I wanted to come in on this and also ask further questions about this, on the point brought up several people there is a undeniable incentive of capitalist media to sway the narrative on a communist nation. However, the narrative driven by the Chinese government (who i think it’s fair to say have a history of being not the nicest) would benefit themselves from a swayed narrative? While I understand some censorship is inevitable (removal of capitalist propaganda and the such) removal of mentions towards the protests in Tiananmen square* would be a overall negative thing as revising history no matter the side it comes from is bad. I personally consider china a deeply flawed nation that has strayed too far from doctrines that bring us all together. * I’m not sure if the claims of censorship regarding people talking about the Tiananmen square are true or not but I feel the evidence brought forward is quite compelling and should not be dismissed.
I think that’s the whole point of my argument here is that things are just not black and white. communists, as history has shown, can be horrible and manipulated by the draw of power as much as anyone. Don’t immediately take one route because it fits your personal narrative better, and i know most people here are not doing that but it’s a fair thing to say I feel. Sorry for long comment just wanted to share.
I hate formatting my comments like this, but in lieu of a theme I’m sort of forced.
who i think it’s fair to say have a history of being not the nicest
You think wrong. You’d have to establish why you believe that without resorting to tropes first.
I’m not sure if the claims of censorship regarding people talking about the Tiananmen square are true or not but I feel the evidence brought forward is quite compelling and should not be dismissed.
I’m quite curious what that evidence is. It’s true that the mention of the 4 June incident is suppressed on the anniversaries, but not on other days of the year and one glance at reddit or twitter should make why it’s suppressed abundantly clear. People gathering on social media to regurgitate what amounts to little more than hearsay.
Your approach makes me question what you actually know about the incident. Are you aware that the protests were going on for almost 2 months before it devolved, or that the army was sent without firearm long before 4 June? Did you read about what the “peaceful” protestors did before the fighting started? Mutilating people and setting them on fire isn’t associated with communist, whereas reactionaries have been known to do that in response to whatever perceived slight. Perhaps most importantly, are you aware that a bunch of the student leaders fled the country and are now living cushy lives in the US?
I think that’s the whole point of my argument here is that things are just not black and white. communists, as history has shown, can be horrible and manipulated by the draw of power as much as anyone. Don’t immediately take one route because it fits your personal narrative better,
This is also a trope. I hope you won’t be offended by my saying so but it’s your one of your last vestiges of liberalism trying to claw through by creating nuance where there isn’t much. Communist leaders are often accused of power hunger, how they sought to aggrandise themselves, empowered the party to their personal benefit and elevated their creatures disregarding the desires of the people or the party. The best remedy to this is to read their actions and their words.
I’d also like to reply to the norion that whatever we say here is said because it fits our narrative. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone here was once a liberal of whatever inclination. For a lot of us, learning that the USSR/PRC were anything less than hellholes or that Lenin/Kim/Stalin/Mao/Ho/Castro etc were decent people and good leaders. We were handed down all manner of liberal narratives and the facts we were provided with didn’t fit any of them. As such it would serve you best to do your investigation and bring whatever facts you believe folks aren’t informed of before making the implication that anyone follows the path of least ideological resistance.
Hi! Thank you for the nuanced response! While it is true my knowledge of the protests in tianaman square is obviously not as most of the regulars here I think my primary point is that things are nuanced, especially when speaking about chinese history. While I understand your take of parts of my comment possibly being taken as straws of past liberalism and while that could be possibly true I just think it’s fair to say that every topic is nuanced and should be discussed deeper in order to better the discussion in the future. While I agree that parts of what I said could be tropes or simple misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about said subject (which i’m more than happy to admit lack there of) it seems rather difficult to say it’s as black and white as you seem to be portraying it as? I apologise if I am misunderstand your point given here but that’s just the way i perceived it. I do stand by my previous statement of not falling onto the side of a story which plays best for your ideological view on things as I think it’s very easy to fall into said conformation bias as I know I have as I think we all have intact. I do wish to learn more about these things it’s just it’s remarkably difficult to take things are face value when capitalist media is coming at you from one angle and media given by leftists is at another, both can be self serving in the end, no? I do apologise if some of this came off as negatively charged or passive aggressive I am almost just thinking out loud on this on. Thank you again for your reply :)
You just need to read more history books, honestly. By saying things “are nuanced” is actually I think an attempt to de-nuance by trying to equate two things (China vs US) which are entirely different.
There is nothing useful by starting from a perspective of trying to equate two things when there is a distinct lack of knowledge/information. This is your own bias coming into play here - you are instantly trying to find some sort of equivalence instead of starting from the real square zero of “wait, I actually don’t know anything about China”.
This is one of the main pitfalls of liberal ideology - to always have to appease two sides to appear to be unbiased. Since I assume you are American, you obviously wouldn’t leapfrog to “both are bad” when cops beat up BLM protestors after protestors looted, right? Obviously there is a real truth to everything and you don’t get there by leapfrogging from zero knowledge to equivalence.
What exactly is it that you are hoping to accomplish by criticizing China, a country that you know ostensibly nothing about (you do not know its language, history, nor do you live there)?
So when framed like that:
-Why exactly does your criticism help you in your goal?
-Why is it worth anything?
-Why should Chinese people care about it?
-Why should countries who are leaving US imperialism care?
-What exactly is imperialism (this one is easy tbh, read Lenin, learn about the role of military, debt, and currency)?
Anyway the purpose of this is to get you to explore the way your own thought process works, as I assume you are a leftist from the west.
I won’t say more on the 4 June incident, I only have two watching suggestions. First is the Gate of heavenly Peace documentary part 1part 2 which I suggest watching with care. The facts are there, but the narration is dissonant from them and has a lot of sinophobic crap. The second is Tovarisch Endymion’s video, which partially uses the aforementioned doku.
On the subject of chinese history and what license it gives us to say about the PRC, I’ll again caution you to be certain of what you have in mind. If you’re referring to some misdeeds in the CPC era, you should inform yourself on the specific fault you understand them to have. Afterwards we (being this sub, lemmygrad or wherever you choose) could discuss at greater detail.
Finally, the media. It’s completely true that all media has a bias and an agenda. But we ought to approach this scientifically, lest we fall into a liberal trap and accept or reject something we shouldn’t. For example, what is the agenda of Washington Post? This one’s simple, it’s owned by Bezos, so it’ll push whatever he wants. It’ll support rightist deregulation, anti-worker policies without associating much with outright fascists, who might rock the boat and cost mr Bezos a pretty penny. What about BBC? Well, it’s owned and operated by the UK govt, which in recent years has shown the stick vis a vis their funding. As such, they editorially support whatever the Tories do, imperialism and redbaiting anything to the left of Thatcher. Next, the MYT, whose owner I know fuckall about. What I do know is that they’ve been in favour of every single war, intervention and pro-US coup since WW2. This, alogside the fact that they really hate SocDems, not to say a word hpe they feel about actual leftists, should be sufficient. As for CCTV/CGTN, I’m taking the craven route and not saying shit, inviting you to determine for yourself. Read their articles, see what they focus on and what they don’t. Try to look into their editorial independence, and for bonus points, find out how often they contradict the CPC stance. I’m not promising you’ll be enlightened and agree with me on everything, but I expect you to be surprised eith what you find.
yes things are nuanced no socialists country is without blame or a history of sometimes very serious errors and mistakes. but that point is sorta irrelevant socialists countries have historically treated their people and had foreign policy which was so much better than capitalists countries that this nuance mean nothing like china gave the death penalty to a few people who probably didnt deserve it, the west colonized Africa and murdered like half the people living there. China soft censors biased western sources the usa spends billions on non stop propaganda across the entire world. the USSR supported some revolutionaries across the world (which i dont think is bad but its still meddling in other countries) the usa has invaded almost every country on earth tried to overthrow governments in other countries hundreds of times in the past century. there justs isnt a point of comparison here the west is so fucking bad that the things which socialists countries do wrong or we dont like just dont matter atleast not when talking to libs its certainly worth knowing and acknowledging their mistakes but if the question is “AES or the west” the answer isnt “both bad” its “west bad”.
They don’t censor it. They censor the wests made up narrative about it, which, if you actually read the other comments on this post you would understand.
Tbf with how detached from reality the burger regime’s narrative about the event is, maybe they should show people the western version and be all like “get a load of this shit”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t mention it somewhere when they teach their people about western propaganda. I would have to think they would make it something taught about how insidious the western narratives are about their country.
Hi! I read the other comments and I wished to ask further questions and get further narrative about said events. Censorship is a difficult subject to come at, as shown by my post. I think you seem to think I am swaying it one or the other when I don’t think my post came off that way?
I wanted to come in on this and also ask further questions about this, on the point brought up several people there is a undeniable incentive of capitalist media to sway the narrative on a communist nation. However, the narrative driven by the Chinese government (who i think it’s fair to say have a history of being not the nicest) would benefit themselves from a swayed narrative? While I understand some censorship is inevitable (removal of capitalist propaganda and the such) removal of mentions towards the protests in Tiananmen square* would be a overall negative thing as revising history no matter the side it comes from is bad. I personally consider china a deeply flawed nation that has strayed too far from doctrines that bring us all together. * I’m not sure if the claims of censorship regarding people talking about the Tiananmen square are true or not but I feel the evidence brought forward is quite compelling and should not be dismissed. I think that’s the whole point of my argument here is that things are just not black and white. communists, as history has shown, can be horrible and manipulated by the draw of power as much as anyone. Don’t immediately take one route because it fits your personal narrative better, and i know most people here are not doing that but it’s a fair thing to say I feel. Sorry for long comment just wanted to share.
I hate formatting my comments like this, but in lieu of a theme I’m sort of forced.
You think wrong. You’d have to establish why you believe that without resorting to tropes first.
I’m quite curious what that evidence is. It’s true that the mention of the 4 June incident is suppressed on the anniversaries, but not on other days of the year and one glance at reddit or twitter should make why it’s suppressed abundantly clear. People gathering on social media to regurgitate what amounts to little more than hearsay.
Your approach makes me question what you actually know about the incident. Are you aware that the protests were going on for almost 2 months before it devolved, or that the army was sent without firearm long before 4 June? Did you read about what the “peaceful” protestors did before the fighting started? Mutilating people and setting them on fire isn’t associated with communist, whereas reactionaries have been known to do that in response to whatever perceived slight. Perhaps most importantly, are you aware that a bunch of the student leaders fled the country and are now living cushy lives in the US?
This is also a trope. I hope you won’t be offended by my saying so but it’s your one of your last vestiges of liberalism trying to claw through by creating nuance where there isn’t much. Communist leaders are often accused of power hunger, how they sought to aggrandise themselves, empowered the party to their personal benefit and elevated their creatures disregarding the desires of the people or the party. The best remedy to this is to read their actions and their words.
I’d also like to reply to the norion that whatever we say here is said because it fits our narrative. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone here was once a liberal of whatever inclination. For a lot of us, learning that the USSR/PRC were anything less than hellholes or that Lenin/Kim/Stalin/Mao/Ho/Castro etc were decent people and good leaders. We were handed down all manner of liberal narratives and the facts we were provided with didn’t fit any of them. As such it would serve you best to do your investigation and bring whatever facts you believe folks aren’t informed of before making the implication that anyone follows the path of least ideological resistance.
Hi! Thank you for the nuanced response! While it is true my knowledge of the protests in tianaman square is obviously not as most of the regulars here I think my primary point is that things are nuanced, especially when speaking about chinese history. While I understand your take of parts of my comment possibly being taken as straws of past liberalism and while that could be possibly true I just think it’s fair to say that every topic is nuanced and should be discussed deeper in order to better the discussion in the future. While I agree that parts of what I said could be tropes or simple misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about said subject (which i’m more than happy to admit lack there of) it seems rather difficult to say it’s as black and white as you seem to be portraying it as? I apologise if I am misunderstand your point given here but that’s just the way i perceived it. I do stand by my previous statement of not falling onto the side of a story which plays best for your ideological view on things as I think it’s very easy to fall into said conformation bias as I know I have as I think we all have intact. I do wish to learn more about these things it’s just it’s remarkably difficult to take things are face value when capitalist media is coming at you from one angle and media given by leftists is at another, both can be self serving in the end, no? I do apologise if some of this came off as negatively charged or passive aggressive I am almost just thinking out loud on this on. Thank you again for your reply :)
You just need to read more history books, honestly. By saying things “are nuanced” is actually I think an attempt to de-nuance by trying to equate two things (China vs US) which are entirely different.
There is nothing useful by starting from a perspective of trying to equate two things when there is a distinct lack of knowledge/information. This is your own bias coming into play here - you are instantly trying to find some sort of equivalence instead of starting from the real square zero of “wait, I actually don’t know anything about China”.
This is one of the main pitfalls of liberal ideology - to always have to appease two sides to appear to be unbiased. Since I assume you are American, you obviously wouldn’t leapfrog to “both are bad” when cops beat up BLM protestors after protestors looted, right? Obviously there is a real truth to everything and you don’t get there by leapfrogging from zero knowledge to equivalence.
What exactly is it that you are hoping to accomplish by criticizing China, a country that you know ostensibly nothing about (you do not know its language, history, nor do you live there)?
So when framed like that:
-Why exactly does your criticism help you in your goal?
-Why is it worth anything?
-Why should Chinese people care about it?
-Why should countries who are leaving US imperialism care?
-What exactly is imperialism (this one is easy tbh, read Lenin, learn about the role of military, debt, and currency)?
Anyway the purpose of this is to get you to explore the way your own thought process works, as I assume you are a leftist from the west.
I won’t say more on the 4 June incident, I only have two watching suggestions. First is the Gate of heavenly Peace documentary part 1 part 2 which I suggest watching with care. The facts are there, but the narration is dissonant from them and has a lot of sinophobic crap. The second is Tovarisch Endymion’s video, which partially uses the aforementioned doku.
On the subject of chinese history and what license it gives us to say about the PRC, I’ll again caution you to be certain of what you have in mind. If you’re referring to some misdeeds in the CPC era, you should inform yourself on the specific fault you understand them to have. Afterwards we (being this sub, lemmygrad or wherever you choose) could discuss at greater detail.
Finally, the media. It’s completely true that all media has a bias and an agenda. But we ought to approach this scientifically, lest we fall into a liberal trap and accept or reject something we shouldn’t. For example, what is the agenda of Washington Post? This one’s simple, it’s owned by Bezos, so it’ll push whatever he wants. It’ll support rightist deregulation, anti-worker policies without associating much with outright fascists, who might rock the boat and cost mr Bezos a pretty penny. What about BBC? Well, it’s owned and operated by the UK govt, which in recent years has shown the stick vis a vis their funding. As such, they editorially support whatever the Tories do, imperialism and redbaiting anything to the left of Thatcher. Next, the MYT, whose owner I know fuckall about. What I do know is that they’ve been in favour of every single war, intervention and pro-US coup since WW2. This, alogside the fact that they really hate SocDems, not to say a word hpe they feel about actual leftists, should be sufficient. As for CCTV/CGTN, I’m taking the craven route and not saying shit, inviting you to determine for yourself. Read their articles, see what they focus on and what they don’t. Try to look into their editorial independence, and for bonus points, find out how often they contradict the CPC stance. I’m not promising you’ll be enlightened and agree with me on everything, but I expect you to be surprised eith what you find.
yes things are nuanced no socialists country is without blame or a history of sometimes very serious errors and mistakes. but that point is sorta irrelevant socialists countries have historically treated their people and had foreign policy which was so much better than capitalists countries that this nuance mean nothing like china gave the death penalty to a few people who probably didnt deserve it, the west colonized Africa and murdered like half the people living there. China soft censors biased western sources the usa spends billions on non stop propaganda across the entire world. the USSR supported some revolutionaries across the world (which i dont think is bad but its still meddling in other countries) the usa has invaded almost every country on earth tried to overthrow governments in other countries hundreds of times in the past century. there justs isnt a point of comparison here the west is so fucking bad that the things which socialists countries do wrong or we dont like just dont matter atleast not when talking to libs its certainly worth knowing and acknowledging their mistakes but if the question is “AES or the west” the answer isnt “both bad” its “west bad”.
They don’t censor it. They censor the wests made up narrative about it, which, if you actually read the other comments on this post you would understand.
Tbf with how detached from reality the burger regime’s narrative about the event is, maybe they should show people the western version and be all like “get a load of this shit”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t mention it somewhere when they teach their people about western propaganda. I would have to think they would make it something taught about how insidious the western narratives are about their country.
Hi! I read the other comments and I wished to ask further questions and get further narrative about said events. Censorship is a difficult subject to come at, as shown by my post. I think you seem to think I am swaying it one or the other when I don’t think my post came off that way?
The idea is that, by living in the west, your “neutral position” is probably already being swayed one way without your knowledge.