Tiananmen Square denialism

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I've found a handful of articles, like this article from the PSL (http://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/), which indicates that some (and I must emphasize SOME) Marxists-Leninists out and out deny that the Massacre at Tiananmen Square ever actually happened. That the majority of the dead (the official government count was about 300) were actually PLA soldiers and that few if any of the protesters were actually killed.

I have to ask though: Just how much traction does this argument really have in Leftist circles?

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's obviously a load of bullshit, at least judging from that PSL link. They use "Western media" sources as their evidence that no massacre occurred, then attribute any evidence that a massacre did occur to a campaign of media fabrication by these same sources. Yawn. That's classic from toadies like them: write off any commentary opposed to your point of view as a deliberate smear campaign from the mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie, while simultaneously holding up commentary supporting your narrative as objective facts from the very same reactionary sources. Reports from a state embroiled in civil unrest, no less.

Mass demonstrations occur frequently and they've been used for a variety of ends. Some progressive, some reactionary, and some with a variety of progressive and reactionary elements included (and some with not much of any implication for the communist project, such as a sports riot for example). Capitalist states frequently use deadly force to counter these demonstrations, too, such as the Tlatlecoco massacre in Mexico in 1968. Or, a more recent example would be close to a thousand people being shot dead in Cairo during the early 2011 protests in Egypt. So with those facts in mind what happened in the PRC during that time is not beyond the realm of comprehension.

But the sticking point is that the PRC is the land of Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and the PSL (and FRSO) has their head lodged so firmly up their ass that they can't realize how incredibly inconsequential defending a capitalist state such as the PRC is.

[John Nada]

What would the PSL and FRSO do if the Chinese proletariat brutally suppressed the capitalist restorationists hiding inside the CCP(but out in the open) in 1989 instead? How would they explain themselves to the new DotP?

A lot of the student protesters were neoliberals but many of the worker protesters opposed the capitalist "reforms", the Dengites and wanted socialism. Not only that, the workers tended to get harsher prison sentences or executed, while the neoliberal students(many from prominent families) got lighter punishments.

Besides possibly opportunism(eg, "Come on, Color Revolution in reverse!:ninja:"), this shit stems from an unclear line on imperialism outside of American imperialism. For example, is the PRC a DotP implementing a century-long NEP:lol:, state-capitalist, social-imperialist, degenerate/deformed workers' state, semi-colonial, neo-colonial, colonial, bureaucratic capitalist, sub-imperialist, lesser imperialist, major imperialist, oppressed nation, oppressor nation, something independent but progressive or not as bad as the US, just as bad as the US but with priority to fight "your own", none of the above, ect.?

It may seem pedant, but this small part of theory can completely change the view and actions in practice. Like if the PRC is an oppressed nation, the protesters are led by an oppressor nation(the US) with no interest in the people of China beyond superprofits, then in this alternate reality the position might make more sense. Or if the PRC is in the main still a state of the proletariat and the protesters were bourgeoisie, then this is just a bend in the road in that view. Also it could just be the capitalist PRC is bad, but being an American means opposing US imperialism is the top priority, even if it means siding with a rival imperialist. Last one is hilarious when you consider that communists in said rival imperialist nations might be thinking the same thing, but in reverse!

[bluemangroup]

I've found a handful of articles, like this article from the PSL (http://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/), which indicates that some (and I must emphasize SOME) Marxists-Leninists out and out deny that the Massacre at Tiananmen Square ever actually happened. That the majority of the dead (the official government count was about 300) were actually PLA soldiers and that few if any of the protesters were actually killed.

I have to ask though: Just how much traction does this argument really have in Leftist circles?

It did happen (unfortunately), carried out by a revolutionary regime against mostly students protesting for bourgeois democracy; As a Marxist-Leninist, I feel that denying the Tienanmen Massacre is somewhat childish and undialectical.

Both students and People's Liberation Army soldiers died - that is, those on both sides of the conflict were killed and ultimately killed others in the interest of living, not to mention the cause. Human nature, at its finest.

IMHO Marxists of all stripes must come to grips with the legacy of Tienanmen Massacre, something which isn't easily done by most.


the PRC a DotP implementing a century-long NEP:lol:, state-capitalist, social-imperialist, degenerate/deformed workers' state, semi-colonial, neo-colonial, colonial, bureaucratic capitalist, sub-imperialist, lesser imperialist, major imperialist, oppressed nation, oppressor nationWikipedia that shit up!


the Dengites and wanted socialismYes, Deng wanted socialism, although a greatly reformed socialism based off limited marketization and the democratization of state and party. (if you don't believe the democratization part, check out a series of 50+ [each] Carter Center documents on China's democratization under socialism)


Capitalist states frequently use deadly force to counter these demonstrationsNein Scheisse, Sherklock!

Das ist was? Das ist der revolution leibhaftig und steroide. Hohlkopf ...

And yes, I know the German. I use Rosetta Stone and some such shit.

Bust mostly, I just jam.

[John Nada]

Wikipedia that shit up!Don't need to. A rhetorical question. Since the PRC is capitalist it meets all the criteria for imperialism.
Yes, Deng wanted socialism, although a greatly reformed socialism based off limited marketization and the democratization of state and party. (if you don't believe the democratization part, check out a series of 50+ [each] Carter Center documents on China's democratization under socialism)No, he did not. Not anymore than Gorbachev. Obviously Carter's going to make what is considered one of his achievements of establishing trade and investment in the PRC look positive. It should be clear by now that it wasn't some short-term thing.