Glorious socialist republic of China complicit in Guantanamo Bay torture [Archive]

caramelpence

25th April 2011, 10:09

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 15:03

During the nine-year life of Guantánamo the US has invited in at least 10 foreign intelligence agencies to interrogate inmates, and to share information on those they regarded as terrorists. This is in addition to frequent questioning by allied British and western intelligence officers.

Among those from repressive regimes who were invited to carry out interrogations were the Chinese, Tunisians, Moroccans, Russians, Saudis, Tajiks, Jordanians, Algerians, Yemenis and Kuwaitis. They helped identify inmates' true names. The Saudi security service, the Mabahith, itemised 37 of those it regarded as particularly dangerous, and 77 who the Saudi government claimed were of "low intelligence value" and were prepared to have back and "rehabilitate".

The Chinese and Russians made plain that they would prosecute and punish the interned Uighurs and Uzbeks if they were repatriated.

In 2002 the US invited the Saudis, Yemenis, Jordanians, Tunisians and Russians. In 2003 the Tajik security service was invited and the Kuwaitis the following year. The Chinese came before 2005, and in July 2005 the Yemenis came for a second time.

An Algerian delegation was invited in March 2006, and in March 2008 a third visit was recorded from Yemeni security officials. The date the Moroccans came is not clear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-china-interrogated-prisoners

I can already hear the PSL hacks scrambling over themselves to think of apologies!

I'm not a member of the PSL, but I will step in their defence, considering the fact that they are, in my opinion, one of the better things that happened to the US left scene in the last few decades. From what I understand the PSL does not claim that China is now a socialist country (no one sane would claim that :D), but that there are still things that are worth defending in China, especially the parts of the economy that have not yet been privatized and that there is a small chance that there might be a shift to the left inside the ruling "Communist" party and even restoration of socialism through legal means. I find this to be very unlikely and I believe that Chinese workers need to estabish their independent, illegal organizations for the overthrow of the current capitalist system, but that doesn't mean that PSL are so naive as to describe the China as a "socialist" country...

Crux

25th April 2011, 21:37

There have been claims that the CCP is a "vanguard party". The PSL are very slippery about their positions. They defend the masscre in Tianmen, which in itself is a defence of the then leadership of the CCP, which is true to form for how they extend their support.

Dunk

25th April 2011, 22:41

I guarded some, then all of the Uighurs from 2007-2009 while a guard in Camp VI and Camp Iguana. I actually have some first hand insight into where they wanted to go, and some other bits of information. I won't post it here. If you ever come across me on IRC, ask me there.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

25th April 2011, 22:55

MattShizzle

25th April 2011, 22:59

China is about as Socialist as the average lion is a vegetarian. They are closer to Fascism with being very authoritarian and VERY capitalist.

Crux

25th April 2011, 23:34

Student liberals with passionate support for Hu Yaobang were no better than the capitalist PRC government.
That's a bourgeoisie media characterization of protest.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

25th April 2011, 23:49

That's a bourgeoisie media characterization of protest.

Oh yeah? There weren't many students in those protests? I'm sure there were other present as well, including workers, but let's not kid ourselves here: would there have been any progressive results from a successful uprising? Would there have been socialism? Extremely doubtful. Even serious socialist participation would have ended up being overshadowed by western "democracy"-lovers and their ilk; you cannot match up to the resources that would have opened up to them. There would have been multi-party "democracy" and shock therapy. For this reason the Tiananmen square events are unimportant.

Crux

26th April 2011, 03:32

Oh yeah? There weren't many students in those protests? I'm sure there were other present as well, including workers, but let's not kid ourselves here: would there have been any progressive results from a successful uprising? Would there have been socialism? Extremely doubtful. Even serious socialist participation would have ended up being overshadowed by western "democracy"-lovers and their ilk; you cannot match up to the resources that would have opened up to them. There would have been multi-party "democracy" and shock therapy. For this reason the Tiananmen square events are unimportant.
There was shock therapy. Indeed this was one of the lighting sparks of the protests. http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/china/

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

26th April 2011, 20:20

There was shock therapy. Indeed this was one of the lighting sparks of the protests. http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/china/

There was no shock therapy in the sense of what happened in the Soviet Union. There was a long line of reforms intended to liberalise the economy and get it into gear with the main capitalist nations, but they were gradual so as to not cause too much collective anger from the population violated thereby. I did not mean to suggest that there was never any segment of those bothered by the disgusting reforms and wanted change that had legitimate grievances and progressive opposition and a preferable course of action to what came, but that those would never have gained sufficient influence if it had been successful; even the most ideal situation inside China would have had no chance to stand up to the force of the capitalist nations that all had their eyes on China as it was. The resources would be made available by the western powers to the side they found most agreeable, and that would have been the liberal student scum; perhaps we'd have seen large swaths of the more political reform-inclined-wing of the Capitalist Party of China jump the ship and join them and announcing multi-party elections.

The change would most likely have mirrored what took place in Taiwan somewhat earlier and during the same time period. We would have seen the economic liberalisation continue, but also see vile political liberalisations of a far vaster scale than the slowly progressing corruption we see today. It would have brought socialist revolution in China no closer to fruition than it is today, perhaps it would even make it even more distant, we all know how good a pacifier multi-party elections are, and anti-union legislation and repression of workers would have continued all the same.

caramelpence

26th April 2011, 20:30

I'm sure there were other present as well, including workers, but let's not kid ourselves here: would there have been any progressive results from a successful uprising?

It was an open-ended situation. What's laughable is not the idea that there could conceivably have been a socialist revolution but to assume that the students involved were a viable replacement for the ruling class - they were utterly naive in every respect, in that they thought a hunger strike would bring down the government or put sufficient pressure on the leadership to introduce political reform, they were internally disunited, in that there was constant fighting between the representatives of different universities and between Beijing-based institutions and students from the provinces, the organization of the sit-in at the square itself was poorly carried out so that there was a serious risk of an epidemic by the time they were evicted, and there was overall no way that they could have presented themselves as credible leaders for a country as vast and complex as China. How exactly do you think the Chinese government could possibly have been overthrown by a gaggle of inexperienced students? It almost certanly couldn't have been, and we'll never know how the situation would have panned out, had the working class acted in different ways, had there been a different balance of forces inside the party leadership, and so on.

For this reason the Tiananmen square events are unimportant.

But still important enough for the government to impose a media blackout up to this day and for all the roads surrounding the square to be closed on each anniversary of the events there. As a point of historical importance, it's also misleading to speak in terms of the "Tiananmen square events", because most of the fighting and bloodletting occurred in the streets surrounding the square rather than on the square itself, and up to the eviction of the protestors Beijing residents had actually constructed roadblocks at crucial intersections around the city to slow the movement of troops.

***

Anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to be about Tiananmen, I don't trust the ignorant Stalinists on here to have anything near the degree of historical knowledge or intelligence needed to discuss that issue appropriately.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

26th April 2011, 20:45

It was an open-ended situation. What's laughable is not the idea that there could conceivably have been a socialist revolution but to assume that the students involved were a viable replacement for the ruling class - they were utterly naive in every respect, in that they thought a hunger strike would bring down the government or put sufficient pressure on the leadership to introduce political reform, they were internally disunited, in that there was constant fighting between the representatives of different universities and between Beijing-based institutions and students from the provinces, the organization of the sit-in at the square itself was poorly carried out so that there was a serious risk of an epidemic by the time they were evicted, and there was overall no way that they could have presented themselves as credible leaders for a country as vast and complex as China. How exactly do you think the Chinese government could possibly have been overthrown by a gaggle of inexperienced students? It almost certanly couldn't have been, and we'll never know how the situation would have panned out, had the working class acted in different ways, had there been a different balance of forces inside the party leadership, and so on.

Naturally if it had gone far enough, more liberal-minded segments of the capitalist government would most likely have joined force with those elements, and they would have been a credible replacement for the ruling clique, and this would have gotten the external support necessary to establish itself.

But still important enough for the government to impose a media blackout up to this day and for all the roads surrounding the square to be closed on each anniversary of the events there. As a point of historical importance, it's also misleading to speak in terms of the "Tiananmen square events", because most of the fighting and bloodletting occurred in the streets surrounding the square rather than on the square itself, and up to the eviction of the protestors Beijing residents had actually constructed roadblocks at crucial intersections around the city to slow the movement of troops.

Media blackout is not something that defines any thing's relevance in China though, is it? That would mean those crazy Falun Gong cultists are important. The PRC even censors parts of its own (revolutionary-era) history because it thinks it might incite to rebellion after all.

I'm well aware that the main location of events was not on Tiananmen square, but this is the term bourgeois media uses and as a result is most commonly recognised, inaccurate as it is.

Anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to be about Tiananmen, I don't trust the ignorant Stalinists on here to have anything near the degree of historical knowledge or intelligence needed to discuss that issue appropriately.

Idiotic sectarian shit-storm has commenced.

caramelpence

26th April 2011, 21:03

Naturally if it had gone far enough, more liberal-minded segments of the capitalist government would most likely have joined force with those elements,

I take it from your use of the term "capitalist government" that you think China was a capitalist society in 1989, in which case it's even less comprehensible why you would support a capitalist state apparatus using armed force against a socially and ideologically diverse protest movement in order to consolidate its position and pro-capitalist reform programme. As for your vision of how things would have developed, I maintain that the situation was fundamentally open-ended, and I don't see it as productive to chart hypothetical scenarios about what you think could have happened. The evidence suggests that the prospect of the students simply sweeping the government aside was unlikely, and even if it had been possible for a radically new ruling clique to establish itself, through external support or whatever, it seems even less likely that the clique would have been able to simply and straightforwardly carry out shock therapy, given that the Chinese working class would hardly have just stood by, after having secured a major political advance, and when faced with prior attacks on many of the gains of the Chinese revolution.

Media blackout is not something that defines any thing's relevance in China though, is it? That would mean those crazy Falun Gong cultists are important

There's no comparison between Tiananmen and Falun Gong. The rounding-up of Falun Gong devotees took place alongside a public propaganda campaign against the sect and even today the government produces articles that mention the Falun Gong and its alleged evils - search on the English-language People's Daily website and you will see that this is the case along with mentions of Turkestan and Tibetan independence and so on. With Tiananmen, the silence is total. Most Chinese youth do not know what transpired in Tiananmen in 1989. Tiananmen is a special case.

Another dimension of Tiananmen's importance I forgot to mention was the reaction from Chinese diaspora communities and other Chinese populations. During the protest movement itself and especially after the crackdown, several million citizens in Hong Kong took to the streets. That's several million out of a population of between 6 and 7 million at the time of the crackdown. The crackdown itself was a traumatic moment for Chinese in locations like Hong Kong - trauma in the fullest sense of the word. It's actually hurtful for you to say that it wasn't an important event.

Kassad

26th April 2011, 21:06

I'm in-between classes right now, but I want to ask really quickly how the Chinese intelligence investigating a threat to their people's security makes them complicit in torture. I guess my question comes down to why we rush to the conclusion that the Chinese intelligence agencies are pursuing the same tactics as the United States.

In regards to Tiananmen, here's an article from Liberation News about Tiananmen Square and the threat of counterrevolution: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-06-04-tiananmen-square-threat-counterr.html

I suppose the situation in Libya might have me a bit headstrong here, but haven't some of you gotten tired of blindly cheerleading "people's movements?" I mean, let's get real here. Most of the revolutionaries in the building hitched their bandwagon on to the Libyan rebels only to find out that they were rabid racists and that they supported imperialist military intervention. I can say without a doubt that the economic and political situation for the people of Libya is going to plummet as occupying forces kill hundreds and destroy infrastructure in the name of "humanitarian intervention." So what did we learn today? A blind analysis without considering class leads to supporting forces that don't benefit the working class at all.

And then we have Tiananmen Square in 1989. Aside from the fact that the official story is almost impossible to obtain, and sorry that I don't find bourgeois Western sources any more credible than Chinese ones, it is obvious that the demonstrators were primarily students who were pulled out to the Square due to the death of Hu Yaobang. Hu Yaobang was an ardent supporter of market reforms and the restoration of capitalistic methods to strengthen the Chinese economy. If that doesn't set off some red flags, I don't know what will. Anyway, the majority of these protesters weren't holding up signs of Chairman Mao. In truth, they were holding up a makeshift Statue of Liberty.

Along with that, the primary demands were "freedom" and "democracy", which are very broad terms when used in bourgeois context. For an example of this, look at the "freedom" and "democracy" the United States brought Iraq. It is apparent that the majority of the Tiananmen protesters were calling for the restoration of capitalism on a wider and more rapid scale. Despite these facts, some "socialists" still cheerlead the protesters, just like they bent over for the Libyan rebels. The primary thing to learn is that not all pro-democracy movements are the same. Egypt is not Libya and China is certainly not the same situation at all.

What we need is a class analysis of international events, which will prevent some ostensibly revolutionary organizations from spewing pro-imperialist dogma, which tends to have them wind up with their foot in their mouth. We all know China isn't heaven on earth, but you think the dismantling of the remaining centralized economic structures that exist in China by non-revolutionary forces is going to be a step forward? I shudder to think the thought process that you use to reach such conclusions.

caramelpence

26th April 2011, 21:26

And the hacks come crawling out! We've heard it all before - Chicago School students intent on using the protests to carry out shock therapy, the need to maintain the revolutionary advances that are left in China, alleged imperialist support for the protest movement, ahistorical comparisons with contemporary events in Libya, and so on and so forth, all supported with links to "journalism" of absolutely laughable quality. I don't have the inclination to spend much effort and time responding to ignorant Stalinists like the last poster so I'll limit myself to only a few comments - in addition to the students involved being in no way shape or form a credible alternative ruling class, as I made clear with supporting evidence in one of my previous posts, the primary characteristic of the Tiananmen protest movement was that it was not a homogenous or stable movement but was comprised of a wide range of social, political, and ideological groups, both in terms of there being different perspectives and groups within the student participants, such as the division between universities in different parts of the country and different faculties, and more importantly in terms of the division between the student participants on the one hand and a whole range of non-student groups on the other, including party cadres, state journalists, small businessmen who donated various supplies to the movement, and of course industrial workers - including workers from some of Beijing's most important industrial enterprises, such as Shougang Iron and Steel and Yanshan Petrochemicals, along with marginal (e.g. temporary) workers and the recently unemployed. Beyond the square itself, the movement extended to the citizens of Beijing, the hospital staff who cooperated with the students during the crackdown in rescuing the wounded and shielding identities, and the workers in Beijing and other cities who took strike action and other forms of industrial action like slow-downs. Simply speaking in terms of "the students" of "the protest movement" obscures these deep internal differences and the multiple possibilities they embodied.

Also of importance is the fact that the protests themselves did not pop out of the blue, even if they were arguably promoted by Hu Yaobang's death, they came on the backs of prior disputes and demonstrations involving workers and students.

The primary thing to learn is that not all pro-democracy movements are the same. Egypt is not Libya and China is certainly not the same situation at all.

Yeah, these movements aren't the same, they all took place or are taking place in very different historical, cultural, economic, and political conditions, so why did you make a wild comparison between the protests in China in 1989, in which a wide range of symbols and discourses were raised, including a Marxian language of social justice, with the justifications proposed by the US during the invasion of Iraq? Talk about obliterating historical specificity.

I'm in-between classes right now, but I want to ask really quickly how the Chinese intelligence investigating a threat to their people's security makes them complicit in torture. I guess my question comes down to why we rush to the conclusion that the Chinese intelligence agencies are pursuing the same tactics as the United States

The Chinese intelligence services are complicit in torture anyway, because they carry it out in China, let alone benefiting from the use of torture in Guantanamo Bay! What this article shows is the extent to which China has entered into the "war on terror" - not that their role wasn't apparent already (China's approach to East Turkestan has been publicly linked to the war on terror, for a start) but it's an issue that needs to be brought up more.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

26th April 2011, 21:27

I take it from your use of the term "capitalist government" that you think China was a capitalist society in 1989, in which case it's even less comprehensible why you would support a capitalist state apparatus using armed force against a socially and ideologically diverse protest movement in order to consolidate its position and pro-capitalist reform programme. As for your vision of how things would have developed, I maintain that the situation was fundamentally open-ended, and I don't see it as productive to chart hypothetical scenarios about what you think could have happened. The evidence suggests that the prospect of the students simply sweeping the government aside was unlikely, and even if it had been possible for a radically new ruling clique to establish itself, through external support or whatever, it seems even less likely that the clique would have been able to simply and straightforwardly carry out shock therapy, given that the Chinese working class would hardly have just stood by, after having secured a major political advance, and when faced with prior attacks on many of the gains of the Chinese revolution.

I'm not sure that it would entail whatsoever a "political advance", even with a significant working class support (which as it is remains dubious due to the protests generally calling out for nonsense like "democracy" and "freedom"), because it would be hard to avoid it being hijacked by liberals and such. It's true that an absolute outcome cannot be predicted and things could have gone in several ways, but I have seen no clear indications that there would have been any result but liberal democracy and continued capitalism.

If we look at similar events in other countries, that succeeded, they had disastrous results. East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, even the Soviet Union itself, the results were singularly in favour of capitalism, even though there in several of those cases were significant working class participation in the actual demonstrations and protests and the actual call was not for actual capitalist restoration but for things like better living conditions and a liberally-tainted view of more "democracy", but most of all just a desire to improve what existed or rebuild something better rather than have whatever the west had. Despite that the call was not for capitalist restoration, this unavoidably followed.

There's no comparison between Tiananmen and Falun Gong. The rounding-up of Falun Gong devotees took place alongside a public propaganda campaign against the sect and even today the government produces articles that mention the Falun Gong and its alleged evils - search on the English-language People's Daily website and you will see that this is the case along with mentions of Turkestan and Tibetan independence and so on. With Tiananmen, the silence is total. Most Chinese youth do not know what transpired in Tiananmen in 1989. Tiananmen is a special case.

Yes, they are not exactly the same situations, but the point was rather that the importance of a situation is not determined by the Chinese governments desire to censor it. It's obvious why they want to censor it - they want to discourage all forms of official displays of opposition and public organising against the government - but I do not think that this act somehow means what happened was very important.

Another dimension of Tiananmen's importance I forgot to mention was the reaction from Chinese diaspora communities and other Chinese populations. During the protest movement itself and especially after the crackdown, several million citizens in Hong Kong took to the streets. That's several million out of a population of between 6 and 7 million at the time of the crackdown. The crackdown itself was a traumatic moment for Chinese in locations like Hong Kong - trauma in the fullest sense of the word. It's actually hurtful for you to say that it wasn't an important event.

I'm sorry but emotional response and worry does not give something political significance per definition.

Kassad

26th April 2011, 21:33

Caramelpeace's capitulation to imperialism is probably the highlight of my day. I'm the "ignorant Stalinist" even though the poster clearly states that 1) the student protestors provided no alternative, especially not a working class one and 2) that the movement was not homogenous, but there is no repudiation of the fact that it was primarily students calling for rapid market reforms. If a labor union comes out in support of deporting immigrants, does that make it beneficial to the working class? Of course not. Just because some workers and labor organizations in China participated doesn't immediately make it a revolutionary uprising. Do try to keep up. There will be a test.

caramelpence

26th April 2011, 21:49

Caramelpeace's capitulation to imperialism is probably the highlight of my day

Do you get a kick out of sophisticated analysis like this?

1) the student protestors provided no alternative, especially not a working class one

Indeed, I have emphasized that they didn't exist as a credible ruling class and have provided evidence to prove that, whereas you're the one who is saying that we should be wary of what would have happened if these forces had carried out the dismantling of China's centrally planned economy, the implication being that they were in a position to do so, and that this was a good reason to support the crackdown - and yet no evidence that this was actually ever a meaningful possibility, given the naivety, inexperience, and disorganization of the student participants.

2) that the movement was not homogenous, but there is no repudiation of the fact that it was primarily students calling for rapid market reforms

In numerical terms, if you take into account events outside of the square itself, it probably wasn't "primarily students", but even if the students did comprise the majority of participants, this doesn't override the role of other classes and strata (you yourself acknowledge that it was a heterogenous movement, despite the PSL articles not acknowledging this and the Chinese government itself characterizing it as a student movement whilst it was ongoing - the student movement narrative was and is also accepted by non-Chinese governments and media organizations) and nor does it mean that the students themselves were straightforwardly in favor of "rapid market reforms" - there were differences of opinion amongst the students and they never put forward a stable set of demands. They certainly did not straightforwardly celebrate market reform because there was considerable awareness of the negative impacts of the reforms on students and academic professionals as well as the fact that the main beneficiaries of the reforms were neither students nor workers but small-scale entrepreneurs such as hairdressers and taxi-drivers.

Just because some workers and labor organizations in China participated doesn't immediately make it a revolutionary uprising.

No-one claims this, do try and read.

I'm not sure that it would entail whatsoever a "political advance", even with a significant working class support (which as it is remains dubious due to the protests generally calling out for nonsense like "democracy" and "freedom")

As I've pointed out above, the demands of all the participants were a great deal more complex and varied than this.

If we look at similar events in other countries, that succeeded, they had disastrous results. East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, even the Soviet Union itself, the results were singularly in favour of capitalism

Those events too were complex, and open-ended, but I'm not willing to make the kind of ahistorical comparisons you're engaging in, because I believe that events in those different countries as well as in China were specifically complex that they need to be studied on their own terms and with attention to the empirical and historical specificities of each individual society.

Yes, they are not exactly the same situations, but the point was rather that the importance of a situation is not determined by the Chinese governments desire to censor

The efforts to which the Chinese government has gone indicate the uniqueness of the Tiananmen events, as do the harsher punishments that were given to the participants, compared to the short-term detainment of Falun Gong practitioners.

I'm sorry but emotional response and worry does not give something political significance per definition

It indicates that it was very important for Chinese beyond the immediate participants, which is surely part of its political significance if only because of how it affected perceptions of the PRC (especially in Hong Kong given the prospect of handover), and the fact that there are still significant commemorative events (in Victoria Park, each year, in Hong Kong) drawing tens of thousands indicates the contemporary resonance of the events for those who are aware of them.

Kassad

26th April 2011, 21:56

caramelpence

26th April 2011, 21:59

Sophisticated analysis. :laugh:

So what should've been done? Just let a petit-bourgeois and counterrevolutionary movement dismember the existing gains of the Chinese Revolution? That serves the interests of the rich and the imperialists, not the working class of China or the world as a whole. It's becoming pretty apparent which side you are on.

If you're going to engage in absurd sloganeering like this (I mean, honestly, social and political life is not sufficiently simple to dismiss an entire movement in terms like "counterrevolutionary") without any supporting evidence then you should expect to be mocked. If you want to have a reasoned argument in which we support claims with empirical evidence and advance sophisticated analyses then fine, but something tells me you won't or can't do that.

Kassad

26th April 2011, 22:06

If you're going to engage in absurd sloganeering like this (I mean, honestly, social and political life is not sufficiently simple to dismiss an entire movement in terms like "counterrevolutionary") without any supporting evidence then you should expect to be mocked. If you want to have a reasoned argument in which we support claims with empirical evidence and advance sophisticated analyses then fine, but something tells me you won't or can't do that.

Evidence? It's there for all to see. Chai Ling, who was considered the "commander in chief" of the Tiananmen protests was quoted as saying that the plan was to provoke the Chinese military to use violent means to put down the demonstration.

I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to butcher the people brazenly? Only when the square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes.

These quotes and documentation can be found by simply doing even the most basic research. You didn't see a general strike in China to protest the government. You saw student hunger strikes. You saw student demonstrators. That's about it. What you saw were thousands of people calling for the overthrow of the Chinese government. The leadership was not revolutionary, yet you side with the interests of imperialism? You're digging your own grave here.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

26th April 2011, 22:06

Red Future

26th April 2011, 22:23

CCP = Chinese Capitalist Party

Kassad

26th April 2011, 22:24

CCP = Chinese Capitalist Party

Solid analysis. I've been defeated. :rolleyes:

gorillafuck

26th April 2011, 22:31

Solid analysis. I've been defeated. :rolleyes:At least you didn't call him an anti-communist, like you call a lot of ML's who don't strictly follow the PSL line.

Kassad

26th April 2011, 22:32

At least you didn't call him an anti-communist, like you call a lot of ML's who don't strictly follow the PSL line.

I appear to have struck a nerve.

Queercommie Girl

26th April 2011, 22:34

I don't agree with a lot of PSL's analysis, but kassad has a point in the general theoretical sense though: should we simply and blindly explicitly support every single instance of an "actually existing revolution" against a relatively reactionary regime? Not necessarily. Not when the alternative might actually be even more reactionary.

However, I don't agree with the PSL's characterisation of Tiananmen. I think the incident was extremely complex and had a double character - both relatively reactionary and relatively progressive elements were present, rather than completely reactionary or completely progressive as PSL claims on the one hand, and some other people claim on the another. It certainly wasn't just "black-and-white".

Red Future

26th April 2011, 22:35

At least you didn't call him an anti-communist, like you call a lot of ML's who don't strictly follow the PSL line.

I am no fan of market socialism and I am an ML -look at the signature:).As such I don't consider the CCP as communist , especially sine the "capitalist roaders" are dominant in the party these days.

Queercommie Girl

26th April 2011, 22:36

I am no fan of market socialism and I am an ML -look at the signature:).As such I don't consider the CCP as communist , especially sine the "capitalist roaders" are dominant in the party these days.

The situation in China is bad, but it could potentially be even worse, if China splits up along the lines of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.

Kassad

26th April 2011, 22:37

PhoenixAsh

26th April 2011, 22:43

Has any of you considered the fact that such uprisings in supposed socialist countries and the foothold which revisionists gain may just be because of the level of repression and the lack of actually providing for its people...mostlyt but not limited too... a clear, decisive alternative?

I'm just saying...

PhoenixAsh

26th April 2011, 22:47

Please elaborate on what indications you have that the result would not have been liberal "democracy", multi-party elections and continued capitalism and why? And yes, the events in Eastern Europe are complex as well, but the main point is that, even with an innocent demand, things can easily morph into something hideous that was never intended but by very few of those voicing the demands.

This initself is the a very good argument against authoritarian socialism. The fact that there is need for innocent demands and the fact that there is need for sending in tanks basically means AS does not work and leads to its own downfall.

gorillafuck

26th April 2011, 22:49

I appear to have struck a nerve.No, you're just really snotty in all of the threads you go into, this one included. I often call out people acting like that. Don't fellate your ego.:laugh:

These quotes and documentation can be found by simply doing even the most basic research. You didn't see a general strike in China to protest the government.This would be for another thread but I'm curious what the PSL thinks of the massive strikes that occurred in Poland.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

26th April 2011, 22:54

This initself is the a very good argument against authoritarian socialism. The fact that there is need for innocent demands and the fact that there is need for sending in tanks basically means AS does not work and leads to its own downfall.

Rather, revisionist state-capitalism (or just capitalism in China's case) fails and tries to do what capitalism does and does not do it as good. After all, allowing "democracy" makes the population far more placid and willing to accept the corrupt rule than does more-or-less admitted oppression.

Red Future

26th April 2011, 23:00

TVM mentioned something ages ago about low level grassroots CCP members as being more "Maoist" but you will have to ask him about this.

gorillafuck

26th April 2011, 23:02

China usually imprisons members of Maoist parties, but I wouldn't be surprised if the CCP has some.

flobdob

26th April 2011, 23:05

This would be for another thread but I'm curious what the PSL thinks of the massive strikes that occurred in Poland.

Sam Marcy wrote one of the best books on the "Solidarity" movement in Poland - Poland: Behind the Crisis.

I'm glad you've raised it as it was yet another example of the opportunist left cheerleading a patently counterrevolutionary movement. Much like they did in Afghanistan, like they did in China, like they are doing in Libya, the list goes on...

caramelpence

27th April 2011, 08:18

Evidence? It's there for all to see. Chai Ling, who was considered the "commander in chief" of the Tiananmen protests was quoted as saying that the plan was to provoke the Chinese military to use violent means to put down the demonstration.

These quotes and documentation can be found by simply doing even the most basic research. You didn't see a general strike in China to protest the government. You saw student hunger strikes. You saw student demonstrators. That's about it. What you saw were thousands of people calling for the overthrow of the Chinese government. The leadership was not revolutionary, yet you side with the interests of imperialism? You're digging your own grave here.

Look, I've read the PSL articles, I know exactly what "evidence" you have to hand. Simply pointing to a comment made by one student leader to a Western journalist during the course of the movement, a student leader who has subsequently argued with the support of other student activists (whether rightly or wrongly) that she was misquoted or that there were issues of erroneous translation, is not sufficient evidence for the claim you're making, which is that the movement possessed no possibilities other than the overthrow of the Chinese government and the installation of a new ruling apparatus geared towards shock therapy. If you are making a claim as big as that, you need to have corresponding evidence of similar weight and complexity. This quote, if anything, indicates the extent of emotionalism and inexperience on the part of the students. Your absurd posturing about "siding with imperialism" won't change that.

As for strike action, obviously there wasn't a general strike in the sense of a formal strike called by a national trade union body because the Chinese trade union apparatus is under the control of the government, but there was widespread strike action, especially in the aftermath of the crackdown, even though the government had aimed specifically to prevent the workers from linking up with the movement, and even though many students were dismissive of the workers. The day of the crackdown itself (June 4th) and the day after were marked by the formation of new Workers Autonomous Federations in Guangdong and Hangzhou on the model of the body that had been formed by workers participants in Beijing at the square itself, the BWAF, and whilst it is not straightforward to get an accurate estimate of the number of workers who took part in subsequent strikes, there was a sharp drop in industrial production from May through to July, and there were so many reports of strikes and mass absenteeism that it would be stupid to think that there was no strike action or that industrial unrest was limited to a small minority. In X'ian, to give a particular example, there was a virtual standstill across the city for six days and a loss in industrial output of 40 million yuan, and it is hard to explain the scale of these events if you accept the government's line, namely that it was down to a small bunch of "hooligans". There were also reports of roads, bridges, and railways being blocked all over China, and here again the line of the government was to refer to "hooligans" and "criminal elements" in order to avoid having to acknowledge that there was mass civilian involvement. Significantly, the language of worker organizations was permeated with a Marxian language of social justice and also bore the imprints of previous events like the Cultural Revolution. The statement of purpose of the BWAF, for example, began "the working class is the most advanced class, and we, in the Democratic Movement, should be prepared to demonstrate its great power" - hardly the language of workers who submitted to a bunch of students. Consistent with the sweep of Chinese history, the government also imposed much harsher penalties on workers than they did on student participants. All the above is from Sheehan, Jackie, Chinese Workers: A New History (1998), pp. 209-23. I am happy to give you a more extensive bibliography or list of references if you want. This is called detailed evidence.

Crux

27th April 2011, 10:20

Sophisticated analysis. :laugh:

So what should've been done? Just let a petit-bourgeois and counterrevolutionary movement dismember the existing gains of the Chinese Revolution? That serves the interests of the rich and the imperialists, not the working class of China or the world as a whole. It's becoming pretty apparent which side you are on.
So what did you think happened in the aftermath of '89? What about the joining of WTO, the opening up of the party for multi-billionairies? The irony is almost amusing.

In '89, as the link to the eye-witness report from one of the comrades who were actually there and spoke several leaders of the movement, there was a nucleus of a workingclass leadership in the formation as well with the formation of the independent trade union i Beijing. This was hit especially hard by the regime. So which side are you on? A heteregenous mass fighting for democratic demands and the nucleus of an independent worker's movment? Or with the regime that re-introduced capitalism in full in China?