Tiananmen Square, 20 years later

SinisterMinisterX

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
20 years ago today, this happened:

Tianasquare.jpg


You've all seen that photo many times. A new photo has surfaced, from ground level:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/behind-the-scenes-a-new-angle-on-history/
 
I don't think one needs any more evidence than this picture to show that communism simply does not work.
 
There's never been a "Communist" country, but certainly the unique brand of collective ownership and dictatorships that emerged in the 20th century has led to many failed and bankrupt states.
 
As for the  man. I heard a rumor that he was few days later. But to be honest I cannot say if that is true.
 
LooseCannon said:
There's never been a "Communist" country, but certainly the unique brand of collective ownership and dictatorships that emerged in the 20th century has led to many failed and bankrupt states.
Click to expand...

These regimes in many cases tried to reach a communist society, Lenin's Russia first among them, and none of them got there; even those that spontaneously rose from a revolution against a right-wing dictatorship (as opposed to forcibly installed by the USSR, for example), like Castro's Cuba, ended up as dictatorships themselves.
 
When I see that picture, ideas of "Communism" come to my mind only very late. At first, I really only see one guy who has the balls to stand up against four tanks, on a square the name of which translates to English as heavenly peace. That picture says so much before speaking of the failure of Communism, or what the Chinese made of it.


Invader said:
These regimes in many cases tried to reach a communist society, Lenin's Russia first among them, and none of them got there; even those that spontaneously rose from a revolution against a right-wing dictatorship (as opposed to forcibly installed by the USSR, for example), like Castro's Cuba, ended up as dictatorships themselves.
Click to expand...

Let's be fair. Lenin was a man of good intentions. His misfortune was his soon death and the unscrupulous character that was Stalin. Castro was not a Communist at first. The Cubans only gave their revolution a Communist image after they got support from the Soviets.
And to be honest, although Castro did not manage to give his people freedom, he was significantly better to them than Batista was.

Most people who stood up and revolted in the name of Communism in the first half of the 20th century were heroes. They acted against something and believed in what they did. They only did not get far, because they either died too soon or were too idealistic for their own good and became victims of more power-hungry co-revolutionaries.
That is not to say that Communism is likely to succeed even if implemented only by people with good intentions. But blaming Lenin, Castro, Trotzky or more obscure people like Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Liebknecht for the terrors of Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung is not fair.
Nevertheless, people should realise that Communism failed, and never had a chance of succeeding, precisely because it is so prone to exploitation by dictators.
 
When I see that picture, ideas of "Communism" come to my mind only very late. At first, I really only see one guy who has the balls to stand up against four tanks, on a square the name of which translates to English as heavenly peace. That picture says so much before speaking of the failure of Communism, or what the Chinese made of it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough; that's probably what I'd think.  I just happened to debate about the EU elections with a friend today, and him being very leftist it sort of ground to a communism vs capitalism debate in the end, after which I reminded him of that picture.  So that leapt to my mind first when reading SMX's post.


Let's be fair. Lenin was a man of good intentions. His misfortune was his soon death and the unscrupulous character that was Stalin. Castro was not a Communist at first. The Cubans only gave their revolution a Communist image after they got support from the Soviets. And to be honest, although Castro did not manage to give his people freedom, he was significantly better to them than Batista was.
Click to expand...

Lenin and Castro wanted to free their countries from the oppressive regimes of Nicholas II and Batista respectively, but when they installed their own regimes they weren't too scared about using force themselves.  Lenin was a dictator also, he used secret police (the Cheka), some very brutal measures in the Russian Civil War, etc.  His regime was eclipsed by Stalin's far more brutal one, but Lenin was not exactly a benevolent leader anyway.  Same goes for Castro, who led an authoritarian regime from the very start with show trials, secret police, etc.  Also, he did negotiate with communists already before Soviet support, but I guess he started believing in it himself only later on.  And while Batista was a brutal leader when Castro took over, he was originally elected and carried out reforms; it was only after his coup that he got really brutal.  But yeah, Castro still wasn't so bad as far as dictators go.


Most people who stood up and revolted in the name of Communism in the first half of the 20th century were heroes. They acted against something and believed in what they did. They only did not get far, because they either died too soon or were too idealistic for their own good and became victims of more power-hungry co-revolutionaries.
Click to expand...

Good point.

That is not to say that Communism is likely to succeed even if implemented only by people with good intentions. But blaming Lenin, Castro, Trotzky or more obscure people like Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Liebknecht for the terrors of Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung is not fair.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Castro and Lenin did not have exactly "clean" regimes either.  Communism just seems to have rather oppressive tendencies, and the level of oppression has varied.
 
Warhurst said:
As for the  man. I heard a rumor that he was few days later. But to be honest I cannot say if that is true.
Click to expand...

I think you mean to say that he was executed by the Chinese government. Rumors have it that it was either 2 weeks or a few months later.

But there are also rumors that he is still alive - the most recent rumor has him living in Taiwan.
 
Perun said:
When I see that picture, ideas of "Communism" come to my mind only very late. At first, I really only see one guy who has the balls to stand up against four tanks, on a square the name of which translates to English as heavenly peace. That picture says so much before speaking of the failure of Communism, or what the Chinese made of it.


Let's be fair. Lenin was a man of good intentions. His misfortune was his soon death and the unscrupulous character that was Stalin. Castro was not a Communist at first. The Cubans only gave their revolution a Communist image after they got support from the Soviets.
And to be honest, although Castro did not manage to give his people freedom, he was significantly better to them than Batista was.

Most people who stood up and revolted in the name of Communism in the first half of the 20th century were heroes. They acted against something and believed in what they did. They only did not get far, because they either died too soon or were too idealistic for their own good and became victims of more power-hungry co-revolutionaries.
That is not to say that Communism is likely to succeed even if implemented only by people with good intentions. But blaming Lenin, Castro, Trotzky or more obscure people like Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Liebknecht for the terrors of Stalin,
Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung is not fair.
Click to expand...

Every politician acts and believes. Hitler too. Good intentions? Heroes? Strange terms when you realise how much blood most of them (Lenin included) have on their hands.
 
Forostar said:
Every politician acts and believes. Hitler too. Good intentions? Heroes? Strange terms when you realise how much blood most of them (Lenin included) have on their hands.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, most of the resistance against Nazism/Fascism during the Second World War was organised and/or carried out by communists, especially in Eastern Europe (see Yugoslavia). 
 
Forostar said:
Every politician acts and believes. Hitler too. Good intentions? Heroes? Strange terms when you realise how much blood most of them (Lenin included) have on their hands.
Click to expand...

I think there have been similar conversations on here about this.  I think it is all relative, when it comes down to it.  Like our discussion of the Cold War vs a 'real war'.  My understanding was that many of these revolutions had the intention to stop the massive oppression that was in place.  Spilling blood to save blood.  How does it go: the victors always look good to history, the loosers always look bad.
 
You can't seriously relativize the killings of millions and millions of innocent civillians, committed before, during and after WWII.

Defending responsible people from those dark times is remarkable. And that's an understatement.
 
Perun said:
Nevertheless, people should realise that Communism failed, and never had a chance of succeeding, precisely because it is so prone to exploitation by dictators.
Click to expand...

Well, and because it is inherently evil, as it is akin to slavery.  

The New York Times wrote that no one really knows who "Tank Man" is or what happened to him -- indeed, it also wrote that many Chinese are not even aware that this happened and don't recognize the photo, as it is banned from publication in China.  Lovely folks. 
 
Let's go here to see how heroic some of these people were. Look how good the intentions were.

More?

Decossackization  -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization
Lenin's Hanging Order -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Hanging_Order
Mass graves in the Soviet Union -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_grave ... viet_Union
Katyn massacre -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn
Great Purge -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Holodomor -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Mr. Forostar, meet Mr. Godwin.
Click to expand...
:lol:
That's funny, though to be fair to Forostar, this whole thread is about oppressive regimes.  Tough NOT to compare communism to fascism in this context, or Stalin to Hitler. 

(EDIT:  For those who didn't get the joke, Godwin's Rule says that, whenever you have an online discussion, the longer it runs, the more certain that someone will bring up a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.) 
 
I somewhat regret my confronting tone, but I for one find it shocking to learn how easily people look away from the terrible deeds of the Soviets.


Uhh, who's Godwin?

I'll learn about him tomorrow!
:)
 
Mike Godwin is an attorney specializing in internet law.  He's not at all noteworthy except for establishing Godwin's Law.  From the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an informal adage coined by Mike Godwin in 1990. The adage states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
...
For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.  (I guess SMX was invoking this corollary.)

The wiki also supports my defense of Forostar's reference to Hitler here:  "The corrolaries of the law would presumably not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, or – more debatably – to discussion of other totalitarian regimes."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top