Tiananmen protesters singing the Internationale‏

[OI OI OI]

Just want to share something I found at Youtube, a BBC news footage of the Tiananmen repression, with the protesters singing the Internationale.

Here's a kick in the face for those who say that Tiananmen protesters were fighting against communism.

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=XJBnHMpHGRY

[dirtycommiebastard]

You didn't find this you liar! It was Ted!

Complete revolutionary plagiarism!

But it is still a great video.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

One of the leaders of those protests, Chai Ling, later admitted to having wanted to provoke the government into causing a "bloodbath" in order to spark a counterrevolutionary uprising across the country.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1189573&postcount=10

[Red_or_Dead]

Quote:
One of the leaders of those protests, Chai Ling, later admitted to having wanted to provoke the government into causing a "bloodbath" in order to spark a counterrevolutionary uprising across the country.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...3&postcount=10 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1189573&postcount=10)

I do wonder what they had to do to him to get this "confession" out of him.

And even if this confession is true, I say screw a country that responds to protests by killing protesters.


Here's a kick in the face for those who say that Tiananmen protesters were fighting against communism.

Agreed.

[Luís Henrique]

Just want to share something I found at Youtube, a BBC news footage of the Tiananmen repression, with the protesters singing the Internationale.

Here's a kick in the face for those who say that Tiananmen protesters were fighting against communism.

Erm...

I remember singing the Brazilian national anthem when we were attacked by Brazilian police. It didn't mean we agreed with Brazilian nationalism; it was just a way to make it more difficult to the police to beat us (after all, they're supposed to respect the anthem) and to the press to portrait us as agents of international communism...

Luís Henrique

[OI OI OI]

One of the leaders of those protests, Chai Ling, later admitted to having wanted to provoke the government into causing a "bloodbath" in order to spark a counterrevolutionary uprising across the country.

So you supported the Chinese "socialist" state?

If that is socialism (killing innocent protesters that are communists and only want political freedom ) , then I must be a socialist of another planet. Or maybe the people who support those regimes are...

[kingbee]

My dad was in Tianamen a couple of days before it turned nasty (reporting for S4C, the Welsh language news channel), and says that they were singing the Internationale and also holding up pictures of Mao, saying pretty much that 'this wouldn't have happened in his day'.

[Trystan]

Lets hope that the "communist" party officials are all hung with their own entrails by September.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you supported the Chinese "socialist" state?I support the defense of bureaucratized proletarian states from counterrevolution*... but I was simply posting that to show that while The Internationale was sung (which is no new revelation among leftists) and there were no doubt participants who workers and farmers angry about what they saw as a departure from socialism, many of the leading forces in Tiananmen were counterrevolutionaries that sought to establish capitalism in China.

I included a link so that you could read the original post in context.


* PoWR's stance is as follows:

17. Since the earliest years of capitalism, working people have attempted -- in various geographic locations and to varying degrees of success -- to overthrow their exploiters.

In 1871, a revolutionary uprising in Paris, France, created the Paris Commune, considered the first attempt at establishing a proletarian state.

The first successful attempt at overthrowing capitalism came in 1917, when the October Revolution sent shockwaves through the world by overthrowing capitalist rule throughout the vast Russian Empire and laying the foundation for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The October Revolution, which was carried out by the proletariat – under the leadership of its Bolshevik party – destroyed the capitalist state and paved the way for the construction of a proletarian state in its place. Due to the USSR’s backwardness, isolation, imperialist encirclement, the failure of the socialist revolution to successfully spread to other (especially more advanced) countries, and the loss of many of its most advanced members of the working class in the civil war, the revolution began to degenerate after a few years, giving rise to a privileged bureaucratic caste that eventually seized political power, thus making the USSR a bureaucratized proletarian state.

The bureaucracy did not own the means of production, which were brought into public ownership in the wake of the October Revolution, thus it was not a class. The bureaucracy was a conservative, nationalist caste that controlled the state.

18. After the October Revolution, capitalist rule was overthrown, and capitalist property relations subsequently overturned, in Mongolia, China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and the northern half of Korea. But the methods in which capitalism was overthrown in these countries gave rise not to healthy proletarian states, but bureaucratized proletarian states like that which existed in the USSR.

The bureaucrats who controlled these states came from various backgrounds. Some were communists who had genuine revolutionary intentions but viewed “actually existing socialism” in the bureaucratized proletarian states that has already come into existence as the model for socialism and/or looked to the leaders of bureaucratized-socialist states (especially the USSR), who nationalistically subjected the interests of the international working class as a whole to the interests of their own countries, for leadership and direction. Others were opportunists, looking for a way to “get ahead.” Finally, some were professional, administrators, et. al., in the old society seeking privileged positions for themselves in the new society.

In the states liberated from fascism by the Red Army during World War II (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany), the soon-to-be bureaucrats were placed a top bureaucratic states constructed by the Red Army on the model of the Soviet state.

In the states created through mass revolutions (China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Ethiopia and north Korea), the soon-to-be bureaucrats insured the creation of bureaucratic proletarian states by patterning themselves on the bureaucratic castes that ruled the existing bureaucratized proletarian states.

19. While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to “peacefully coexist” with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany.

But this is not the only danger. The bureaucracy, along the proletarian state itself, cant be directly overthrown by counterrevolutionary forces, as was the case in Ethiopia.

20. Today, bureaucratized proletarian states remain in existence in China, Laos, Viet Nam and north Korea. All four are in serious danger of collapse, counterrevolution and capitalist restoration. If successful, such counterrevolution would represent a set back for the working class as a whole.

While bureaucratized proletarian states are a far cry from the proletarian states we fight for, they still represent a gain for the working class. Despite their distortions, the bureaucratic proletarian states exist over top of collectivized property form born out of the overthrow of capitalism, thus allowing working people much better living conditions than they had prior to (or in the cases of those which no longer exist) after the states’ existence. More importantly on a historic scale, the very existence of these states contributes to the defeat of world imperialism, thus removing all barriers for the construction of genuine socialism in every country and paving the way for a communist world.

Communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, but they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements. We struggle for the ouster of the bureaucrats and their governing system, to be replaced by genuine workers’ democracy, while pointing out the need for the preservation of the gains represented by collectivized property, economic planning, and control of trade.

The best way for the working class to defend the gains in these countries is to defend the countries themselves from attack by the imperialist powers while at the same time fighting for socialist revolutions in the remaining capitalist countries. The victory of socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries can create the openings necessary for the removal of the bureaucratic castes in the bureaucratized proletarian states (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.).

21. Other than the working class in the USSR, the working class of Cuba is so far the only in history to carry out socialist revolution (in 1959), take power, and hold on to it by establishing a healthy proletarian state. Today, Cuba is the only healthy proletarian state in existence. Still, revolutionary Cuba is in danger. It is a testament to the Cuban workers’ internationalism and commitment to the revolution that the limited bureaucracy that exists in Cuba has been kept in check and prevented from taking power. If Cuba is not broken out of isolation by the victory of the socialist revolution in other countries, it will eventually degenerate under the harsh pressures it faces. - http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html

[RedHal]

This is not surprising, as much as the western media likes to portray the Chinese working class as desiring Western "democracy", there are still a lot of workers who want a return to socialism. The case of the Zhengzhou four are another example of protest from the left. http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105commentary.htm

[OI OI OI]

* PoWR's stance is as follows:

17. Since the earliest years of capitalism, working people have attempted -- in various geographic locations and to varying degrees of success -- to overthrow their exploiters.

In 1871, a revolutionary uprising in Paris, France, created the Paris Commune, considered the first attempt at establishing a proletarian state.

The first successful attempt at overthrowing capitalism came in 1917, when the October Revolution sent shockwaves through the world by overthrowing capitalist rule throughout the vast Russian Empire and laying the foundation for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The October Revolution, which was carried out by the proletariat – under the leadership of its Bolshevik party – destroyed the capitalist state and paved the way for the construction of a proletarian state in its place. Due to the USSR’s backwardness, isolation, imperialist encirclement, the failure of the socialist revolution to successfully spread to other (especially more advanced) countries, and the loss of many of its most advanced members of the working class in the civil war, the revolution began to degenerate after a few years, giving rise to a privileged bureaucratic caste that eventually seized political power, thus making the USSR a bureaucratized proletarian state.

The bureaucracy did not own the means of production, which were brought into public ownership in the wake of the October Revolution, thus it was not a class. The bureaucracy was a conservative, nationalist caste that controlled the state.

18. After the October Revolution, capitalist rule was overthrown, and capitalist property relations subsequently overturned, in Mongolia, China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and the northern half of Korea. But the methods in which capitalism was overthrown in these countries gave rise not to healthy proletarian states, but bureaucratized proletarian states like that which existed in the USSR.

The bureaucrats who controlled these states came from various backgrounds. Some were communists who had genuine revolutionary intentions but viewed “actually existing socialism” in the bureaucratized proletarian states that has already come into existence as the model for socialism and/or looked to the leaders of bureaucratized-socialist states (especially the USSR), who nationalistically subjected the interests of the international working class as a whole to the interests of their own countries, for leadership and direction. Others were opportunists, looking for a way to “get ahead.” Finally, some were professional, administrators, et. al., in the old society seeking privileged positions for themselves in the new society.

In the states liberated from fascism by the Red Army during World War II (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany), the soon-to-be bureaucrats were placed a top bureaucratic states constructed by the Red Army on the model of the Soviet state.

In the states created through mass revolutions (China, Viet Nam, Laos, Albania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Ethiopia and north Korea), the soon-to-be bureaucrats insured the creation of bureaucratic proletarian states by patterning themselves on the bureaucratic castes that ruled the existing bureaucratized proletarian states.

19. While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to “peacefully coexist” with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany.

But this is not the only danger. The bureaucracy, along the proletarian state itself, cant be directly overthrown by counterrevolutionary forces, as was the case in Ethiopia.

20. Today, bureaucratized proletarian states remain in existence in China, Laos, Viet Nam and north Korea. All four are in serious danger of collapse, counterrevolution and capitalist restoration. If successful, such counterrevolution would represent a set back for the working class as a whole.

While bureaucratized proletarian states are a far cry from the proletarian states we fight for, they still represent a gain for the working class. Despite their distortions, the bureaucratic proletarian states exist over top of collectivized property form born out of the overthrow of capitalism, thus allowing working people much better living conditions than they had prior to (or in the cases of those which no longer exist) after the states’ existence. More importantly on a historic scale, the very existence of these states contributes to the defeat of world imperialism, thus removing all barriers for the construction of genuine socialism in every country and paving the way for a communist world.

Communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, but they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements. We struggle for the ouster of the bureaucrats and their governing system, to be replaced by genuine workers’ democracy, while pointing out the need for the preservation of the gains represented by collectivized property, economic planning, and control of trade.

The best way for the working class to defend the gains in these countries is to defend the countries themselves from attack by the imperialist powers while at the same time fighting for socialist revolutions in the remaining capitalist countries. The victory of socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries can create the openings necessary for the removal of the bureaucratic castes in the bureaucratized proletarian states (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.).

21. Other than the working class in the USSR, the working class of Cuba is so far the only in history to carry out socialist revolution (in 1959), take power, and hold on to it by establishing a healthy proletarian state. Today, Cuba is the only healthy proletarian state in existence. Still, revolutionary Cuba is in danger. It is a testament to the Cuban workers’ internationalism and commitment to the revolution that the limited bureaucracy that exists in Cuba has been kept in check and prevented from taking power. If Cuba is not broken out of isolation by the victory of the socialist revolution in other countries, it will eventually degenerate under the harsh pressures it faces. As a Trotskyist I agree....
But I don't think China was a deformed workers State then.
I think it had already degenerated into capitalism

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And that's based on what? When do you think the counterrevolution was carried out in China and why?

Our analysis differs from those of Trotskyists in a few ways, especially in the way we fight to oust bureaucrats.

[OI OI OI]

And that's based on what? When do you think the counterrevolution was carried out in China and why?

The counter revolution started in 1978 and from then on China started moving towards capitalism.
Of course the bureaucracy did not have a plan. We understand that the bureaucracy operates usi9ng empiricism. IT understands that in order to remain in its position it needs to develop the means of production but it does not do it according to a rational plan most of the time but by using empiricism.
From 1978 there was some opening of the Market.
In the 80s land was leased to families and at the same period people could buy and sell land , leaving millions with no land while enriching some peasants. The poor moved to the cities and forming the basis of what is now the modern Chinese workforce in the cities.
Also there was an opening of free trade areas with restrictions in the beggining who were after lifted.
Untill that period the socialist mode of production was predominant though .
There was no complete turn into capitalism but only steps.

Already by 1988 the GDP % of state owned enterprises was 42% . In 2002 it was down to 34% not taking into account the TVEs which are operating as capitalist companies and are owned by their managers most of the time but they are considered "socialist enterprises" and are counted in the public sector.
So we see that as of 1988 the private sector was predominant.

We cannot say forsure that China turned capitalist in 2002 or 1998 or whatever date.
It does not matter anyways.
The lesson is that China was built on a wrong basis (bureaucratic basis ) and socialism was eventualy sold by those same bureaucrats.



Also about your position on the political revolution.
It has "never worked" just like communism "has never worked".
This is no reason to denounce it as false though.
Obviously the only solution in deformed workers states like Cuba is workers control , or political change or else the same bureaucrats are going to sell socialism once again .

To not agitate for it is defeatism.
We should agitate for it if we want Cuba to not go back to capitalism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But you just said it "doesn't matter" when the counterrevolution happened in China.. so how do you know when it's okay to stop agitating for "political revolution" and start agitating for socialist revolution?

The thing about "political revolution" is that it's a fabricated concept. It has no material basis. It has never come about, and it never will. Everything Trotskyists point to as "incipient political revolution" has been tainted or even lead by forces of counterrevolution.

As I said in the other thread:

"Ruling bureaucracies exist/ed in the bureaucratized proletarian state because of material conditions, not because of some subjective factor (such as a "really evil dictator"). In order to get rid of the bureaucracy it is necessary to get rid of the conditions that gave rise to it." That can only be done by extending the revolution internationally.

And that's why I said "In an imperialist-oppressed country in which a bureaucratic caste rules over collectivized property forms, and which is isolated, encircled and victim of constant imperialist aggression (economic and/or military), the working class is not going to spontaneously become conscious, toss out the bureaucracy and magically change the conditions which the country faces. The conditions have to exist to facilitate the ouster of the bureaucrats and the legitimate coming to power of the working class.

"In a world in which imperialism dominates, the bottom line is this: The world revolution must advance to stop the retrograding of existing revolutions."


There was no complete turn into capitalism but only steps.So you say.. but which of these "steps" was the one that marked a return to capitalism? You say it's not important to know. I think it's vital to understanding China.

Capitalism cannot be reformed out of existence by "steps," so what makes you think socialism can?

The reality is that it can't. While aspects of capitalism can be introduced under socialism, whether by a ruling working class or a bureaucracy, only a counterrevolution can bring back the rule of the capitalists.

And no, in Cuba we don't need a revolution -- political or otherwise. The Revolution was victorious in 1959 and has been moving forward ever since. Just because the 26 of July Movement didn't call itself "Trotskyist" and Raul doesn't talk about the writings of some British Trotskyist on television doesn't negate he fact that an earth-shaking revolution was carried out by the workers and farmers of Cuba that has continued on for almost 50 years in spite of constant attacks by the strongest imperialist power the world has ever known.

[OI OI OI]

But you just said it "doesn't matter" when the counterrevolution happened in China.. so how do you know when it's okay to stop agitating for "political revolution" and start agitating for socialist revolution?

You make a sound argument so I'd have to admit it was a mistake.
But I don't think that you can make a date as you do that capitalism came into existence in 2002 or 2003.
It was rather a special situation with steps towards capitalism from 1978 . Already from 1988 the private sector was predominant.
So we could say that from the mid 80s and after we could make political as well as economic agitation. The the ration political/economical agitation would be smaller and smaller until we reach a situation of a bourgeois democracy in China where the agitation would be of economic nature(by which I don't mean economist but rather a change of the economy from capitalist to socialist) .


The thing about "political revolution" is that it's a fabricated concept. It has no material basis.


no it is not. Just as there is a material basis for political degeneration, there is a material basis for political revolution. Especialy when the given deformed/degenerated workers state has developed its productive forces to a certain high level.
To say that political revolution has no material basis is to imply that there can be no workers democracy in a workers state , which is ultimately defeatism and repeat of western propaganda on the issue.

The echo of the ideas of political revolution in Cuba amongst the most advanced layers of the population is a proof that their is a material basis for it .


It has never come about, and it never will.
pure determinism.


Everything Trotskyists point to as "incipient political revolution" has been tainted or even lead by forces of counterrevolution.

You mean Hungary ? I don't think that way but we should not touch on that topic in this thread.

Also the counter-revolution is bread in the bureaucracy. To not strive for its overthrow is to betray the working class. I won't be a determinist myself and say that a deformed workers state will always turn into capitalism but I will go as far as to say that the chances of that happening are extremely high. Not fighting for political revolution means that we betray the proletariat of any given deformed workers state.


As I said in the other thread:

"Ruling bureaucracies exist/ed in the bureaucratic-socialist countries because of material conditions, not because of some subjective factor (such as a "really evil dictator"). In order to get rid of the bureaucracy it is necessary to get rid of the conditions that gave rise to it." That can only be done by extending the revolution internationally.


Agreed on that. But I will add that there should be agitation for political revolution in a deformed workers state when material conditions allow it.



And that's why I said "In an imperialist-oppressed country in which a bureaucratic caste rules over collectivized property forms, and which is isolated, encircled and victim of constant imperialist aggression (economic and/or military), the working class is not going to spontaneously become conscious, toss out the bureaucracy and magically change the conditions which the country faces. The conditions have to exist to facilitate the ouster of the bureaucrats and the legitimate coming to power of the working class.

"In a world in which imperialism dominates, the bottom line is this: The world revolution must advance to stop the retrograding of existing revolutions."

I wouldnt agree on that.
Being opressed by imperialism does not mean that there should be a bureaucracy ruling you.
Don't make your thoughts sound like laws of nature .



So you say.. but which of these "steps" was the one that marked a return to capitalism? You say it's not important to know. I think it's vital to understanding China.

Capitalism cannot be reformed out of existence by "steps," so what makes you think socialism can?

The reality is that it can't. While aspects of capitalism can be introduced under socialism, whether by a ruling working class or a bureaucracy, only a counterrevolution can bring back the rule of the capitalists.


Yes and the counter revolution did not happen in a year but progressively. I think that in a "socialist" country such as China, when we see that the private sector predominates(such as in 1988) we cannot call it socialist or even a workers state as the majority of the GDP is produced by private companies.
We can call it a mixed economy though,...



And no, in Cuba we don't need a revolution -- political or otherwise. The Revolution was victorious in 1959 and has been moving forward ever since. Just because the 26 of July Movement didn't call itself "Trotskyist" and Raul doesn't talk about the writings of some British Trotskyist on television doesn't negate he fact that an earth-shaking revolution was carried out by the workers and farmers of Cuba that has continued on for almost 50 years in spite of constant attacks by the strongest imperialist power the world has ever known.

So you would describe Cuba as a genuine socialist state?
I wouldn't go too far.
And I dont think that decrees made by a bureaucrat(Raul) can transform cuba to a genuine workers state. It should be the people themselves.

[Rawthentic]

China's counterrevolution began in the late 1970s, marked by the death of Mao and usurpation of power by Deng Xiaoping.

Here are some important things that Raymond Lotta from the RCP had to say on this (note: I am not an RCP supporter):
China is no longer the society that I have been describing. It is no longer socialist. In 1976, Deng Xiaoping led a coup that overthrew proletarian rule. The capitalist roaders that Mao was leading people to struggle against won out.

The policies of this new capitalist class have led to extreme economic and social polarization. China has been turned into a cheap-labor platform for transnational corporations. Yes, some people in China have gotten very wealthy, and a new middle class is rapidly expanding. But what does all this mean for the broad masses of people? A quick snapshot:

* Factories in special economic zones subject workers to unbearably long hours, substandard food, cramped dorms, abuse of workers by managers.
* Peasants are subjected to exorbitant taxes and non-payment by the state for crops. Local governments in league with developers are involved in massive land grabs. This has sparked waves of protests by peasants.
* 200 million peasant-migrant laborers are roaming the countryside and streaming into cities in search of work, with no guarantee of job or shelter.
* Between 1995 and 2000 alone, 48 million workers were laid off from state enterprises.
* Prostitution is rampant in the cities. There is now a burgeoning world market for unwanted female babies in China.
* The disbanding of the communes in the countryside has led to the collapse of the rural public health care system. This was a major factor in the spread of the SARS epidemic of 2003. The burgeoning sex industry, the rise of intravenous drug use, and the fact that desperate peasants are now selling blood to survive have contributed to an AIDS crisis.
* The introduction of free-market practices in the countryside has meant that rural schools are now being financed by tuition and other charges. The result is that many poor villagers can no longer afford to send their children to school.
* Cities are choking on pollution; industrial wastes are pouring into rivers; forest reserves are being depleted—this is the environmental price of a reckless economic juggernaut in China that is glorified in the West.

Where Mao said, “serve the people,” Deng Xiaoping said, “to get rich is glorious.”

Capitalism has been restored in China.
This is a good article on it from the Monthly Review: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105wu.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105wu.htm)

I don't understand how one can call China any sort of socialist state when, for more than 30 years, it's leading line has been that of a capitalist nation. It is an overestimation of the base, and underestimation of the role of superstructure. How can socialism keep going (more like drag on) in terms of base and production relations when the leaders, officials, policies, and overall ideology of the state is thoroughly capitalist?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I do wonder what they had to do to him to get this "confession" out of him.She made the "confession" in an interview to journalists from the "Western" media.


And even if this confession is true, I say screw a country that responds to protests by killing protesters.I'm not apologist for the bureaucrats in China of the time, but let's look at things objectively. What happened in Tiananmen could properly be described as a riot. A few hundred people died -- not thousands, or even tens of thousands as some have claimed -- and about half of them were soldiers.

"The central scene in the article is of troops beating and machine-gunning unarmed students in the middle of Tiananmen Square. Several witnesses, both Chinese and foreign, say this did not happen. ...The great majority left unhurt and were not shot at.." - The New York Times, retraction; June 13, 1989.


pure determinism. You can call it that if you wish, but it's roughly equivalent to calling a claim that the moon will never turn into cheese and fall out of the sky deterministic.


It was rather a special situation with steps towards capitalism from 1978 . Already from 1988 the private sector was predominant.
So we could say that from the mid 80s and after we could make political as well as economic agitation. The the ration political/economical agitation would be smaller and smaller until we reach a situation of a bourgeois democracy in China where the agitation would be of economic nature(by which I don't mean economist but rather a change of the economy from capitalist to socialist) .This is very muddled.

We can agree that there is a big difference between a proletarian state (even a bureaucratically deformed one) and a capitalist state. So it is pretty important to know how to characterize China at any time. If you can't tell if it's a bureaucratized proletarian state or capitalist, that's a huge problem and its going to affect your whole approach and orientation.


Just as there is a material basis for political degeneration, there is a material basis for political revolution. Especialy when the given deformed/degenerated workers state has developed its productive forces to a certain high level.So as the bureaucracy gets more entrenched in power -- and in doing so increasingly pushes workers out of the political sphere -- the working class somehow becomes emboldened?


To say that political revolution has no material basis is to imply that there can be no workers democracy in a workers state , which is ultimately defeatism and repeat of western propaganda on the issue. No. There can be -- and has to be -- workers democracy under a healthy bureaucratized proletarian state. Cuba has shown that socialism can be built, even under incredibly harsh conditions, with the workers in control.

But history has also shown that revolutions can degenerate and be taken over by a bureaucratic caste. When this happens, it's because conditions led to it, and the working class was pushed from or kept from power. In these conditions, getting control in the hands of the working class isn't as easy as just giving a few speeches or spreading some literature from your political trend. History has also shown that.


The echo of the ideas of political revolution in Cuba amongst the most advanced layers of the population is a proof that their is a material basis for it .What are you talking about here? What proof do you have that calls for "political revolution" echo among anyone?

In reality, there is no base at all for any opposition to the Revolution in Cuba "from the left."


You mean Hungary ?Various Trotskyists point to various events -- from Hungary to Czechoslovakia to Poland to Tiananmen -- as "incipient political revolutions." In every example that's ever been given, counterrevolutionary elements existed, if they didn't dominate completely.


I don't think that way Frankly comrade, what you "think" doesn't really matter in this situation. It is a matter of fact that in the various examples pointed to as "incipient political revolutions" (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Tiananmen) counterrevolutionary elements existed, if they did not dominate.


we should not touch on that topic in this thread. Why not? It's completely relevant to the discussion about political revolution and what really happened in Tiananmen.




Being opressed by imperialism does not mean that there should be a bureaucracy ruling you. Where did I say that it should?

What I said was that in bureaucratized proletarian states which are isolated, encircled and under constant attack, the working class is not going to spontaneously gain consciousness and throw out the bureaucracy. Remember that the bureaucracy is constantly pushing the working class further and further out of political life as it consolidates itself. Something must happen to reverse that. The extension of the revolution to other countries will weaken imperialism, and can embolden the workers of the bureaucratic-socialist countries and seriously change the conditions the bureaucracy uses to prop itself up.

What rationale would the bureaucracy in north Korea have for maintaining tight control, spending so much on defense, maintaining such a huge standing military, etc., if it were surrounded by internationalist socialist bastions instead of being bordered by a capitalist-state with thousands of imperialist soldiers and sophisticated weapons within it?

You admitted earlier that the conditions have to change in order for the rule of the bureaucracy to end. Extending the world revolution to capitalist countries is the kind of change that is needed. Pamphlets from the leader of your political tendency cannot create that kind of change in conditions.


Yes and the counter revolution did not happen in a year but progressively. Well, any such process has a beginning and an end. But the end has to be definable. It's fine to say that you don't have a good enough understanding to define when, but if you're going to say there's no way to tell when China stopped having a socialist economy and started having a capitalist one, then you're basically saying there's no difference between a bureaucratized proletarian state (what you would called a "deformed workers state") and capitalist state...

Even under capitalism, if we are moving forward, things "progress towards socialism," until at a certain point the capitalist state is overthrown and a bureaucratized proletarian state is constructed in its place. But there is that break. Capitalism isn't "reformed" out of existence, and neither is socialism.


I think that in a "socialist" country such as China, when we see that the private sector predominates(such as in 1988) we cannot call it socialist or even a workers state as the majority of the GDP is produced by private companies.
We can call it a mixed economy though,...Banking, the major industries and biggest enterprises were still under state control and operated as a part of an economic plan in 1988.

The market didn't become dominant until the 90's.

Even despite these major distortions, the basis of the collectivized economy born out of the 1949 revolution are still in place.


So you would describe Cuba as a genuine socialist state? Of course. It is the working class that rules in Cuba, albeit in incredibly difficult circumstances.

There is a small bureaucracy with minor privileges, but it does not rule. That is why the bureaucrats have been defeated time and time again (as seen in the Ochoa incident, both the Escalante affairs, the Battle of Ideas, etc.).


I wouldn't go too far.
And I dont think that decrees made by a bureaucrat(Raul) can transform cuba to a genuine workers state. It should be the people themselves.This looks to me more like putting the program and outlook of your group above reality, than a product of any serious investigation.

Raul is the chosen head of state of the people of the Cuba. He has been a leader in various capacities since the earliest days. He is not some careerist that crawled out of the shadows but a leading participant in the revolutionary struggle going all the way back to the attack on Moncada in 1953 and even earlier.

From Socialist Cuba: Meet Cuba's New President: Raúl Castro (http://cubatruthproject.org/revolutionarycuba/sum08a.html)

And "the people of Cuba" are those who make the decisions. Everything from social welfare to taxes to the constitution itself are discussed, debated and ultimately decided on by the toiling masses. At the higher levels they have approval and decision making as well. Representatives must meet with those who elected them on a regular basis and those who go against their will are subject to recall. See the book Cuba: Dictatorship or Democracy by Marta Harnecker, which is dated but still informative.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't understand how one can call China any sort of socialist state when, for more than 30 years, it's leading line has been that of a capitalist nation. It is an overestimation of the base, and underestimation of the role of superstructure. How can socialism keep going (more like drag on) in terms of base and production relations when the leaders, officials, policies, and overall ideology of the state is thoroughly capitalist?Because a socialist economy does not disappear when the leader of a state dies.. anymore than capitalism would end if a leader of a capitalist state were assassinated.

Capitalism can be overthrown in a revolution of the toiling masses only to later have political control fall into the hands of a bureaucracy, and it can even be overthrown by such a revolutionary mobilization under the control of bureaucrats.. in such cases the state is "born" as a bureaucratized proletarian state.

This was explained in a more in-depth earlier in the thread..

[Rawthentic]

Because a socialist economy does not disappear when the leader of a state dies.. anymore than capitalism would end if a leader of a capitalist state were assassinated.
Straw man.

I never implied that socialism ended right when Mao died. I said that that was when the process began. There is nothing worth defending in China as of now. It is a capitalist state, and nothing short of socialist revolution can end that. The masses cannot take hold of the chinese state and roll back to socialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A bureaucratized proletarian state remains.

[Red Phalanx]

I also remember that they made a crude replica of the statue of liberty. Singing the Internationale was a form of mockery.