[RedStarOverChina]

And what is that if not a tacit support? We as an organization do not have the pleasure of being able to take the non-position of "don't give a fuck".
In other words, you give tacit support to the liberal scumbag calling for the colonization of China.

So everytime two dogs pick a fight, you have to pick a position and help one of them? Well then, who do you support? Taliban or the US government?

If you don't support either one of them, does that mean you are giving the US government tacit support? Doesn't that make you an imperialist?

Think it through before you speak.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's very contradictory.


It's not contradictory. You just don't understand dialectics. I guess you don't accept that there can be genderqueer and intersex people who are neither male or female right?



Regardless, I was under the impression that I joined a struggle for the truth, not for some liberal's right to say whatever the hell he wants.


What the hell is "truth"? Whatever you happen to think it is?

There is no such thing as "truth" in the abstract sense. "Truth" is determined democratically.

And who the hell is talking about the rights of "liberals"? I support the democratic rights of the working class, i.e. proletarian democracy. Some workers may have liberal views but you can't hope to change their views by refusing to genuinely engage with them or just impose your doctrines from above, the latter of which is called bureaucratism.



The struggle for communism absolutely should not be confused with pushing forward the so-called "universal values" conjured up by the ruling class in the West.


Actually are you really that literate in history? Are most "universal values" conjured up by the ruling capitalists or are they actually the result of repeated grassroots and proletarian struggles within the capitalist system? Last time I checked, originally in capitalist countries, people didn't even have the universal rights of voting, women had no real rights, there were still racial segregation.

And you think it was the capitalist rulers who created things like women's rights, black rights, LGBT equality etc and are now pushing them around the globe?

Who created these, the rulers or the people?

Is your interpretation of Marxism a solely economic one in the narrow sense? So I guess we should all turn a blind eye to the racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia that exists in our societies right? I mean who gives a shit about them, aren't they just the idealistic fantasies of the Western capitalist aristocracy?



And not giving a fuck about what happens to Liu Xiaobo is not defending Chinese state oppression. It's just that no one should give a fuck.


I never said you defended Chinese state oppression. The thing is that the Chinese government is already selling the Chinese people out to the Western imperialists anyway, which is why even Chinese nationalists oppose them to varying degrees now.

[Crux]

In other words, you give tacit support to the liberal scumbag calling for the colonization of China.

So everytime two dogs pick a fight, you have to pick a position and help one of them? Well then, who do you support? Taliban or the US government?

If you don't support either one of them, does that mean you are giving the US government tacit support? Doesn't that make you an imperialist?

Think it through before you speak.
Well then look at it this way, I support the right to armed resistance against the U.S occupation, even though I do not support the Taliban. But if they use armed resistance against the U.S occupation I will not condemn them for that. See the parallel?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well then look at it this way, I support the right to armed resistance against the U.S occupation, even though I do not support the Taliban. But if they use armed resistance against the U.S occupation I will not condemn them for that. See the parallel?


Difference being that the Taliban, no matter how reactionary, is at least anti-US imperialism. Liu Xiaobo, on the other hand, is pro-US imperialism.

[sunfarstar]

呵呵。。。。。不会有结果的。
本来，我想了个方案，想利用一下“自由亚洲之声”电台的。
但是，现在这个话题搞得太火了。。。。火头上还是忍一忍再说吧。
否则，不知道豺狼们又会做出啥样的兽行了。

革命是不朽的！但是，先要保住小命。。。而且不能被关进“精神病院”或者被“邀请住宾馆”。

爱国流氓们现在正在如火如荼地抗日，我还是谈谈恋爱吧。

希望明天有善良人士发给我三万块钱（人民币就可以了）。

还有，不要把我电脑的主机变成公安局的游戏机就好，我那主机被他们都快玩得过时了。。。。

谢谢！继续革命！:lol:

[Crux]

Difference being that the Taliban, no matter how reactionary, is at least anti-US imperialism. Liu Xiaobo, on the other hand, is pro-US imperialism.
That has nothing to do with my point.

[Queercommie Girl]

That has nothing to do with my point.

I suppose your point is that:

Liu Xiaobo is to Chinese imperialism what the Taliban is to US imperialism.

But there are still 2 fundamental differences:

1) Liu is an elitist, the Taliban are populists;

2) Chinese imperialism today is no way on the same level as US imperialism and objectively is much less reactionary.

[Crux]

I suppose your point is that:

Liu Xiaobo is to Chinese imperialism what the Taliban is to US imperialism.

But there are still 2 fundamental differences:

1) Liu is an elitist, the Taliban are populists;

2) Chinese imperialism today is no way on the same level as US imperialism and objectively is much less reactionary.
Yes, it different, my point is rather, it is possible to support one aspect of a group, but not the group in itself. In any case U.S imperialism does not stop what is reactionary with the taliban (in fact the new government is pretty much the same) similarly, as your sig says, the chinese regime have their own liu xiaobo.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, it different, my point is rather, it is possible to support one aspect of a group, but not the group in itself. In any case U.S imperialism does not stop what is reactionary with the taliban (in fact the new government is pretty much the same) similarly, as your sig says, the chinese regime have their own liu xiaobo.

Fair enough point. Liu isn't so important one way or another, other than perhaps demonstrating that the Nobel Prize has become a tool for the geo-political interests of the West.

[sunfarstar]

我现在特别缺钱，刘波波这钱不能一个人拿，我也签名了的。。。。哈哈哈。。。。。诺贝尔分赃大会呀！:la ugh::cool::rolleyes::lol::o:tt1::crying::):(:sleep ::sneaky:

[sunfarstar]

我们来谈谈“人权”问题好吗？:laugh: