Thirty years ago today...

[The Romulan Republic]

The point is that this thread is about a particular event, one which we know happened and resulted in the deaths of a lot of people, and you appear to be trying to shift the topic with accusations of hypocrisy to suggest that it isn't really as bad as its made out to be, and to suggest that its only treated as a big deal because of anti-China bias.

[ray245]

May the victims of tyranny, that day and through the ages, rest in peace, and may their memory inspire people of all nations to forever rise up, until the whole world is free.

It's not as simple as rising up and liberating people, no matter how seductive that narrative is. I argue that the tendency of the western world to mythologise the rising up and overthrowing tyranny narrative is deeply problematic and is responsible for a lot of failed revolutions in the non-western world. The failure of the Arab Spring revolution goes to show it's not a matter of simply rising up and overthrowing tyranny. A country after a revolution needs to take into account of ensuring you can actually build a stable democratic government, and not allow the power vacuum to be replaced by the same set of leaders.

I don't deny it. In fact I've made the same argument repeatedly against advocates of Left-wing revolt here in America.

Reforming, or rebuilding a country is tedious boring work that's not really romantic at all. India is more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily make lives better for everyone. A overly simple narrative you're constructing will do more harm than good in the long run. Countries don't exist to make the west feel good about themselves like a movie.

Nice job putting words in my mouth, you condescending shit. Sorry I didn't write an essay detailing every step in the process of a successful revolution. But I'm aware that there is a concerted effort on this board by some to warp my words (or outright lie) to paint me as a stereotypical western Imperialist.

No, I'm just against you romanticising and simplifying a narrative because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I think too many western intervention has been driven by the need to feel warm and fuzzy inside, and this includes the politicians.

It's a cultural mindset of people in the West that led to many failed foreign policy worldwide, even if they have good intentions. Because the western world has a bad habit of seeing a revolution and having romantic notions of it turning a place into a prosperous democratic country.

This rarely ever happens. Both left and right wing believed that stopping dictators will somehow magically transform a place into a stable democratic country instead of a complete mess.

It's the desire to seek and construct a nice Hollywood narrative that's problematic. Romanticism and policymaking goes horribly wrong together most of the time.

[mr friendly guy]

The point is that this thread is about a particular event, one which we know happened and resulted in the deaths of a lot of people, and you appear to be trying to shift the topic with accusations of hypocrisy to suggest that it isn't really as bad as its made out to be, and to suggest that its only treated as a big deal because of anti-China bias.

You did read the posts before me right? Two people ALREADY raised the issue I am supposed to be trying to change the topic to, and another poster BEFORE me also suggested there was anti China bias. And if you're going to accuse someone of making it out as not "really as bad", then I think another poster beat me to it.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not as simple as rising up and liberating people, no matter how seductive that narrative is. I argue that the tendency of the western world to mythologise the rising up and overthrowing tyranny narrative is deeply problematic and is responsible for a lot of failed revolutions in the non-western world. The failure of the Arab Spring revolution goes to show it's not a matter of simply rising up and overthrowing tyranny. A country after a revolution needs to take into account of ensuring you can actually build a stable democratic government, and not allow the power vacuum to be replaced by the same set of leaders.

I don't deny it. In fact I've made the same argument repeatedly against advocates of Left-wing revolt here in America.

Reforming, or rebuilding a country is tedious boring work that's not really romantic at all. India is more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily make lives better for everyone. A overly simple narrative you're constructing will do more harm than good in the long run. Countries don't exist to make the west feel good about themselves like a movie.

Nice job putting words in my mouth, you condescending shit. Sorry I didn't write an essay detailing every step in the process of a successful revolution. But I'm aware that there is a concerted effort on this board by some to warp my words (or outright lie) to paint me as a stereotypical western Imperialist.

No, I'm just against you romanticising and simplifying a narrative because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I think too many western intervention has been driven by the need to feel warm and fuzzy inside, and this includes the politicians.

I do not mean to romanticize anything. I am well aware that people will suffer and die in that struggle, and that it is one we may never fully win. But it is still a worthwhile struggle to have, a necessary one to have, all the more so because of the literally millions of people who have already suffered and died for reform.

I write this not only at the 30th. anniversary of Tiananmen Square, but the 75th. anniversary of D-Day, as a fascist President of the United States uses the memorials for those who died fighting fascism to promote his fascist agenda. So do not imagine that I think reform is quick or easy, or that I think the West's hands are clean. But I also believe that the best way to honour those lives is to continue the struggle.

Dismissing this as me advocating western intervention so I can "feel warm and fuzzy inside" is an insult and a lie, and exactly what I was calling you out on. For one thing, when I wrote that response, I said nothing about western intervention specifically (you simply inferred/assumed that that was what I was advocating), and I was thinking at least as much of internal revolts against oppression (which Tiananmen Square was), as of foreign interventions against tyranny.

It's a cultural mindset of people in the West that led to many failed foreign policy worldwide, even if they have good intentions. Because the western world has a bad habit of seeing a revolution and having romantic notions of it turning a place into a prosperous democratic country.

This rarely ever happens. Both left and right wing believed that stopping dictators will somehow magically transform a place into a stable democratic country instead of a complete mess.

I am well-aware of the cycle of despotism-revolution-despotism, and I have commented on it many times when arguing against those who advocate rushing to armed resistance in the United States or other western nations. But it is sometimes easier to forget this truth when its not your own country on the line, so I don't object to your pointing it out. That said, the fantasy of the short victorious war is neither a universal western attitude nor an exclusively western attitude.

There are many forms of resistance against tyranny short of armed violence. And even in the cases where armed violence is necessary, I am well aware that it must be accompanied by a rational, plausible, and well-considered plan for post-war reconstruction to be anything but pointless destruction in a cycle of revolution and tyranny.

It's the desire to seek and construct a nice Hollywood narrative that's problematic. Romanticism and policymaking goes horribly wrong together most of the time.

A desire that you are reading a lot into my posts to attribute to me. That's what pisses me off.

[ray245]

I do not mean to romanticize anything. I am well aware that people will suffer and die in that struggle, and that it is one we may never fully win. But it is still a worthwhile struggle to have, a necessary one to have, all the more so because of the literally millions of people who have already suffered and died for reform.

I write this not only at the 30th. anniversary of Tiananmen Square, but the 75th. anniversary of D-Day, as a fascist President of the United States uses the memorials for those who died fighting fascism to promote his fascist agenda. So do not imagine that I think reform is quick or easy, or that I think the West's hands are clean. But I also believe that the best way to honour those lives is to continue the struggle.

Dismissing this as me advocating western intervention so I can "feel warm and fuzzy inside" is an insult and a lie, and exactly what I was calling you out on. For one thing, when I wrote that response, I said nothing about western intervention specifically (you simply inferred/assumed that that was what I was advocating), and I was thinking at least as much of internal revolts against oppression (which Tiananmen Square was), as of foreign interventions against tyranny.

You were talking about cheering people on to "rise up". Sometimes the best way to transit into a stable democracy is not about people "rising up", but long boring discussion to convince those in power to concede their power. What you are doing is "romanticise" the "struggle".

I am well-aware of the cycle of despotism-revolution-despotism, and I have commented on it many times when arguing against those who advocate rushing to armed resistance in the United States or other western nations. But it is sometimes easier to forget this truth when its not your own country on the line, so I don't object to your pointing it out. That said, the fantasy of the short victorious war is neither a universal western attitude nor an exclusively western attitude.

There are many forms of resistance against tyranny short of armed violence. And even in the cases where armed violence is necessary, I am well aware that it must be accompanied by a rational, plausible, and well-considered plan for post-war reconstruction to be anything but pointless destruction in a cycle of revolution and tyranny.

The fantasy of every non-western country wanting to be like the West is a deeply problematic western attitude, from the conservative and liberal wings of the west. What I am saying is sometimes the best way to transit is not via any "resistance", but very boring discussions and internal politicking that will see a change of guard in a peaceful manner.

Taiwan's transition to democracy was not via some resistance ( even though opposition parties did suffer), but via having a new leader that was more open to democratic reforms.

A desire that you are reading a lot into my posts to attribute to me. That's what pisses me off.

You're the one calling for people to "rise up until the world is free". Sometimes that can backfire, because it is not the most optimum solution.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you stubbornly insist upon interpreting my arguments in the narrowest and most stereotypical way, even after I have endeavored to clarify them, and to put words in my mouth (like pretending that I think all nations want to be just like the West when I said nothing of the sort), then there's not much more I can say, and I'd rather break off the conversation before things escalate to flaming and reports.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The fantasy of every non-western country wanting to be like the West is a deeply problematic western attitude, from the conservative and liberal wings of the west. What I am saying is sometimes the best way to transit is not via any "resistance", but very boring discussions and internal politicking that will see a change of guard in a peaceful manner.

Taiwan's transition to democracy was not via some resistance ( even though opposition parties did suffer), but via having a new leader that was more open to democratic reforms.

I'm a little confused about what your main argument is, here. Yes, it's true that there have been non-violent transitions to democracy in world history, and I don't think anyone (especially TRR) is arguing that violent revolution is the only possible mechanism for making that transition (remember that "rising up" can refer to simply popular protest as opposed to literal armed revolt; the American Civil Rights movement for one example used language like that in a non-violent sense). I would venture that K.A. Pital is one of the few people here who would legitimately argue that violent revolution is probably necessary, in the sense of being a step towards world-wide removal of entrenched capitalist hierarchies (though I don't want to put words in his mouth, either).

Taiwan, especially, seems a rather confusing example. Yes, the transition to democracy was peaceful. But the primary reason for that transition was the existential military threat posed by mainland China after the Western bloc led by the United States officially recognized Beijing as the legitimate government of China in the late 1970s. The last buffer to Taiwan being able to exist independently of the communist regime had been removed, and Chiang Ching-kuo (and his successors) explicitly decided that Westernization (and thus democratization) was key to rekindling close ties with the US in order to prevent them from being militarily overrun. And note that while the whole process was peaceful, at the time there was no guarantee at the time it would remain so (e.g. the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis). It just seems odd to me to raise this as an example when this is a very explicit case of a non-western country going out of its way to be like the West in order to foster closer political and economic ties as a means of protecting itself against an existential military threat. It was not, as you seem to be portraying it, a spontaneous peaceful emergence of democratic institutions in a thoroughly non-western context.

[ray245]

I'm a little confused about what your main argument is, here. Yes, it's true that there have been non-violent transitions to democracy in world history, and I don't think anyone (especially TRR) is arguing that violent revolution is the only possible mechanism for making that transition (remember that "rising up" can refer to simply popular protest as opposed to literal armed revolt; the American Civil Rights movement for one example used language like that in a non-violent sense). I would venture that K.A. Pital is one of the few people here who would legitimately argue that violent revolution is probably necessary, in the sense of being a step towards world-wide removal of entrenched capitalist hierarchies (though I don't want to put words in his mouth, either).

I'm saying popular protest might topple a government, but it doesn't necessarily translate to a peaceful stable democracy. The Arab spring in many countries started off as a peaceful protest, and in some countries those protests were enough to topple a government without much conflict. However, even after the peaceful transition, it did not turn those countries into stable democratic states.

So in other words, it is not a good idea to be a cheerleader of people "rising up", unless you can be rather certain it can result in a stable transistion, and not result in more of the same, or in the worst case scenario, a complete mess like Syria and Libya. Being a cheerleader of revolutions (peaceful protest and armed struggle alike) is being romantic about the whole notion of "rising up" without carefully weighing up the odds of success.

Taiwan, especially, seems a rather confusing example. Yes, the transition to democracy was peaceful. But the primary reason for that transition was the existential military threat posed by mainland China after the Western bloc led by the United States officially recognized Beijing as the legitimate government of China in the late 1970s. The last buffer to Taiwan being able to exist independently of the communist regime had been removed, and Chiang Ching-kuo (and his successors) explicitly decided that Westernization (and thus democratization) was key to rekindling close ties with the US in order to prevent them from being militarily overrun. And note that while the whole process was peaceful, at the time there was no guarantee at the time it would remain so (e.g. the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis). It just seems odd to me to raise this as an example when this is a very explicit case of a non-western country going out of its way to be like the West in order to foster closer political and economic ties as a means of protecting itself against an existential military threat. It was not, as you seem to be portraying it, a spontaneous peaceful emergence of democratic institutions in a thoroughly non-western context.

I never said it was a spontaneous emergence of democratic institutions. I'm saying it was a successful transition because there was a political will from the dictatorship to give up their powers, and at the same time, the main opposition party respect the rule of democracy and human rights to not exploit the new power vacuum.

So before anyone "cheer" for the people in any country to "rise up", you need to carefully study and examine what factions could replace the pre-existing government, what sort of policies do they have in mind and etc. People in the Soviet Union "rose up" against the communist, but what it did was to create a power vacuum for people like Yeltsin and Putin to rise to power.


TLDR: I'm saying sometimes "rising up" can produce an even worse outcome for everyone. People "rising up" in Syria did not result in a stable democratic transition. People rising up against Gaddafi did not result in a stable state after his death. So one should only cheer for people rising up when you are absolutely certain it could produce a better outcome, and not cheer for "rising up" just for the sake of it.

If you stubbornly insist upon interpreting my arguments in the narrowest and most stereotypical way, even after I have endeavored to clarify them, and to put words in my mouth (like pretending that I think all nations want to be just like the West when I said nothing of the sort), then there's not much more I can say, and I'd rather break off the conversation before things escalate to flaming and reports.

I'm saying "rising up" is not an inherently good thing. So "may all the people rise up" is you being extremely romantic, and a view heavily held by many people in the West.

[K. A. Pital]

People in the USSR did not "rise up", ray245. Gorbachov was a CPSU general secretary and Yeltsin was the leader of the RSFSR. There was no "power vacuum" and Yeltsin's actions along with other republican elites in dismantling the USSR were essentially an elite coup.

[ray245]

People in the USSR did not "rise up", ray245. Gorbachov was a CPSU general secretary and Yeltsin was the leader of the RSFSR. There was no "power vacuum" and Yeltsin's actions along with other republican elites in dismantling the USSR were essentially an elite coup.

I was more thinking about the people's willingness to defend Yeltsin against the coup in 1991.

[K. A. Pital]

People in the USSR did not "rise up", ray245. Gorbachov was a CPSU general secretary and Yeltsin was the leader of the RSFSR. There was no "power vacuum" and Yeltsin's actions along with other republican elites in dismantling the USSR were essentially an elite coup.

I was more thinking about the people's willingness to defend Yeltsin against the coup in 1991.

ATT Yeltsin posed as the defender of Gorbachov ("legitimate power"), later to simply proceed with his own coup, that ended with bloodshed in 1993.

But it was 90% palace intrigue and 10% popular action, especially across the land (outside Moscow).

[ray245]

ATT Yeltsin posed as the defender of Gorbachov ("legitimate power"), later to simply proceed with his own coup, that ended with bloodshed in 1993.

But it was 90% palace intrigue and 10% popular action, especially across the land (outside Moscow).

From what I remember, that's how the narrative that was depicted in the West (and the rest of the world via the western media). It was very much depicted as people rising against the evil communists dictatorship.

[K. A. Pital]

From what I remember, that's how the narrative that was depicted in the West (and the rest of the world via the western media). It was very much depicted as people rising against the evil communists dictatorship.

Duh. The West depicted the influx of radical islamists into Libya and Syria as "freedom fighters" or the Afghanistan islamists fighting Najibullah as "freedom fighters", only to later depict Afghanis as a 100% terrorist state or something, so the depiction in the West only depends on the West's current political goals and has zero relation to reality.

[ray245]

From what I remember, that's how the narrative that was depicted in the West (and the rest of the world via the western media). It was very much depicted as people rising against the evil communists dictatorship.

Duh. The West depicted the influx of radical islamists into Libya and Syria as "freedom fighters" or the Afghanistan islamists fighting Najibullah as "freedom fighters", only to later depict Afghanis as a 100% terrorist state or something, so the depiction in the West only depends on the West's current political goals and has zero relation to reality.

And that's the point I'm making to TRR. It's his kind of worldview that enabled western interventions in that particular way, because politicans can sell to people a romantic narrative of liberating people from tyranny.

[K. A. Pital]

They can also sell a narrative of a mob when the uprising is left-wing and thus usually aimed against foreign business interests.