Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
Unfortunately the power of the mob rarely stays peaceful.

That's BS. We have had protests with millions as well. Very rarely have they turned violent. Also, the students had been protesting peacefully for a while. Where were the indications that it would turn violent?

None of the protests we have today are a real threat to the govt. If they were then the govt would be using violence like they did in 1932.

[GePap]

The protest were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it. The leadership may have had some minor fear about general chaos, if only becuase they arrogantly assume only they can keep order in China.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
Unfortunately the power of the mob rarely stays peaceful.

That's BS. We have had protests with millions as well. Very rarely have they turned violent.

Populist movements in China have the tendency to turn merry when the workers, peasants, and proletariat in general get involved. There are simply a lot of them, much more than the nonexistent middle class back in '89. This makes the situation very volatile in China, even today. This, incidentally, is also very different from the US, which seems to be the case you're using.

If you want examples - well, just turn to a history of China in the 20th century, and every other event is an example.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
The protest were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it. The leadership may have had some minor fear about general chaos, if only becuase they arrogantly assume only they can keep order in China.

That "arrogant assumption" is unfortunately true. There simply is no other viable force in China that can realistically hold the economy and society together, with 900 million peasants, all of them trying to get into cities, state-run enterprises collapsing, ideological void, ultranationalism, possession of nukes, and other inconveniences.

[GePap]

Several things: it is, and has been, the party that has stoked rampant nationalism, now that they can't really use communism as an ideological crutch for their authoritarianism. If state run enterprises are collapsing slowly it is becuase the party continues to extend to them loans to keep afloat the politically connected managers. Nukes are not an issue, and if the peasants are in terrible conditions it is ebacue the Chinese central leadership has allowe services in the porvincs to collapse and allows local cronnies to act like Feudal lords, ennacting all sorts of tolls and taxes and breaking their backs, plus there is thier horrible mismanagement of land and a host of other issues. I find ti convinient to say you have to stay in power becuase there are all the seproblems, given you created the problems or aggrevated them.

[JCG]

Fair game I guess.

Still, the thing is, ranskaldan, that none of us can be 100% (or even 50%, heck) sure that the result would truly be greater death and suffering.

I'd suppose suffering could be greater, due to economic collapse and an increase in poverty...but death? At least not in violent death, I'd think (and hope). But I don't know. We're all speculating.

That's also why I didn't support the Iraq war, curiously. The world wasn't sure that Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, and seeing the issue is still largely up in the air...we can't say for sure that the USA prevented his ever using them, for example.

I wouldn't deny that toppling Saddam was good, no, it was a great thing, but IMHO (and that of most people in the world), this wasn't the way (or the moment, at the very least).

If the USA had wanted to topple Saddam, not basing their argument on WMDs but just on his inhumane treatment of his people, AND be patient enough to go through the UN before an invasion, then they'd have my full support.

[/end loosely related (but related still) Iraq threadjack]

So AFAIK, we can't be sure that Tiananmen HAD to end with the murder of 7000 people, as we cannot be certain of the consequences of not doing so (probably only the Chinese government/people themselves come close).

And well, I personally don't like leaving the door open for other, less "well-intentioned" governments to use the same justifications for just about any kind of self-serving massacres and purges....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
On this day fourteen years ago, thousands of innocent protestors were murdered in cold blood on Tiananmen Square. These protestors, mostly young college students, wanted nothing more than to push for democratic reform and an end to corruption in the authoritarian Chinese government. On June 4, 1989 many of these brave protestors paid the ultimate price in their pursuit of these noble goals, dying at the hands of the People's "Liberation" Army sent to end their peaceful demonstration. It is estimated that over 7000 protestors were killed and thousands more wounded, although the cover-up by the Chinese government means that we will probably never know for sure.

If this sort of conspiracy theorist approach is used in any other serious context, such as NASA faking moon landings and detention camps in the US, you'd be laughed out of the room. However, since this is about the evil CCP slaughtering thousands of "democratic reformers," bald assertions work fine for a change.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

So, how come there are no images of tanks running over these protestors or PLA soldiers shooting them in cold blood? Even the famed CNN footage showed the tank column tried not to crush the guy standing in the way.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
Several things: it is, and has been, the party that has stoked rampant nationalism, now that they can't really use communism as an ideological crutch for their authoritarianism.

I wonder what it would be like in a civil war like environment. Would ideological fervor actually be LESS of a problem than today, with local barons and demagogues running around looking for cronies?

If state run enterprises are collapsing slowly it is becuase the party continues to extend to them loans to keep afloat the politically connected managers.

So we really should just let a few million unemployed workers loose on the streets of Chinese cities. Great.

Nukes are not an issue,

Ever wonder what a Chinese Civil War 1990 would have looked like?

and if the peasants are in terrible conditions it is ebacue the Chinese central leadership has allowe services in the porvincs to collapse and allows local cronnies to act like Feudal lords, ennacting all sorts of tolls and taxes and breaking their backs, plus there is thier horrible mismanagement of land and a host of other issues.

So, without the central government, the social services would continue to exist, the local cronies would act like Magnanimous Philantrophians instead of feudal lords, and land would be managed really wonderfully?

I find ti convinient to say you have to stay in power becuase there are all the seproblems, given you created the problems or aggrevated them.

The problems were there to start with. A situation without the central government would have caused every single one of these problems to become much much worse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
Unfortunately the power of the mob rarely stays peaceful.

That's BS. We have had protests with millions as well.

Millions. When?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by JCG
Fair game I guess.

Still, the thing is, ranskaldan, that none of us can be 100% (or even 50%, heck) sure that the result would truly be greater death and suffering.

I'd suppose suffering could be greater, due to economic collapse and an increase in poverty...but death? At least not in violent death, I'd think (and hope). But I don't know. We're all speculating.

Starvation leads to death. Rioting leads to death. Anarchy leads to death. Civil war leads to death. Economic and social collapse leads to death. Millions of deaths.

There are just too many examples in China's history.

[GePap]

If you are so fearfull of local warlords, switch to a federal system of governance, away from a fully centralized one. But the boogeyman of warlordism is not an excuse for what happened that day. And as for "look at all the examples", well, that was before Mao and the revolution and indutrialization and a host of other things. And besides, if you want to play the "lessons" from history crap, doesn;t chinese history show us this "imperial" government must eventually collapse into chaos and warlordism anyway?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
The protest were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it.

Where else in the modern history of the world has there been a huge group was allowed to continue to occupy an important area and caused such an enormous disruption? I'd say the CCP handling was overly lenient, the crowd should have been dispersed much, much, earlier, like everywhere else in the world.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
If you are so fearfull of local warlords, switch to a federal system of governance, away from a fully centralized one. But the boogeyman of warlordism is not an excuse for what happened that day.

So what exactly happened that day?

[GePap]

The Chinese government used excessive force to break up what had been until then a mainly peacefull pro-democracy rally.

(I am being diplomatic in my language)

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
If you are so fearfull of local warlords, switch to a federal system of governance, away from a fully centralized one.

??
If I'm afraid of local warlords, I should then -- farm out more power to local strongmen?

But the boogeyman of warlordism is not an excuse for what happened that day.

And why is it invalid?

And as for "look at all the examples", well, that was before Mao and the revolution and indutrialization and a host of other things.

China still has 900 million peasants. Mao hardly made a dent on that number (as a matter of fact he encouraged reproduction, which probably made it worse). 900 million is 70-80% of the population - hardly a stabilizing factor in a power vacuum.

And besides, if you want to play the "lessons" from history crap, doesn;t chinese history show us this "imperial" government must eventually collapse into chaos and warlordism anyway?

Yes, and the dynasties of the past always collapsed due to an inability to control the mob. So you've just destroyed your own point.