June 4th 20 year anniversary commemoration thread

[bushbush]

20 years ago around today, Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was packed with Chinese citizens who believe they could make a difference and change China for better. They were from different social backrounds; there were students, workers, government officials, merchants and others. They were motivated by different reasons; some were disgusted by the surging level of corruption; some were appalled by the increasing economic inequality and raising inflation; many others were unsatisifed that political reforms were lagging behind economic reform that China, while embracing capitalism, was still ruled by one party who did not want to share its power with the people. Together, they asked the Chinese communist party to further political reforms, listening to and addressing the needs of the people. Unfortunately, the conservative factions of the CCP prevailed at the end, suppressing the demonstrations on June 4th, killing hundreds if not thousnads of protestors in the process.

this thread is to commemorate the victims. Even though their goals weren't immediately realized. China is changing towards the direction that the protestors envisioned, whether the CCP likes it or not. 30 years of economic reforms have made Chinese society more wealthy, more educated, more plurastic and more vocal and active in pursuing their rights and freedom. More and more CCP elites are also realizing the inevitable needs for political reforms that increase consultation from the population, establishing rule of law, granting more social freedom and giving space for the growth of Chinese civil society. These trends all point towards the day when an outdated lennist authoritarian system will no longer satisfy and constrain the chinese society and the day when the ruling elites of China will realize continuing to monopolize power will bring destruction to themselves at the hand of the people. June 4 victims will be given a rightful place in history for their contribution of changing China for the better. They did not die in vain.

[Nikos]

May we never forget.

[sephodwyrm]

The only way I'll lament June 4th is why wasn't it a May 4th incident? One month prior and 4 gunshots on the grounds of Beijing University by the local security, emulating Kent State to its finest, and thousands less would have been died or wounded.

China is changing towards the direction that the protestors envisioned

It is inevitable with economic growth, and would happen independent of the April-June 1989 incidents. Prior to June 4th, it was actually possible for these students, paid by government scholarships, to access and question higher levels of the government as easily as we had seen. This was a tradition handed down from the Maoist era (surprise). Unfortunately, the students, brought up with Marxist ideologies and combined with their limited world view thrashed their opportunity, viewed the masses as "disposable martyrs" and escaped with all their lives and comfort that has always been handed to them.

Together, they asked the Chinese communist party to further political reforms, listening to and addressing the needs of the people.

It's an array of what they "asked", or rather, "demanded". It was a range of issues, from the betrayal of the Socialist ideologies, the increased materialization of society and the fact that top party leaders are cozy-cozy with business leaders and becoming capitalist. No matter what they've said, the students will always claim that they're fighting for democracy. They've attacked every segment of the government, including those that voiced support for them and literally destroyed the political careers of the political liberalists. In the end they're shouting for the toppling of the CCP.

June 4 victims will be given a rightful place in history for their contribution of changing China for the better. They did not die in vain.

They almost toppled the market liberal Deng administration to put a reactionary "political liberal" / market conservative government which would have thrown back the country another 15 years. Arguing from an overseas Chinese perspective (instead of a mainland emigre), I would say that a strong China is central to our interests. We have no illusions of "freedom of democracy", given that we're treated like second class citizens that "do not understand freedom of democracy" because we've been "brainwashed" by the government we've never been under.

What the students have achieved:
- a blow to Chinese technological imports from the West that would definitely help with the improvement of living qualities throughout China
- a reactionary stance taken by the government as a response to the riots of June 4th and complete lack of political liberalization throughout the last decade of the 20th century
- a good thing: an avenue for a number of Chinese to emigrate on counts based on political asylum
- and the bad thing: an avenue for a number of corrupt Chinese officials to emigrate based on political asylum

Watch this documentary, made by Americans, in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gat...e_(documentary)


Sure. June 4th need careful studies. Except that the truth may be more dirty than we'd like to see. The fact that the students convinced the Beijing garrison to return to their posts despite government order to quell the riots and end the hunger strike should be viewed as a major event of political instability. To me, I'm honestly glad they smashed the riot. I pity those that died - pawns of the "liberal student leaders" and anti-market liberals.

PS: and it's not June 4th yet, but maybe much less would've died if the PLA moved in on this day rather than on June 4th.

[bushbush]

It is inevitable with economic growth, and would happen independent of the April-June 1989 incidents. Prior to June 4th, it was actually possible for these students, paid by government scholarships, to access and question higher levels of the government as easily as we had seen. This was a tradition handed down from the Maoist era (surprise). Unfortunately, the students, brought up with Marxist ideologies and combined with their limited world view thrashed their opportunity, viewed the masses as "disposable martyrs" and escaped with all their lives and comfort that has always been handed to them.

but i do think the CCP should have taken the chance of 1989 to address political reform, rather than leaving this issue for the future. It's arguably a tougher issue to resolve than 20 years ago considering how entrenched a lot of problems caused of the outdated political system are in China today (corruption, inequality, overall inefficiency of growth, massive social instability).

It's an array of what they "asked", or rather, "demanded". It was a range of issues, from the betrayal of the Socialist ideologies, the increased materialization of society and the fact that top party leaders are cozy-cozy with business leaders and becoming capitalist. No matter what they've said, the students will always claim that they're fighting for democracy. They've attacked every segment of the government, including those that voiced support for them and literally destroyed the political careers of the political liberalists. In the end they're shouting for the toppling of the CCP.

I would agree that the movement itself was very diverse in goals and motivations. But ultimately they are asking to be a part of the policy making process. They are asking their government to be more responsive for the needs of the population with a better system. Unfortunately it wasn't addressed and the problem still exists today.

They almost toppled the market liberal Deng administration to put a reactionary "political liberal" / market conservative government which would have thrown back the country another 15 years. Arguing from an overseas Chinese perspective (instead of a mainland emigre), I would say that a strong China is central to our interests. We have no illusions of "freedom of democracy", given that we're treated like second class citizens that "do not understand freedom of democracy" because we've been "brainwashed" by the government we've never been under.

I am not really asking for empty slogans. The political system from the past just doesn't fit market economy. The cost of growth is too high under the current corrupt government. The system isn't responsive to the citizens. The rich is getting all the voice and the poor is getting exploited. I wouldn't blame the students for the 2 years of conservative backlash though. It was bound to happen because economic reform was already too radical to them. I would have to blame the conservatives for not realizing the needs for change (though understandably you can't expect these old revolutionaries to know that, in that sense, June 4th was inevitable maybe).

[sephodwyrm]

but i do think the CCP should have taken the chance of 1989 to address political reform, rather than leaving this issue for the future. It's arguably a tougher issue to resolve than 20 years ago considering how entrenched a lot of problems caused of the outdated political system are in China today (corruption, inequality, overall inefficiency of growth, massive social instability).

Like what? Jeopardize half of the government (of the Long March Generation to the delight of the Leftists) by instituting "perestroika" at the expense of economic foundations? Most serious political economists would agree that June 4th was handled well - with the consolidation of Central Authority without breaking the strides for market liberalization. What the students were demanding are political liberalization and Marxist economics again. Not very much unlike the Maoist red guards except this time they've put themselves as the candidates.

But ultimately they are asking to be a part of the policy making process.

What they're asking is that they themselves decide what's best for China and disregarding the fact that they have no political experience whatsoever. Again, NOT unlike the Maoist red guards. And conservative like them as well.

The political system from the past just doesn't fit market economy. The cost of growth is too high under the current corrupt government. The system isn't responsive to the citizens. The rich is getting all the voice and the poor is getting exploited.

I'd have to call foul on that. China's political system is the reason why major fundamental infrastructure for the market economy could be constructed and set in motion. And I've never seen anywhere else in the world where the cost of growth is "adequately low" or how the "poor is not getting exploited". As for the rich getting all the voice: when was that not the case? I have a louder voice than 90% of the world because I can afford my own car, my laptop and an internet connection. China's primary objective is to enrich the people. And only then would she have the political capital to pursue greater political liberalization.

Corruption and graft could not be solved with political liberalization. If such is indeed the case, we'd expect Indonesia to be priss and crystal clear.

I would have to blame the conservatives for not realizing the needs for change

Change what?
China made her first face-lift from 1979-1989. And then the students clamored against this "corruption of socialist values" and used the slogan of "freedom and democracy" as a tool. They supported Gorbachev who had the idea that political liberalization should come before market liberalization, who also criticized Deng's betrayal of Socialism, his statement that "being rich is glorious" and abhorred the idea that there are millionaires on the streets of Beijing. And look at the USSR. Russians abhor this man, and they're absolutely right to do so.

[bushbush]

Like what? Jeopardize half of the government (of the Long March Generation to the delight of the Leftists) by instituting "perestroika" at the expense of economic foundations? Most serious political economists would agree that June 4th was handled well - with the consolidation of Central Authority without breaking the strides for market liberalization. What the students were demanding are political liberalization and Marxist economics again. Not very much unlike the Maoist red guards except this time they've put themselves as the candidates.

I don't think most people are demanding marxist economics. Their demand for equality was a response to the rising gap in income and increasing inflation. Both can be traced back to the systematic discrimination against rural China under both the socialist and transition economy and the corruption that grants wealth to people who didn't earn it. The best example would be the IOU crisis in 1992 where institutional corruption of chinese bureacracy almost caused a nationa-wide riot by peasants, who were given white slip for their products because the officials diverged the funds to coastal provinces for real estate speculation against regulations. These kind of activities that increase inquality is something the old political system can't eradicate without introducing some sort of independent regulatory force and free media.

I'd have to call foul on that. China's political system is the reason why major fundamental infrastructure for the market economy could be constructed and set in motion. And I've never seen anywhere else in the world where the cost of growth is "adequately low" or how the "poor is not getting exploited". As for the rich getting all the voice: when was that not the case? I have a louder voice than 90% of the world because I can afford my own car, my laptop and an internet connection. China's primary objective is to enrich the people. And only then would she have the political capital to pursue greater political liberalization.

at what expense? You can make an argument that yes, Chinese government did an admirable job in managing a gradual transition. BUT, the process itself is riddled with inefficiency, with stealing of state property, with tons of people gaining wealth illegally at the expense of others, with resources being wasted, with environment being polluted, with inequalty being enlarged. Minxin Pei estimates corruption itself eats away 4-5% of Chinese GDP every year. I think the argument that the CCP didn't need political reform because the economy grew is kinda weak. The economy would have grown rapidly anyways because of China's potential with a large labor force and relatively well established infrastructure. With political reform at the right time, a lot of problems accompanying the reform could have been reduced or even resolved.

[sephodwyrm]

Their demand for equality was a response to the rising gap in income and increasing inflation.

That's synonymous with Marxist economics. There's reasons why a trained professional should earn more than a construction site worker in a market economy.

Both can be traced back to the systematic discrimination against rural China

The reason why there's migrant workers in Chinese cities is not because of systematic discrimination, but market economy and rural-urban migration. The only "systematic discrimination" one could point out is that the overseers dock pay and provide poor working conditions, and lay them off on a whim. That has little to do with rural-urban, but a poor establishment of workers' legal rights. Again, it has nothing to do with what you described as "discrimination against rural China".

institutional corruption of chinese bureacracy almost caused a nationa-wide riot by peasants, who were given white slip for their products because the officials diverged the funds to coastal provinces for real estate speculation against regulations.

That's not an example of discrimination nor was it systemic. That's basically just illegal graft and criminal activity. For something to be systemic, it has to be within the system, is legal and carried out by the state as though its policy. One thing I'd call systemtic "discrimination" would be the control of rural-urban migration and the classification of people as "rural" and "urban". But you didn't mention that. So I'd do it for you. Now you might think it's BS and that people should be free to travel wherever they want...

...And turn the major showcase cities into massive slums saturated with unemployment. Again, China's problem is an excess of labor and lack of economic capital to turn it into a "first-rate modern country". But I'd rather see China as a large region of multiple "states" with a great spectrum of economic developments under a single system of government.

the process itself is riddled with inefficiency, with stealing of state property, with tons of people gaining wealth illegally at the expense of others, with resources being wasted, with environment being polluted, with inequalty being enlarged.

And this has happened with every single growing economies in the world. You think China could honestly prevent all this by having a democractic government?

You know what, I don't do too much of this to compatriots, but this time:
L~MAO.

The nature of the government has little bearing on the extent of the other undesirables of industrialization.
In fact, democracy may actually make it worse.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

20 years ago around today, Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was packed with Chinese citizens who believe they could make a difference and change China for better. They were from different social backrounds; there were students, workers, government officials, merchants and others. They were motivated by different reasons; some were disgusted by the surging level of corruption; some were appalled by the increasing economic inequality and raising inflation; many others were unsatisifed that political reforms were lagging behind economic reform that China, while embracing capitalism, was still ruled by one party who did not want to share its power with the people. Together, they asked the Chinese communist party to further political reforms, listening to and addressing the needs of the people. Unfortunately, the conservative factions of the CCP prevailed at the end, suppressing the demonstrations on June 4th, killing hundreds if not thousnads of protestors in the process.

this thread is to commemorate the victims. Even though their goals weren't immediately realized. China is changing towards the direction that the protestors envisioned, whether the CCP likes it or not. 30 years of economic reforms have made Chinese society more wealthy, more educated, more plurastic and more vocal and active in pursuing their rights and freedom. More and more CCP elites are also realizing the inevitable needs for political reforms that increase consultation from the population, establishing rule of law, granting more social freedom and giving space for the growth of Chinese civil society. These trends all point towards the day when an outdated lennist authoritarian system will no longer satisfy and constrain the chinese society and the day when the ruling elites of China will realize continuing to monopolize power will bring destruction to themselves at the hand of the people. June 4 victims will be given a rightful place in history for their contribution of changing China for the better. They did not die in vain.

I commemorate the victims of communism who fought for democracy, freedom and human rights. May those brave Chinese men rest in peace. May all of those evil regimes following that dangerous ideology disappear from the face of earth forever as if they never existed.

[bushbush]

I commemorate the victims of communism who fought for democracy, freedom and human rights. May those brave Chinese men rest in peace. May all of those evil regimes following that dangerous ideology disappear from the face of earth forever as if they never existed.

and women...

[sephodwyrm]

Marx calls for elimination of private property and competition

Do you even read Marx?
Marx argues for a utopia of equality and no income gap. That's what Marx is arguing about. Unfortunately it also means the elimination of private property and market based competition. That's what the students are protesting against - that some people have too much private property and that the wages are somehow too wide apart.

They want reform in the POLITICAL system. The 5th modernization! (aside from the four modernizations of agriculture, industry, technology and defense).

The Fifth Modernization cannot exist without the 4 modernizations. If China has established the 4 modernizations and accumulated enough political capital and currency to safely grant herself the 5th modernization, she'd do so. Unfortunately, she doesn't even come close to any of the 4. Perhaps she's doing well on defense and a bit on industry. Agriculture and technology is still lagging behind.

Don't get the priorities mixed up. The west never did.

Are you telling me that hukou, institutional corruption, denial of proper rights and etc are not systematic discrimination

Hukou is systemic discrimination, which I have already pointed out earlier, which I also have said why it is "somewhat necessary". As for institutional corruption - it simply does not fall under systematic discrimination because it is not systematic, it's not in the books nor is it discrimination. Don't bring in new things to the argument.

If you didn't read, I'd say it again:

One thing I'd call systemtic "discrimination" would be the control of rural-urban migration and the classification of people as "rural" and "urban". But you didn't mention that. So I'd do it for you. Now you might think it's BS and that people should be free to travel wherever they want...

could be at least initiated by then when the students were on the street.

They said they were. And the students demanded more, and the fat-lipped douche gave the Prime Minister a "screw you" speech. The students then demanded the toppling of the CCP. They convinced the Beijing garrison to leave them alone since they're really going to do it. And then the tanks were on the streets to get rid of the people on the street and then basically we have a new reactionary government that stagnated political advancements for a decade with more political brainwashing than the 80s had seen.

The students jeopardized the Deng clique who's actually FOR everything you wanted to come to pass. Good job, students. You thrashed bushbush's dream and you're the reason why he's in Canada.

and women...

[bushbush]

Do you even read Marx?
Marx argues for a utopia of equality and no income gap. That's what Marx is arguing about. Unfortunately it also means the elimination of private property and market based competition. That's what the students are protesting against - that some people have too much private property and that the wages are somehow too wide apart.

Oh please, nobody was protesting the idea of private property and market economy. They were protesting CORRUPTION and inequality caused by corruption and other systematic discrimination that did not give a voice to those who were being abused by the corrupt officials. How did the protesters advocate against market reform is beyond my understanding.

The Fifth Modernization cannot exist without the 4 modernizations. If China has established the 4 modernizations and accumulated enough political capital and currency to safely grant herself the 5th modernization, she'd do so. Unfortunately, she doesn't even come close to any of the 4. Perhaps she's doing well on defense and a bit on industry. Agriculture and technology is still lagging behind.

Don't get the priorities mixed up. The west never did.

I doubt that. You can't do the first four efficiently without also modernizing the 5th. China's problems today, corruption, inefficiency, instability are all due to its outdated political system. Don't you agree? Sooner or later you have to start reforming it. Why not earlier.

Hukou is systemic discrimination, which I have already pointed out earlier, which I also have said why it is "somewhat necessary". As for institutional corruption - it simply does not fall under systematic discrimination because it is not systematic, it's not in the books nor is it discrimination. Don't bring in new things to the argument.

The article i gave you is discussing how China's authoritarian system produces institutional corruption that can in the end destroy China itself by producing so much resentment in the large segments of population. Thus reforming this system is so critical.

The students jeopardized the Deng clique who's actually FOR everything you wanted to come to pass. Good job, students. You thrashed bushbush's dream and you're the reason why he's in Canada.

Come on, Deng was one of the political conservatives anyways. That was why he dismissed Hu Yaobang in the first place. If the CCP comes to realize the needs for reform, they cuold have started a lot of things earlier. The same things (rule of law, increase consulation, incremental democracy) they are SO ANXIOUS to do TODAY.

why not earlier eh? Wasting 20 years almost to realize that.

[sephodwyrm]

They were protesting CORRUPTION and inequality caused by corruption and other systematic discrimination that did not give a voice to those who were being abused by the corrupt officials. How did the protesters advocate against market reform is beyond my understanding.

Of course, because you still cling to the idea that the students love market liberalization. That doesn't warrant any future explanation from me since I've already tried, and you simply refused to understand.

The main driving force behind the corruption is the sudden abundance of wealth caused by the market liberalization. And the students are against that. They're against market liberalization and corruption, and they do it with the tool of "democracy" because it was the very same tool used against the Liu-Deng clique during the GPCR.

You can't do the first four efficiently without also modernizing the 5th. China's problems today, corruption, inefficiency, instability are all due to its outdated political system. Don't you agree? Sooner or later you have to start reforming it. Why not earlier.

If that's the case, then none of the European powers should have ascended to their current status because they had none of the 5th modernization prior to the 4 modernizations. If early is what you want, why shouldn't it start in 1961? Why did it have to stop for an entire decade from 1966-1976? And that was done in the name of "democracy" as well. People power. That's democracy. A tool that can be abused by any polity. For June 4th, I'm willing to believe that it's impromptu and gained the momentum of aggrieved workers who believe their right to have been violated by poor lawmaking and execution. But it is a dangerous weapon, nonetheless. If June 4th never happened, and students struck a bloodless and peaceful compromise with China, then China would have a better political shape. But they had to proof themselves to be a group of douches that simply can't be bargained with. And set the entire thing back by 20 years if you want to say so.

Deng was one of the political conservatives anyways. That was why he dismissed Hu Yaobang in the first place.

Would the 100 day reforms of 1898 worked if Kang Youwei wasn't the one spearheading it? Do not see politics as individuals going at each other, but rather as entire set of polities and collaborating individuals. Hu was regarded as Deng's closest advisers and a spearhead reformer. But Hu had to go to protect the Deng clique and maintain support with the conservatives (and hence the entire liberalization program of China).
Seriously now, with this I can simply raise my flag in false surrender.

Do not, for one moment, think that China answers only to Deng in 1979-1997. It was a brutal compromise and tight-roping, and I applaud Deng for being able to keep the balance and maintain market liberalization until his death. I even applaud his decisiveness in quashing the June 4th riot, except that I lament it should have been done earlier in May or April.

If you're asking me to sympathize with people that led almost to the end of the Deng-era of market liberalization, that's simply impossible. I pity them, but I don't sympathize with them.

[bushbush]

are we having the second Chinese Civil War ?

Of course, because you still cling to the idea that the students love market liberalization. That doesn't warrant any future explanation from me since I've already tried, and you simply refused to understand.
The main driving force behind the corruption is the sudden abundance of wealth caused by the market liberalization. And the students are against that. They're against market liberalization and corruption, and they do it with the tool of "democracy" because it was the very same tool used against the Liu-Deng clique during the GPCR.

I tend to see the demonstrations as frustrations produced by economic growth in the context of an outdated political system. Social pressures need to be released and without consultation mechanisms, protests were the only way for many to address things like corruption and inequality.

however, I don't think your argument that the students were against reform is valid. No one was advocating the return of the planned economy. Life was better for everybody. It was simply the fact that many people got even better at the expense of others that produced frustrations.

If that's the case, then none of the European powers should have ascended to their current status because they had none of the 5th modernization prior to the 4 modernizations.

They pursued radical economic reform which in hindsight was not as good as gradual reform. Credit to the CCP. But arguably if the former USSR countries pursued political reforms along with GRADUAL economic reform. I think the outcome would be A LOT better.

what can i say, the transition from planned economy to market economy was a new idea at the time. Mistakes were made. But that shouldn't discredit political reform.

Would the 100 day reforms of 1898 worked if Kang Youwei wasn't the one spearheading it? Do not see politics as individuals going at each other, but rather as entire set of polities and collaborating individuals. Hu was regarded as Deng's closest advisers and a spearhead reformer. But Hu had to go to protect the Deng clique and maintain support with the conservatives (and hence the entire liberalization program of China).
Seriously now, with this I can simply raise my flag in false surrender.

Do not, for one moment, think that China answers only to Deng in 1979-1997. It was a brutal compromise and tight-roping, and I applaud Deng for being able to keep the balance and maintain market liberalization until his death. I even applaud his decisiveness in quashing the June 4th riot, except that I lament it should have been done earlier in May or April.

If you're asking me to sympathize with people that led almost to the end of the Deng-era of market liberalization, that's simply impossible. I pity them, but I don't sympathize with them.

The protesters' demands were reasonable and a lot of them are being implemented by the CCP today. I just don't see how crushing them and then doing their demands 20 years later is any more rational then listening to these people in the 1st place.

[naq]

The Fifth Modernization cannot exist without the 4 modernizations. If China has established the 4 modernizations and accumulated enough political capital and currency to safely grant herself the 5th modernization, she'd do so. Unfortunately, she doesn't even come close to any of the 4. Perhaps she's doing well on defense and a bit on industry. Agriculture and technology is still lagging behind.

How can you know she would do so?
What guarantees that democracy will come after 4 modernizations?

And there even not any guarantee about whether 4 other modernizations can be achieved or not. There is no limit for defense, industry, agriculture and technology. China may keep "modernizing" those four forever and never switch to democracy.

[bushbush]

How can you know she would do so?
What guarantees that democracy will come after 4 modernizations?

And there even not any guarantee about 4 other modernizations can be achieved or not. There is no limit for defense, industry, agriculture and technology. China may keep "modernizing" those four forever and never switch to democracy.

taiwan and korea are the two best examples where authoritarian regimes evolved into democracy after sustained economic growth. Though Singapore is kinda of a counter-example --- developed country but nonetheless a relatively free one-party state. China is experiencing what taiwan and korea have gone through --- emergence of middle-class who is conscious of property right, freedom of speech and political rights, as they become wealthier and more well informed. This is also accompanied by general relaxation of soical control in terms of information, mobility, employment etc. So when you have one cycle of social relaxation, people wnat more. And as people want more, the govt has to relax further to release social pressure. This gradual cycle is what is pushing China into liberalizing its politics. It is a slow process but the direction has been pretty firm.

one has to be careful though, the kind of democracy in taiwan and korea are different from the west. they are much less liberal in many aspects, though having multiparty elections. They are still much more paternalistic in terms of state-society relations, and less liberal in social policy (gays, feminism, death penalty etc). What China will grow into is hard to predict. It might have multiparty elections one day, but other aspects will be very much rooted in chinese culture and domestic conditions, which are fairly unique.

vietnam is going through what china has been trough in the 80s right now --- gradual relaxation in economy first, though the party's grip of power is still quite tight. The problem vietnam faces is its economic modenrization today is running into trouble due to the 08 recession. That's the problem of being a small country, it is hard to deal with global economic storms like the 08 recession without suffering. Larger countries like china can put out stimulus packages and use one industry to offest another's problems. vietnam ishaving troubles with that right now.

[The excited one]

taiwan and korea are the two best examples where authoritarian regimes evolved into democracy after sustained economic growth. Though Singapore is kinda of a counter-example --- developed country but nonetheless a relatively free one-party state. China is experiencing what taiwan and korea have gone through --- emergence of middle-class who is conscious of property right, freedom of speech and political rights, as they become wealthier and more well informed. This is also accompanied by general relaxation of soical control in terms of information, mobility, employment etc. So when you have one cycle of social relaxation, people wnat more. And as people want more, the govt has to relax further to release social pressure. This gradual cycle is what is pushing China into liberalizing its politics. It is a slow process but the direction has been pretty firm.

one has to be careful though, the kind of democracy in taiwan and korea are different from the west. they are much less liberal in many aspects, though having multiparty elections. They are still much more paternalistic in terms of state-society relations, and less liberal in social policy (gays, feminism, death penalty etc). What China will grow into is hard to predict. It might have multiparty elections one day, but other aspects will be very much rooted in chinese culture and domestic conditions, which are fairly unique.

vietnam is going through what china has been trough in the 80s right now --- gradual relaxation in economy first, though the party's grip of power is still quite tight. The problem vietnam faces is its economic modenrization today is running into trouble due to the 08 recession. That's the problem of being a small country, it is hard to deal with global economic storms like the 08 recession without suffering. Larger countries like china can put out stimulus packages and use one industry to offest another's problems. vietnam ishaving troubles with that right now.

i must admit china is moving towards FREEEDDDOOOMMMMM you know democracy but in a snail pace at this moment we just had to wait and see how and when will it happen and also there are more and more news in china on protest, bombing and etc due to the injustice of the people which gives a situation for china to move or demand them to move

[Arto]

Remembrance for the victims. They will not be forgotten.

Now for some music commemorating the events.

[bushbush]

today is the day.

[Babur]

Let us not forget their sacrifice.

I have read Marx's and Lenin's works they're clearly very outdated lol

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

content removed by author