-1
Why does it say nothing about the 1989 protests on Tiananmen Square, Beijing? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In this article on baidu, there is a gap between 1988 and 1999, why is there nothing about some kind of protest that everyone keeps telling me about?

Edit: Thank you for responding, you have taught me a great deal about the usage and necessity of propaganda, counter-propaganda and censorship in a Marxist-Leninist state like China. Although some relied upon lies and insults as a means of trying to win an argunent, I got actual contentful theoretical education out of this, thanks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

All current actually existing socialism is in a defensive stance. This is needed because of the history of bourgeois liberal democracies seeking to destabilize and collapse socialist states by any means necessary. Socialist states that didn't do a good enough job of defending themselves are no longer with us largely because of such actions. This is precisely why government censorship exists in China, to help maintain the social order and ensure stability of the socialist state. Stability is especially valued in China for historical reasons. Other AES countries like Vietnam also censor things like hate speech or misinformation to some extent, including jail time for the worst offenders.

For Tiananmen Square specifically, there's a huge misinformation campaign from Western countries about the events of the protest. If you go up to a random Westerner, show them the iconic photo of the man in front of the tank, and ask them what happened to the man, they will likely tell you that the man was run over. This is, of course, not what happened, and there's video evidence to this effect. But the misinformation in the West is hegemonic and entrenched, and if it got around in the PRC, it would take a lot of time and effort to debunk it and not everyone would believe you anyway. So, for the Chinese government, they prevent people from bringing it up more than absolutely necessary by censorship. It's not the ideal solution but it will have to do for now.

If that is enough to squick you out about MLism you should do some introspection about why that is. If you're truly committed to revolutionary politics you may find yourself needing to do much worse than censorship in the future. It is necessary for revolutionary movements to strike a balance between achieving their goals and avoiding the worst excesses of revolutions. As we know from history, this can be quite a difficult balance to strike, especially if the people have had a boot on their neck for a long time and are full of righteous anger. We need people like you in our movements to rein us in, but not so much that the revolution fails and all of it was for nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Finally, the answer I wanted. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond, you helped me broaden my view on why things are how they are.

    I see the point. Looking at it abstractly as a war between narratives, lies and propaganda, it does make sense. But it does feel like an admission of guilt in the first moment, because why censor when you can make counter-propaganda? But yes, it is logical.

    I was just questioning my beliefs there because I felt like I have been conciously lied to by the CPC comrades, which has shocked me, because trust in the communist cause is endless.

    EDIT: Still, I very much think that agitating a whole squad of wumaos to try to disintegrate the potential dissident for single post thing is too much

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Counter-propaganda runs the risk of putting protest front of mind in the people because you're talking about a protest. It requires constant work to keep it up. And it can engender suspicion more than censorship. In a situation where people are already indoctrinated like in the US, you have to do counter-propaganda, reeducation, or cultural revolution to clear certain things up. But it's a lot easier to not need to do that in the first place, and that's what censorship can sometimes accomplish.

    Like Covid, if enough people take the bait and a meme begins to spread, censorship can stop working. In this case counter-propaganda can become the preferred strategy. Something similar happened in China where Covid became so contagious that zero-Covid became too expensive or difficult to keep up. Containment was breached such that it became untenable. In the case of Covid the result was about a million deaths in China. In a lot of cases, these are not small consequences. Moving on from censorship is likely seen as too risky with not enough upside, although this is only my speculation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    So in short words, propaganda makers are lazy, want to work more efficiently, so they censor. Problem is China's image in the liberal west, they use this again as propaganda. endless circle...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not just a question of laziness IMO. Censorship can also take a lot of bureaucratic work. But it has a reliability advantage that counter-propaganda does not.

    Plus, the domestic situation is more important than what some liberals in the global north think. They will always find a way to hate China if the geopolitical situation calls for it, including funding terrorist organizations to stoke a proxy war to help destabilize China and then blaming China for carrying out a successful and relatively humane counterterrorism campaign. There's no winning with these people. All you can do is your best.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Lazyness as in working more efficiently by working less with same or better outcome

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    It's not lazy if they chose to do the solution that is more cost effective. On media sites, there are tons compare to 2-3 from China.

    I only see this event keep pooping up from the West, why bother do it if you're out-gunned media-wise there?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I was just having a conversation about how in western regimes we have a two party system that uses each side to place blame on failures of the state. China as a one party government doesn't have that sort of fail safe built in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •