I'd like to thank those of Kasama of willingly opening up this discussion by presenting my side of the events! I hope to see more objective discussions to take place, if possible.

Somewhere in my unorganized files I have a long, detailed account of the repression of the protests that struck me as compelling on many levels, including the fact that it did not seem to support anyone's party line. I think it was from the Atlantic -- something like that.

Anyway, here are the key points from that article.

1) The reason the protest was finally cracked down on was that the workers were beginning to join the privileged students.

2) Those killed by the Army were not students in the square, most of them sons and daughters of the party elite, but workers on the routes leading into the square, killed by machine guns on tanks.

No doubt the student movement was ideologically diverse, which was well documented in many accounts at the time. But this BJ Murphy version is completely one-sided.

^No, not at all. I, in fact, make sure to mention that not every protester was pro-capitalist. I make sure to point out that many have legitimate grievances and were among the protests. Some of which who actually either went back home or back to school after some of the negotiations succeeded weeks before the violent rebellion took place.

The point of the matter is that a lot of the protesters were pro-capitalist, especially amongst those who were <i>leading</i> the student demonstrations.

The entire movement should not be labeled with the ideology of only some of its leaders.

This conversation would benefit from listening to some of the voices of participants in the 1989 movement. A series of documents from the movement, which have been translated into English, are collected on pp. 264-298 of Wild Lily, Prairie Fire (edited by Gregor Benton and Alan Hunter). Artful use of Google Books will allow you to read many of those documents in 'preview' mode.

Another good place to hear voices from the movement is Carma Hinton's documentary, The Gate of Heavenly Peace, which has been put on YouTube in 22 parts, beginning here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVvwA_34WB8&amp;feature=related. />
One thing that is striking about these documents and testimonies is that they show that participants came to the movement with a variety of objectives. A large number of participants within the 1989 movement saw their actions as a continuation of earlier efforts to renovate socialism in China and hoped to put China back on the communist road. Some of these people consciously linked the 1989 movement to earlier mass upsurges, including especially the Cultural Revolution. These sections of the movement were too large, too significant, and too representative of the aims and sentiments of substantial sections of Chinese society for the labeling of the 1989 movement as 'pro-capitalist' to be accurate or helpful in understanding and summing up the 1989 events.

As always, I appreciate Kasama's willingness to "let 100 flowers bloom", and I think this article serves as an excellent demonstrative tool - of how a totally fucked up methodology can lead a so-called "communist" to defend the brutal suppression of a broad spectrum of dissent by an authoritarian capitalist regime.

BJ Murphy's article displays the usual "tankie" tendency to bulldoze the truth to fit his own narrow ideological framework, cherry-picking quotes from individual protestors to paint the entire multi-faceted (dare I say, dialectical) protest movement as "pro-capitalist", thereby justifying wholesale murder.

Of course, anyone who has researched the objective facts in this case knows it was not nearly as simple as Murphy portrays it.

There were both strong reactionary and progressive currents within the movement, but most importantly the disparate class/profession make-up of the movement showed that it spoke to a broad societal discontent with the leadership of the post-Mao CCP. But of course, this matters little to revisionists like BJ Murphy, who would rather see "communist" tanks roll in to crush any and all dissent than the oppressed and exploited take even furtive steps toward agency.

interesting that Mike Ely posted two pieces on Libya in February. Several posts on Libya from various sources followed on into March -- but suddenly silence fell over the Libya question. This just when events on the ground(and in the air) there were heating up.

One can understand that Mike E with all his other responsibilities may not be able to produce an updated analysis he's satisfied with in the time available, but there is a lot of other good stuff being published. For instance, Black Agenda Report has published several items approaching the issue from an African American perspective. Whether you approve of Cynthia McKinney or not, her letters from Tripoli/Tarabulus need to be noted, and criticized if found unsatisfactory.

<blockquote><i>It was because of both the CPC and PLA’s actions that Chinese socialism was protected and a bourgeois counter-revolution averted.</i></blockquote>



Respectfully I say to BJ Murphy..
Oh!For crying out loud BJ Murphy..give us a break already with this BS..


I can clearly understand why the workers and students of China got out en masse to protest in Tienanmen Square.

It doesn't surprise me at all (nor does it bother me)either to see Chinese protestors sick and tired,totally fed up with the current jive "Communism" which in actuality has become nothing more than a huge monstrous fraud,a front for the most despicable,shameless and <i>very Capitalist</i> policies and practices which has transformed China from a workers state into a worker's "prison" state.

The same dynamic which occured in Tienanmen Square we see now occuring in Squares all over Europe,that is,workers and students fed up with government lies and treachery,the rolling back,undermining and sabotage of the hard fought Democratic gains for which the People have sacrificed abd died for through decades of militant struggle.

The People have had it with phony,corrupt,rotten Socialist and Communist Parties which are Socialist and Communist in name only,which objectively aid and abet,support and defend Global Captalist exploitation through various means.Whether that be through directly enslaving the workers in prison factories making cheap products for the Walmarts of the world,or through draconian IMF World Bank loan austerity programs which kill future opportunity,decimate the quality of life for hundreds of millions in Europe.

China or Europe..it boils down to the same thing..

The People are not only sick and tired of Predatory Global Capitalism and Finance,but they are also sick and tired of the phony,lying,treacherous Liberal,Labor,Communist and Socialist parties which do the Globalist Capitalists bidding.They have had enough of it and want "Real Democracy" even if it is iconized symbolized to them in the guise of "The Statue of Liberty".

If you strip away from the Staue of Liberty the layer of Capitalist shit which has been used,hi-jacked-misappropriated by the ruling class for their own lying false propaganda,the image of the "Statute of Liberty" is in my opinion a glorious beautiful symbol.
I personally like it.
It was supposed to stand for freedom,opportunity and hope.

From my viewpoint(and it's not by any means an easy realization to accept).The Communist Project in the world,for the foreseeable future,is moribund.

The people for this time don't want to hear more bullshit about Communism or Socialsm.The people want Real Democracy..not more cynical lies and false promises.

Hell,the Chinese protestors in Tienanmen were very realistic.They say "if were going to live in a Capitalist society,then at least lets have a Capitalist society such as the USA,even if it is a liberal Democratic Capitalist society that offers some tangible transparent honesty,semblance of freedom,justice and Democratic rights and laws which can even in a minimal way protect workers and students rights..Democracy.

The way I see it,the revolutions we are witnessing now (and shall be seeing for the immediate future) will be "Democratic Revolutions"..not Socialist or Communist Revolutions.

For this historical cycle the Communist Project is moribund.

This is not to say that the Communist Project has "flat-lined".Rather,what I am suggesting here is that Communism will by necessity to be put in the "cold storage" for the time being,hibernating,waiting for the Next Spring Time to arrive when conditions will allow it to emerge once again New,Fresh and full of life and promise.
That time will come,but not soon.

IMHO,the role of Communists for this period is to continue patiently educating the People in Communist ideology,and at the same time fusing and tying those ideas of the Communist Project through relentless struggle and push for objectively concrete Workers Democracy,Democratic rights,Justice and Freedom.

Given the current bankrupt corrupt condition of the Communist and Socialist "brand" in the world,I believe this is the best we can hope for at this current stage of history.

At the same time,along with constant struggle,we we should attempt to "pick- up the pieces" of the terrible mess revistionist Captialist Roaders have created,as well as the mess of class deceit and treachery European style "Socialist Parties" have exhibited in practice.

We have two options open to us..either continue living the lie under an illusion that the people at this stage of history will rally to the Communist Project,or retreat into the defensive position,regroup,reconceive the Communist Project as a force for real objective future Revolutionary change.

Eli M-H: "this matters little to revisionists like BJ Murphy, who would rather see “communist” tanks roll in to crush any and all dissent than the oppressed and exploited take even furtive steps toward agency."

The fall of the socialist regimes around the year 1991 was hailed by many as the death of communism. I think that the success of the Maoists in Nepal and India - and little flowerings of communist movement in other places - contradicts this assessment.

However, I DO think that 1991 signaled the end of the hegemonic version of socialism associated with the USSR. The workers of those countries did NOT risk their lives to keep those systems in place. As communists, if we care about real people and their lives, we can't ignore masses of East German citizens rejoicing in the streets with the fall of the Berlin Wall. To ignore that is to effectively disregard these people and their lives.

That kind of bankrupt, bureaucratic, authoritarian socialism IS dead as far as most people on the planet are concerned. People don't want that. And how will we win significant numbers of people to the side of revolutionary communism if that is what we defend?

I would also like to echo part of what Chicanofuturet said.

How can we blame those sections of the Chinese people whose political ideology was taking a liberal bourgeoie, pro-capitalist form, when there experience of socialism was "with phony,corrupt,rotten Socialist and Communist Parties which are Socialist and Communist in name only,which objectively aid and abet,support and defend Global Captalist exploitation through various means"? Is it all that strange to think that their TOTALLY LEGITIMATE hopes for democracy and freedom took that form at that time?

Who wouldn't prefer the kind of limited kind of democratic rights that one finds in the U.S. to the even more limited kinds of rights that one would encounter in Deng's China? If we are honest with ourselves, can any of us really say that we would rather be a worker or peastant in Deng's China than a worker in France, Great Britain or the U.S.?

If the communist movement doesn't look at it's INTERNAL contradictions - rather than blaming all failures on imperialist interference - we, and humanity, by extension, are fucked. Because right now we can barely connect with most people who are already on the radical Left, much less with masses of people.

earlier, in response to my comment, which seems to have disappeared now, Mike E said on
June 5, 2011 at 1:02 pm:

<blockquote>
&gt;Kasama posted 15 essays and videos on Libya (first focusing on the uprising against Gaddafi, then focusing on opposition to Nato intervention). they are available here. People can judge for themselves the nature of our coverage and discussion. And (as always) if you have newer essays to suggest for posting, please do so.&lt;</blockquote>

I did hit the link &quot;here&quot;, read the material it brought up, and noted that Kasama&#039;s coverage ended on March 2nd, just when Nato&#039;s sponsorship of the monarchist &quot;rebels&quot; was being admitted by even the MSM. Which fact I noted in an earlier post to this thread, which likewise has vanished.

Whatever: if you are truly serious and want to post some more recent material about Libia, do let me know. I think you have my email address from the login? Or just scroll back up a ways, I posted it above.

Thank you

Chicanofuturet here clearly just pointed out his support in a "real" capitalist society, rather than a socialist one with <i>some</i> capitalist markets, as seen here:


<blockquote>
"the Chinese protestors in Tienanmen were very realistic.They say “if were going to live in a Capitalist society,then at least lets have a Capitalist society such as the USA,even if it is a liberal Democratic Capitalist society that offers some tangible transparent honesty"</blockquote>



He also seems to be agreeing with the notion that, overall, the point of the protests were to <i>expand</i> privatization, rather than hinder it. Hence his claim of them being "very realistic."

Lenin of course saw the necessity of allowing some private markets emerge, all while the Bolshevik party remained in power. Thus allowing proletarian state-rule keep a firm grasp over the markets, whether they be private or public.

Fact of the matter is that the bourgeoisie then, as they do now, are still trying to expand privatization and dismantle the CPC.

Another fact which I see no one addressing is the one where the Tiananmen protests erupted in the honor of pro-capitalist Hu Yaobang. Not to mention the various calls of support in the purged right-wing Zhao Ziyang.

Chicano then makes another mistake in dulling down the direct message being given through their symbolized statue, the Goddess of Liberty, then disregards the context of which it is used. Let me re-quote from my article:

****
"The statue was to be set up just across the broad avenue from Mao so that it would confront him."
****

So as you can see here quite clearly, despite Chicano's wishes of stripping away every aspect of which makes the Statue of Liberty for what it is, thus trying to redefine the context within the Goddess of Liberty, the statue constructed and used by the protesters was placed under the context of challenging Mao. Thus challenging the socialist dynamics within China.

Like what was presented by Chicano, I've seen no evidence presented to prove contrary to what I've presented myself.

Just as Ely stated himself on <i>his</i> article (comments section), "We will learn more of the details as time goes on."

In other words, he cannot substantiate the position he holds at the current moment. Which is fine. If later on there's evidence that proves contrary to what I've presented, then I'll be more than happy to retract my position on the Tiananmen Square event.

Until then, though, it's best to not rely on opportunist idealism, and superficial "david vs. goliath" politics. And instead, rely on the facts at hand. And the facts at hand show that, if the protesters had succeeded in China 1989 - despite whether or not you consider China today capitalist - China's economy would be another free-market hell hole, led by a U.S.-backed bourgeois puppet regime.

And because of these facts, I am grateful that both the CPC and PLA stopped the counter-revolution, despite whether or not any of you consider this a "tankie" position.

Here are links to some wikileaks cables to do with this discussion:

&gt;Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim:
The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and released exclusively by The Daily Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square.
http://bit.ly/mxFf3m

===

Wikileaks Tiananmen cables:
A Chilean diplomat provides an eye-witness account of the soldiers entering Tiananmen Square: HE WATCHED THE MILITARY ENTER THE SQUARE AND DID NOT OBSERVE ANY MASS FIRING OF WEAPONS INTO THE CROWDS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/8555896/Wikileaks-Tiananmen-cables.html

BTW, back in 89 when this happened I took some WWP (now PSL) comrades to task over their support for what seemed to me then totally indefensible. But in the light of how things have gone since, I'm no longer as cocksure.

I didn't intend to get into a debate about whether or not it would be a good idea for Chinese dissidents to "rise up" vs the CCP government. If by "rise up" you mean "engage in armed struggle" I'd advise them against it, given the balance of forces and public opinion in the country right now.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Tibetans and the native population of Eastern Turkestan aka the New Province/Xinjiang, since neither are Han Chinese and thus are impacted by Han chauvinism. But if they are dumb enough to join up with ZioImperialism's plan to balkanize China like they did the USSR, my sympathy will evaporate.

As a general rule, whenever people are tempted or actually do enlist in one of Uncle Sugar's aggressions vs weaker peoples who dare to go off the reservation and assert a degree of independence, such people need to do a really serious in depth investigation of what they're getting into.

From what you say, you sound like a classic Trokstyike Solidarnosher who never saw a Color Revolution he didn't like. I'm by no means an expert on Libyan affairs, but it's easy to see I already know more about the country and its recent history than you do, so far anyway.

As I see it, any white leftist who decides to dismiss Cynthia McKinney and Glen Ford's take on this needs to check himself for residual attitudes.

OH -- is there a window open somewhere?

Ely seems to be trying to water down the events, not just in China now, but also in such places like Iran and Libya.

What seems interesting is the fact that he still cling's his support towards the reactionary Libyan rebels and then try labeling it as a "popular movement".

This is an absolute lie!

For months now we've clearly been shown that popular support is amongst the pro-Gaddafi crowd. Even in Benghazi, the once thought of "rebel-stronghold", there were mass pro-Gaddafi protests erupting! Ely's support in these pro-imperialist, anti-African rebels isn't surprising to see when you come to understand his politics: that of opportunism.

Ely makes sure that everyone knows his distaste with that of Gaddafi. And in doing so, instead of actually analyzing both internal and external contradictions, he places his bets on those who are an "enemy of his enemy".

I still remember the debate him and me had when he claimed outright that the rebels, no matter what is said, were a "democratic force for the good!"

Just recently, the Libyan rebels announced their recognition with that of Israel! Something Gaddafi's never done, despite his concessions with that of imperialist nations during the first few years of this current century.

As for Iran, it appears that Ely here is also a supporter of the counter-revolutionary "Green Revolution" - a movement led by Mousavi (both in 2009 and in 2011), who was also receiving funds from the pro-imperialist NGO National Endowment for Democracy!

Everyone can read my assessment on both Iran and Libya's internal conflicts this year here:

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/protests-in-iran-called-for-a-peoples-revolution-or-color-revolution/

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/u-s-media-playing-with-numbers-in-iran/

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/from-socialist-afghanistan-to-socialist-libya-al-ciada-are-back-in-business/

Now let's look at what Ely had to say about the Tiananmen protests:

****
"Were there supporters of Hu Yaobang in the Tienanmen crowds? Sure. Were some of them prominent (working as spokes people), sure. Did that define the movement and its potential, no."
****

Despite the fact that Ely doesn't try substantiating this claim of his with any evidence whatsoever, again, we see him watering down the issue by taking it out of its context almost completely: his failure of mentioning the fact that the protests erupted <i>in honor</i> of Hu Yaobang.

This wasn't just some support here and there. If one was to go through archival photographs of the funeral marches that took place in Tiananmen Square in honor and memory of Hu, one would come to understand that there was significant support towards Hu Yaobang.

We then have Ely stating:

****
"And more, who wants to argue that Hu was (somehow) more reactionary than the fascist hangman Li Peng, or than Deng Xiaoping (who is one of the most notorious counterrevolutionaries in history)?"
****

Only in Ely's glorious simplistic mind would one come to the conclusion that Deng Xiaoping was the "most notorious counter-revolutionary in history." I find it also amazing that he asks the question of why one should argue that Hu Yaobang was more reactionary than Li Peng or Deng Xiaoping.

This is an interesting statement made by Ely. Especially when anyone who's in possession of a computer could easily find out that Hu Yaobang wished for <i>more</i> privatization. The same is applied to another well-liked figure amongst the Tiananmen students: Zhao Ziyang, who was another right-wing capitalist was openly for free-enterprise and the expansion of privatization.

Why then were both of these clear reactionaries purged from the party by that of both Li Peng and Deng Xiaoping? Ely doesn't explain this. Instead, he wishes us not to point out a clear distinction between Deng/Peng and Yao/Zhao.

But here's the distinction anyways:

-Deng/Peng = less privatization, majority state-run economy, supported amongst the CPC.

-Yao/Zhao = more privatization, majority free-market economy, supported amongst the Tiananmen students.

Seeing Ely oppose even the notion of there being a distinction between these historical figures, I wouldn't find myself surprised either if Ely refused making a distinction between the CPC and people like Liu Xiaobo!

This "david vs. goliath" political mindset of Ely's is nothing more than pure opportunism!

The most relevant point is that the Chinese state that existed at the time of the uprising was a bourgeois state and not a Socialist one.The new regime from 1978 under Deng Xiaping dismantled all features of the earlier Socialist structure under Mao be it agriculture industry,education or the army.

B.J.Murphy is correct that the 1989 uprising was a counter -revolutionary movement that supported demands of Western style democracy of the rightist leader Hu Yaobang and did not support the demands of the workers.Significantly sections of the working class voiced Maoist slogans.In the mass movements of the earlier cultural revolution from 1966 to 1976 the youth identified with the proletariat through their slogans.The P.L.A.never came out against the red guards or civilians,in that period.We have to differentiate Maoist China from Dengist China.

Sometimes I think that the only people left in the world who still think China is socialist are those supporters of the handful of "Marxist-Leninist" groups in the West. The Chinese people don't think so; the foreign companies doing business in China don't think so; the people who go to China and take a look around for a day don't think so; publications like Foreign Affairs and The Economist don't think so; not even the leaders of the Communist Party of China think so. When I hear people talking about how sending in the tanks was necessary to prevent capitalist restoration, it makes me wonder where they've been for the past two decades.

Maz says:

<blockquote>
"When I hear people talking about how sending in the tanks was necessary to prevent capitalist restoration, it makes me wonder where they’ve been for the past two decades."</blockquote>

This is a distortion to what is actually being said.

The point of the protests was to expand privatization over the entire Chinese economy, unlike that of Deng's reforms where, even to this day, privatization only covered a third of the economy in China. Hence why figures such as Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were prominent figures of support amongst the student demonstrations.

It wasn't so much that they were against privatization. It was a matter of <i>how much</i> privatization and who was looking over it. The proletarian state of China was never dismantled when Mao died, nor when Deng came to power. The CPC remained intact and still had prominent control over the economy, even during the era of reforms (and still do as a matter of fact).

To this day, a large chunk (though thankfully not the majority) of China's population are in favor of more privatization and the dismantling of the CPC. One of those oppositional figures is Liu Xiaobo - a former leader of the hunger-strike during the 1989 Tiananmen protests. Right now he's imprisoned for his calls of overthrowing the CPC and expanding privatization over the economy.

So tell me Maz, why then would figures such as Liu Xiaobo, who's garnering significant support amongst the U.S. govt. and media, call for capitalism and the end of the CPC, if in fact the PRC is actually a capitalist country? Same reason as to why the protesters during the 1989 demonstrations in Tiananmen Square called for the same exact demands!

In 1936 fascist Italy invaded a backward feudal Ethiopia. Early on segments of the ruling class, followed, of course by a certain segment of the peasantry, welcomed and fought with the Italians, turning the back on the Ethiopian state and the rulers. They certainly had reasons to rebel against this state, and had Ely been around at the time, he would have had no problem in producing arguments in favour of a popular and rebellious character of what, in fact, objectively was nothing but the unashamed, unprincipled and opportunistic support for imperialism (we should not forget the fact that Mussolini justified the invasion with the "cruel" character of the Ethiopian polity, and the continued existence of slavery).

These traitors of a nation subjected to imperialist assault, or bandas as they are know in Ethiopia, were of course all eventually thrown in the dust bin of history, and many of them were hanged by their patriotic country men. Many real progressive Ethiopians in fact fought a five-year guerilla war against the Italians. These real progressives had to swallow their disgust with Haile Selassie for the reminder of the war, and several where later important in the development of a real progressive opposition to the feudal state. Real progressives like them however, understood that the main contradiction at the time was not that between the Ethiopian masses and feudalism, but between the nation and imperialism. Mao came to the same understanding. Haile Selassie, of course, was overthrown when the time was ripe, by a real popular movement that wanted nothing to do with imperialism. Very much unlike the Libyan bandas whose cause this site took as its own.

Wang Hui and Minqi Li both make the argument that sizeable sections of those involved in the protests were motivated, in part, by opposition to so-called 'market reforms'.
cheers
Dave

Mike said:

The issue is not where the killing of people took place in China 1989, or even how extensive it was, or the details of it. We all know (including you!) there was a crackdown and major roundups.

The issue being discussed here is whether the Chinese government is reactionary and oppressive, and whether rising up against it is justified.

***

I think the evidence that those killed were workers and not students is very significant and says something about the nature of the resistance and the regime. The student protests were tolerated, they did not constitute an "uprising." But when the working class began to join, then it had to be stopped. And what does it say about a supposedly "socialist" regime that the working class would begin a mass protest/uprising against it?

As for characterizing the regime as "reactionary and oppressive" it seems to me that little is learned by a knee-jerk assignment to Heroic Socialist or Reactionary Oppressive Regime, or even Fascist Regime.

People always have the right to protest against governments -- no governments, including the best ones, perfectly represent everyone's interests. Class societies with a complex division of labor are not egalitarian, and their governments are hierarchical.

The more difficult but important analysis is exactly what is the nature of the regime. Giovanni Arrighi put forward some very interesting thinking on China before he died in his book ADAM SMITH IN BEIJING roughly compatible with Samir Amin's analysis that China continues to pursue a path of national development that is not simply "capitalist." I apologize for not being a dedicated list participant, but I can't do justice to Arrighi's argument here, nor do I necessarily agree with it 100%, I just see it as an example of analysis preferable to simplistic slogans.

&gt; I think it was from the Atlantic — something like that.

I'm pretty sure that you mean this article from The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/article/remembering-tiananmen-square?page=full />
&gt; I think the evidence that those killed were workers and not students is very significant and says something about the nature of the resistance and the regime.

I'd have to agree with that. The Deng government was clearly more frightened by workers who were loyal to the revolution than by students who dreamed of making China into the next bourgeois republic.

<i>"Chicanofuturet here clearly just pointed out his support in a “real” capitalist society,rather than a socialist one with some capitalist markets.."</i>

Damn BJ! if I'm a Capitalist how come I ain't rich?

I believe our "trustful" and "believing" friend BJ Murphys slogan should be.." I never met a tyrannical revisionist third world regime I didn't like."

...and about that Statue of "Goddess of Liberty" being set up to face Mao?-what a ludicrous and infantile example (laughable really) BJ Murphy uses here to stigmatize the protestors as (really) mostly legions of "spoiled,unappreciative" rampaging renegade youth,"raging" "expand privatization" "anti-CPC PLA" reactionaries.

According to BJ Murphys narrative-that young Chinese guy who we seen on CNN standing in front of that big ass PLA tank?
..well,according to BJ Murphy-he couldn't have been anything more than an anti CPC anti-Pla Mao hating reactionary conspirator..
We can just imagine BJ Murphy reporting on the scene ..."That young scumbag renegade anti CPC PLA fellow standing in front of the tank was heard to be hysterically screaming the same slogans over and over again as he faced off with the tank gunner ...."expand privatization" .."down with Communist Corporation Inc.monopoly"..

We can add here..BJ Murphy seems to be quite "traumatized" at the home made paper mache Statue of Liberty facing Mao's image.

I actually think Mao would have been quite pleased to see that nice "Goddess of Liberty" statue.After all Mao loved ancient Chinese folklore,legends and mythology from which he drew upon frequently to make symbolic analogies,lessons,examples to the People.
Mao would surely have looked out upon that throng of protestors,smiled and thought .."The enemies of my enemies are my friends"


In China Mao's statues and Images are all over the place in literally every nook and corner including the hundreds of thousands of slave factories and crooked/manager/state mega-construction sites.

Statues,in much the same way as religious icons can be used to manipulate and control the masses for nefarious and pernicious purposes.Statues by themselves don't mean a damn thing if they are not living true symbols which reflect real objective conditions of freedom,liberty and opportunity...yes,and even Democracy.Otherwise statues and icons become just so many manipulated symbols to be used by tyrants as a front for even more oppression and exploitation of the People.

Little inspiration or consolation would a Mao image provide to a young 14 year old female worker dragooned from her village to work under near slave like conditions,pitiful wages,benefits,sometimes coerced to work 18 -24 hr shifts to make toys,clothes other products for the Walmarts of the world,living in guarded,penitentiary-like crowded unhealthy dormitories,inadequate nutrition and health care...etc ..etc..

Heck,BJ Murphy should go apply for a job in one of those factories and every time he stumbles out after pulling an 18 hr shift he can feel happy and assured every time he sees that Mao poster or statue in or outside the facility where he and 20,000 other slaves work.

I can just imagine BJ Murphy saying.." Gee,even though I'm half dead,made two dollars for 18 hrs work..golly,I am so happy and feel so liberated every time I see Mao's ..."Long live the CPC and the PLA !!" "To be a slave is glorious"


BJ Murphy once more..

.. <i>"overall, the point of the protests were to expand privatization, rather than hinder it..."</i>

Here again our friend BJ Murphy espouses yet another slogan...." I never met a tyrannical Capitalist Monopoly (especially the ones who call themselves Communist or Socialist) I didn't like."

BJ Murphy and Monopoly Capitalism
If BJ Murphy had lived during the age of the Capitalist "Robber Barons' I'm sure he would have landed a good job as a PR representative in the offices of JD Rockefeller or JP Morgan,because he surely has a nifty talent for defending,rationalizing,justifying corrupt Capitalist "Robber Baron" Monopolies.

"To this day, a large chunk (though thankfully not the majority) of China’s population are in favor of more privatization and the dismantling of the CPC."

Incidentally, why would you say that is? What class or demographic would you say is pushing for this and how have they become a large chunk?

So Mike E turns out to be just another unreconstructed Cold Warrior.

The evidence of what's happening in Libya is all over the internet, has been for weeks.

If there were any sincere grassroots elements involved in the initial anti-government actions in Banghazi, they were dupes, dummies who bought the okey-doke.

Of course there probably were some "Marxist" elements whose virtuosity in manipulating cliches convinced some of the dummies they were doing the right thing.
Well, since Mike E was kidding about setting up a thread to discuss Libya, I guess the best I can do at this point is to post some better information than he seems to have access to, and see how long it stays up.

This from A Cockburn at Counterpunch:

&gt;It seems that the rebels might actually be under the overall supervision of the international banking industry, rather than the oil majors. On March 19 they announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.’”

CNBC senior editor John Carneyasked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Ellen Brown, author of the terrific Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, wrote recently about the rebels’ sophisticated financial operations in the following terms:

“According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

“And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed: ‘One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . . Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.’”&lt;

From Antiwar.com, the left-libertarian site I hate to love &amp; verse-vicey but good source of timely news reports:
Those Libyan ‘Freedom Fighters’: The Fix Is On

Posted By Kevin Carson On May 9, 2011 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 5 Comments

In a column three months ago (“Egypt: Let the Looting Begin”),I suggested that what was really going on in Egypt was somewhat different from the official narrative. In quite a few of the “people power” revolutions in recent years—no matter how sincere the people on the streets—it turned out that there were attempts to orchestrate things by people behind the scenes for whom “people power” was the very last thing on the agenda. In that column I reported that Frank Wisner, a veteran spook described by Vijay Prashad at Counterpunch as a “bagman of empire,” was Obama’s man on the ground.

Wisner, a former director at AIG and Enron with longstanding family ties to the OSS and the CIA, had previously been involved in drafting the Bush administration’s postwar blueprint for Iraq. That agenda involved so-called privatizations of state industry that amounted to insider deals with global corporate interests for pennies on the dollar, “strong intellectual property protections” largely written by Monsanto and the RIAA, and draconian crackdowns on genuine freedom fighters in the labor movement and the Iraqi Freedom Congress. Paul Bremer, with the help of his Heritage Foundation boys in the Green Zone, basically oversaw the looting of everything that wasn’t nailed down.

In that light, some recent news from Libya is especially interesting. First, Alexander Cockburn (“What’s Really Going On in Libya?”Counterpunch, April 15) reports that a high priority for the NATO operation in Libya was to see to the central banking arrangements of the revolutionary government in Benghazi. On March 19, they authorized the Central Bank of Benghazi to handle monetary policy for the country. Gadhafi, it seems, had announced his intention to repudiate the dollar and the euro and encourage the use of the gold dinar as a common currency by all of Africa. He’d gained tentative buy-in, over the previous year, from a number of Arab and African regimes. The government-owned Libyan national bank in Tripoli, which is independent of the global banking industry, has been a thorn in the flesh of global financial elites for some time.

Things that make you go “Hmmmm…”

Meanwhile, Russ Baker at Alternet announces (“The CIA’s Man in Libya?”April 26) that the latest head of rebel forces in Libya, Gen. Khalifa Hifter, is a CIA asset. Hifter has lived in the Greater Washington area of Virginia (cough cough Langley cough) for almost 20 years, enjoying an unusually comfortable lifestyle considerably disproportionate to his visible means of support. Hifter has headed the military wing (Libyan National Army) of an opposition movement in exile (NSFL) for most of that time. The CIA sponsored a training operation for the Libyan National Army at a base in Chad during the reign of Bush I, with a view to a possible future overthrow of Gadhafi. In 1996, Hifter headed a failed overthrow attempt, after which he returned to the United States.

So the head of the opposition movement is on the CIA payroll, and the first order of business of the insurgent regime is to create a central bank that takes orders from international finance capital. Doesn’t look real good for “freedom” in Libya, does it? Looks pretty damn good for the banksters, though.

If the attempt to overthrow of Gadhafi had anything to do with genuine freedom, it’s a safe bet the U.S. government would have had nothing to do with it. Put not your faith in princes.

Reprinted courtesy of the Center for a Stateless Society.

Read more by Kevin Carson
The Defeat of the United States by al-Qaeda – May 6th, 2011
Libya: A Pig in a Poke? – April 14th, 2011
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/kevin-carson/2011/05/09/libya-hifter-bankers/

Click here to print.

Okay, more coming.

When did the idea that "Give me Liberty or Give me death!" is somehow counter-revolutionary? We want liberty, we want workers liberty, emancipation from exploitation and wage slavery.

Chicanofuturet puts it right; The massacre in Tienanmen was the propping up of a regime where workers have to sign contracts promising that they wont commit suicide because the conditions are so horrible. Some "workers state".

I have a question: When it it appropriate to call someone a crazy person on the left? I mean, someone who has put ideology before empiricism or someone who's ideology makes it so blind to reality. I think BJ Murphy is a crazy person.

all i know is if I was in a tank. if I was in the people's army. if i were a grunt. if I were a rank and file party member. if i was a member of the secret police. or a member of the politboro. if I supported the state then or now, Tiananmen would still be the worst day of my fucking life. It would be a disaster. A tragedy. It would be with me fucking day of my life. And I'd like to believe I'd be asking how do we avoiding doing that again. What a horror. What a tragedy. The IRA executed Michael Collins and they still mourn him. Call that a contradiction or a wishy washy politics. whatever. But what of a movement that so committed to redeeming a massacre. Even with 20 plus years hind sight.

Thanks Patrick -- that's the article alright. Now I can read it again...

It would seem that Tifo1 doesn't want people to exchange ideas.

And while Mike lived through the Cold War, and is very much a product of 1968 — like many of that generation he apparently had dreams beyond which master to suck up to.

Tifo1 has been well indulged. The constant personal attacks are tiresome. They are dishonest. And moderators shouldn't be bashful. Is there some way that IP address can be put on watch so comments only clear by persistent trolls when they contain (intentional) lies or distortions distortions (eg Mike is a cold warrior when that's obvious silliness) or generalized shittiness towards other people trying to figure things out. If that guy was at a party, common sense would be to give him the bum's rush.

I think most of the defenses of both the CPC in 1989, and Gaddafi's forces today are best summed up with the quote from Labader, who says, "the main contradiction at the time was not that between the Ethiopian masses and feudalism, but between the nation and imperialism. Mao came to the same understanding."

Of course, what follows from this entirely undialectical position is that anybody who hampers an anti-imperial struggle is a counter-revolutionary. The workers should stay in the factory; women should stay in the home; students should stay in the dormitory; anything that hurts the nation-state is evil at best, opportunistic at worst.

In reality, there are many contradictions which are always present in the modern age. The macro: imperialism. The micro: class relations. The personal: gender inequality, racial inequality, etc. At different times, one or another of these struggles will become the dominant one: though this constantly changes. This is clearly evident in Mao's struggles AND alliances throughout his life with the imperialists, the feudalists, and the bourgeoisie.

Each of the aforementioned inter-personal contradictions result in distinct struggles; though these struggles will interact and influence one other until each of these contradictions have been solved. Criticizing students and workers for standing up to an oppressive regime because it might enable a more oppressive foreign regime to come to power is as ridiculous as criticizing a woman for taking the opportunity of her abusive husband's financial ruin at the hands of corporate America to leave him, or encouraging a foreign invasion so that the working class is more free to struggle against the weakened state. There is no magical ever-dominant contradiction, and therefore no formula that can be applied to every situation. The only thing that that must be applied to every situation is critical and creative thought.

Two more points:

1) It is wrong to hold the average Ethiopian to the same standard as the Gaddafi regime. The average person living in the 3rd world is not nearly as aware of the imperialist dialectic as the Gaddafi regime's intellectuals (or the people who comment on this blog and others like it). The average person in the 3rd world is, however, usually quite aware of his or her class oppressors (which take the form of the state), which are right in front of them. The totality of a genuine mass movement will somewhat resemble the oppression experienced by the people in their everyday lives. From that point of view, it is quite obvious that the average Ethiopian---as well as the average Libyan---would use the opportunity of a foreign invasion to struggle against their domestic state, until the point where the foreign invader becomes the most blatant oppressor, at which point they will use their current opportunities to struggle against the foreign imperialists. If it is "opportunism" to use every opportunity to struggle against your oppressor, then call me an "opportunist." "Opportunists" win a lot more battles than dogmatists, whose theories usually don't reflect reality.

2) State-capitalism may not adhere to the basic laws of bourgeois, private ownership; but it does exist, and is, in many ways, more efficient than liberal capitalism, which is dominated by a multi-national, private bourgeoisie, which can abandon a particular nation whenever it starts to ask for a share of the profits. My prediction is that---barring an international communist revolution---the coming century will favor one-party, state-capitalist nations more than it will two-party, international-bourgeois-led liberal nations.

BJ, you might want to look into couple things:

- Recent US embassy cables from Wikileaks that shows no one died in Taianmen Square:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php

- Liu Xiaobo's underwriting by the US government. Check NED fundings to Liu's political groups (Chinese Independent PEN Center, Mingzhu Zhonggou) totalling nearly a million dollars, for advocating abolitiong of China's constitution. Such activity (foreign sponsorship of domestic politics) would be rightfully illegal in America.

About Liu Gang and his comment about physics:

<blockquote>
“Among all the disciplines, physics is least controllable by Communist ideology. People with an inquiring mind naturally take up physics as their major in the universities. Human creativity in the search for truth requires freedom.”</blockquote>

I want to ask precisely this. What in terms of dialectical materialism is wrong with this statement? What is anti-communist about it? I thought it was supposed to be a pillar of communist thought that ideology be dictated by what science reveals, that communists are supposed to be the very ones who forge their party line on real material existence and not on some teleological handcuffs on what can be taken to experiment in the sciences!

re: Avery Ray Colter's post -Liu Gang's comment about physics

<i> “Among all the disciplines, physics is least controllable by Communist ideology. People with an inquiring mind naturally take up physics as their major in the universities. Human creativity in the search for truth requires freedom.”</i>

I have a suspicion that Liu Gang's comment about physics is a result,one of the "bitter" fruits,of the CPC's wholesale betrayal of Communism,of their revisionism,their mad charge down the Capitalist Road..

Liu's gangs comment has an implied/assumed disbelief,distrust - a tone of antagonism directed towards what he perceives as "Communist control" "Communist Ideology".Whether this is his direct rejection,opposition to Communist Ideology-dialectical and historical materialism,or,and,a righteous opposition to the CPC's objective betrayal,hypocrisy and treachery of the true class interests of China's workers,peasants,students,intellectual, is a subjective judgement.

VI Lenin's "State and Revolution" teaches us how capitalist states in order to protect,maintain and further state power will always resort to threats,actual practice of force and violence through intimidation,coercion,imprisonment,torture,assasination...etc etc..

The same things which Lenin lays out in S&amp;R are and have been occuring in China for decades now..

This Liu Gang thing is a good example of the types of problematic contradictions which result when Communist,Socialist states and governments take the revisionst capitalist road,oppress,exploit and repress their own People..

The People eventually become cynical,distrustful antagonistic,hostile towards Communist and Socialist parties,governments,and by extension,confused and frustrated, identify their oppressors tyranny,corruption,revisionism with "Communist Ideology".

This tragic situation is a huge example of the current general condition of the world Communist Project....moribund..

As to physics,it's relation to dialectical/historical materialism?
Look at it this way..all capitalist states,their bourgeoise,will always manipulate "Science" to further their class interests..

Liu Gang was imprisoned not so much for being a Physicist,but rather because he was"rocking the boat"-going up against the CPC..

Further,I'd be willing to wage,that if Liu Gang had come up with an Innovative new design for nuclear weapons,he would have been declared a "Glorious Hero of the Communist People's Republic of China"..

It wasn't so much of an ideological beef between "physics" and "Communist ideology" which imprisoned Liu Gang,rather it was a political threat of potential influence,of his political oppossition to the CPC's state power which resulted in his imprisonment..

Mike Ely: I have to question how wize it is to publish this particular blogger given his utterly dishonest way of debating. He smakes statements like facts about the protesters which are simply false and also, as others have hinted by taking other examples, betrays a fundementally flawed understanding of mass moements. I am sorry for only intervening with negative criticism here, but I think his positions have already been disproven quite well. Even so, I would also recommend this eye-witness account, which in my honest opinion holds far more validity then an attempt over 20 years later to defend the chinese regime made by someone who evidently has no qualms defending it even today.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3546

You Trots have one of the most dishonest accounts on the Tiananmen Square protests than any other I've personally read. The ISO are reactionary opportunists who hold about as much truth as Trotsky did, himself, during his trial at the Dewey Commission. Here's a hell of a lot better analysis on the events than the ISO's take:

http://frso.org/about/statements/2009/looking-back-at-tiananmen-square.htm

Doesn't every widespread rebellion bring in a variety of political forces with their own motives, grievances and ambitions? This is not really a sophisticated point to make, although it is often cited to speak of a rebellion's "complexity."

Mr. Murphy's style aside, I agree with the emphasis on the movement's leadership. Mike waves this question of as entirely secondary (or tertiary). But how can you have a site dedicated to interrogating line struggles in the United States, but then say they should have no bearing on our approach to international struggles?

This discussion cannot be elevated with all the "tankie" accusations, or the appeals for the author to go get a job in China and see if he likes it. I do think there has to be some reckoning with the fact that without communist leadership, popular uprisings in the "socialist" bloc and bourgeois nationalist governments do turn into reactionary, pro-imperialist movements that have set back the working class.

The Cultural Revolution truly was a revolution within a revolution, a revolution against a socialist government but to deepen socialism. Given the world relationship of forces, a rebellion that does not have such an explicit aim is easily pulled into the direction of imperialism. It is not about "blaming" the people who initially rise up, as Mike states. If I were in one of those countries, I would probably be rising up too. But I believe the lines of demarcation must be sharper in such states -- yes, a higher standard of political clarity. I do not believe the "mass movement" or "mass line" approach is sufficient, which by its very nature accumulates the disparate grievances against the main enemy. Because imperialism is also the main enemy.

The fact that the workers marched behind the student leadership in Tiananmen was a sign of the absence of a communist leadership to make clear to them that they should have been keeping their distance from the students (whose pro-capitalist demands ran 100% counter to the workers' grievances). The slogans of "democracy" and "freedom" as points of unity obscured the fact that these two forces in reality had opposite class programs.

I take no joy in the suppression of the Tiananmen protests. Ultimately the state is responsible for having caused it and many Chinese workers and students entered the streets for all the right reasons. But yes, I believe that the protests' victory would have made things worse in China. For those who look at the decades of capitalist development to say things could not get any worse in China, you are deluding yourselves. Given who would have been power, China would have followed the shock therapy model of the former Soviet bloc.

<blockquote>In a nutshell, however, there are often movements of the people that are just, that are (in fact) for the moment led by forces that are not revolutionary. That is a contradiction too — and a very common one. It is the case in almost every strike, or spontaneous rebellion (LA rebellion 1992, the 1927 Hunan peasant rebellion where Mao did such pioneering investigation.) It was true of the U.S. civil rights movement.</blockquote>

The difference is that these movements, even with reformist leadership, could not have transformed the existing economic and political structures *for the worse.* The most damage they could do is dissipate the masses' pent-up energy and frustration, lead the movement into strategic and tactical blind alleys, and keep its horizons confined to reforms of the existing state.

These are major problems, to be sure, but of a different quality from that expressed in Tiananmen. In cases such as Tiananmen, we are dealing with the potential to *overthrow* the existing state and create a new state. Once the question of state power is posed -- and this is clearly what was at stake -- we are dealing with "revolution" or "counter-revolution," not simply mass movements, uprisings, or strikes.

I believe your theoretical equipment liquidates the concept of "counter-revolution," as it suggests that movements led by counter-revolutionaries have simply not become revolutionary "yet." By simply posing the question as "is it right to rebel against reactionaries," you omit the question of whether something more reactionary is likely to result based on the rebellion's *trajectory*, not just its static leadership at a current moment.

BJ, I have already found to make any arguments that run counter to the accepted position that China is an example of capitalism fully restored leads to immediate slanderous attacks on you, your character, your politics, your history, your intelligence and your sanity. I find that interesting in and of itself.

Is China today the China we would like to see? No. It is also not the China that the CPC is trying to build. Anyone who actually tries to study the matter from a dialectical historical and materialist position can see that what is today is not what will be tomorrow. However, far too many so called MLers are incapable it seems of looking beyond the day after tomorrow. History goes on for a long time, my friends. Communism does not arise quickly just because there has been a workers or workers and peasants revolution (especially in a very poor, economically backward, almost feudal country) and the Party takes command on behalf of the working people. Oh, that it were so. Personally, I believe that the CPC is still a Marxist party with a Marxist orientation. Has it made errors? Of course. Even today anyone with even one eye open can see that the CPC is fully cognizant of all the problems that have come with the "reforms." Disparities between regions, between rural and urban, between incomes levels, and,yes, even classes, not to mention environmental degradation. The CPC knew this would happen as efforts to increase the productive forces continues. And anyone with half an eye open can see that the current direction of the Party is to try and correct those disparities while continuing on a relentless and long path from early socialism finally to communism. And in fact, this is happening, but as the CPC itself will tell you the problems remain serious. Anyone with half a brain can also see that foreign companies are today finding the Chinese government becoming less "friendly" and doing more to reign them in. Anyone with half a brain, including the CPC, knows that this is a perilous journey which could end in failure and that these times need a Party that adheres to Marxist principles and strives to put the needs of the people first to prevent capitalism from truly being restored. Go back and read documents from Party conferences for the past forty years and you will see the plan and you will see that is it being fulfilled. It will be a tough struggle, but are those of you out there who really think the way forward is to destroy the CPC. I know there are and actually I believe that despite our grave differences that you are sincere in your beliefs. I just think you are wrong. History and practice will prove in the end who is right and who is wrong. In the meantime, the truth of the matter is that it doesn't make much difference what you or I think. It matters what 1.37 billion Chinese think and despite all your rhetoric to the contrary it is obvious they have not given up on the Party, they have seen their lives improved immensely, the have seen the Party respond to their grievances time and again, and they have hope for a better future. I have faith in them. The people of China will not allow capitalism to be restored.

I know my name will now be mud with most of you, but such is life. I'll survive somehow.

BJ wrote


<blockquote>
'It matters what 1.37 billion Chinese think and despite all your rhetoric to the contrary it is obvious they have not given up on the Party, they have seen their lives improved immensely, the have seen the Party respond to their grievances time and again, and they have hope for a better future. I have faith in them. The people of China will not allow capitalism to be restored.'</blockquote>



Perhaps a better way to put it is that the Chinese people, the vast majority of them, have not given up on the concept of the People's Republic of China, and that includes important segments of the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. That concept carries within it a revolutionary vision, a communist vision, of what society is and how it should be organized and there are comrades in China who have not given up on that either.
As a practical matter however capitalism has been restored for 80% of the economy. Although the regime is taking some private sectors back (coal mining), the guiding vision of their current leadership is that 'it is glorious to get rich' and that is exactly what they are doing via graft. corruption and the flagrant abuse of their power.

The Mandarins at the apex of the CPC are primarily afraid of intellectual dissidents but the real challenge will come from migrant workers and peasants who are both seeing their lives get worse, not better. Consider that the current demonstrations/street fighting in Guangdong province was sparked by the police abuse of a street vendor just as in Tunisia. I have faith in the Chinese people too, their glorious revolutionary traditions, and the
possibility of returning to the socialist road to serve the people and solve China's mounting social and ecological crisis.

"Personally, I believe that the CPC is still a Marxist party with a Marxist orientation."

Huh. The fat American coporations dumping billions of dollars into Chinese sweatshops don't believe this. The Chinese workers who are brutally exploited in said sweatshops don't believe this. The CPC itself sure as hell doesn't believe this. Why do you believe this? Is 99% of the world, including just about every single reputable financial expert, being bamboozled? Explain yourself.

Stiofan, just so you know, I didn't write what you quoted. That was Reg's comment you quoted. Just thought I'd clarify this small, but minor error.

<blockquote>The People have had it with phony,corrupt,rotten Socialist and Communist Parties which are Socialist and Communist in name only,which objectively aid and abet,support and defend Global Captalist exploitation through various means.Whether that be through directly enslaving the workers in prison factories making cheap products for the Walmarts of the world,or through draconian IMF World Bank loan austerity programs which kill future opportunity,decimate the quality of life for hundreds of millions in Europe.</blockquote>

Hear, hear.

It's disconcerting to see here Dengists trying to defend the brutal crackdown on the workers and students during the Tiananman uprising.

What's the real motivation here? Contemporary China is most definitely not a socialist state, so surely it can't be because they are trying to defend socialism.

What are they defending then?

BJ Murphy writes:

<blockquote>Boris Yeltsin was the spokesperson of Soviet leader Gorbachev’s perestroika economic reforms. Unlike Gorbachev’s failed wish of sustaining socialism, all while allowing market privatization under the command of the Soviet state, Yeltsin instead wished to see socialism ended altogether.

The storyline is the same during China’s “perestroika” period, when Deng Xiaoping laid forth economic reforms, used as a means of modernizing China from it’s unfortunate massive underdeveloped economic state left after Mao’s death. Though, the outcome of the storyline is very much different. Unlike Yeltsin’s success in hijacking Russia’s period of reforms, thus putting an end to Soviet socialism, Hu Yaobang was left with no victory in destroying China’s socialist struggle.</blockquote>

This is an argument that says capitalist restoration was the correct road given China's state of underdevelopment, with the caveat that it should only be a partial restoration. This bourgeois revisionist line is then contrasted with the outright reactionary Hu Yaobang line of full capitalist restoration to lend to former a patina of "socialist" respectability.

BJ wants to make this a binary choice. Either you agree with him and the Dengists that privatizing 1/3 of the economy is a good thing or you agree with the Huists that all of it should be privatized.

We should reject both of these lines. As communists we have a duty to uphold a higher ideological standard than "Part of the way with LBJ."

<blockquote>It was because of both the CPC and PLA’s actions that Chinese socialism was protected and a bourgeois counter-revolution averted. Despite both the western media and various groups of ultra-leftists’ wishes of painting a beautiful story of “David versus Goliath”, like that of Ely’s account of the events, the truth of what really happened on that heroic, yet tragic day remains unhindered.</blockquote>

In the end this is what it all boils down to for the Dengists isn't it? A belief that authoritarian state-levered capitalism is somehow "socialism." That suppressing dissent against an unaccountable clique of phony red bureaucrats is somehow revolutionary. And that demands for accountability, freedom to criticize, and genuine political representation are inherently "bourgeois" demands so long as a party in charge calling itself communist opposes them.

BJ tries to delegitimize righteous rebellion by tying these demands to right-wing students. But of course it wasn't just the right-wing students making these demands. It was also a lot of ordinary workers. Our criteria for deciding to support or oppose such demands should not be based on whether opportunistic rightists mouth them, but on whether they're a genuine expression of the people's desire for liberation and whether these demands carry within them a material potentiality to aid said liberation.

Demanding accountability and the right to criticize, struggling for genuine political representation, fighting against the reactionary notion that the party always knows best and the masses' job is to obey...these are neither ultra-leftist, nor bourgeois positions. They are in fact a prerequisite to the carrying out of a project of human emancipation, which is supposed to be what we’re all about around here.