Loading
Jun 05

Six Four: 1989 and Falun Gong

Written by DJ on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Filed under:Letters | Tags:,
Add comments

This article is another one coming from MITBBS. Because the original post at MITBBS seems to have been edited into a truncated version, the full Chinese text is presented along with the translation.

To be honest, it seems out of place to discuss 6/4 and FLG together. But after seeing the “antics” of FLG followers in the last few years, I cannot help reflect on the way the government handled 6/4.

说实话,把六四和FLG放在一起似乎有些不合适,但近年来F LG在全球范围内的“表现”不由得引发了我对当年政府处理“六四”的方式作一点思考。

I personally participated in that turbulent movement in 1989. I didn’t go to Beijing, but nevertheless witnessed all the ups and downs that occurred between the time when Hu Yaobang passed away and when those “student movement leaders” were placed onto the most wanted list. At the beginning, just like all the other (naive) students, I was infuriated by the way the government attributed everything to “a few people”. How could it be? It was so obviously a mass patriotic movement started by a broad base of the patriotic students on their own. How could the government claim that we were being manipulated and used?! Such a claim was an insult to my intelligence and I was angry.

我是参与过1989年的那场风潮的,除了没去北京之外,目睹了从胡耀邦逝世到“学运领袖”被通辑的一切潮起潮落。作为这起风潮的经历者,我和所有其他的 (单纯的)学生一样,开始时对政府一再强调的”一小撮人“这一说法非常的不满和愤怒:明明是广大爱国学生的”自发“爱国行为,凭甚么说我们是受人指使?!直觉上就是感到受了侮辱,一种智商被人渺视之后的愤怒。

The irony was, we the angry students knew how the CCP began its rise in status and power. It was based on mass mobilization of the people through organizing students and labor movements. To put it bluntly, the initial role played by the CCP, before today’s P. R. China was established, was exactly that of “a few people.” It was because of “a few people” that tens of thousands or students were united in voicing the same demand and that tens of thousands of workers were united in massive strikes. The CCP got stronger through that process, obtained its own armed forces, and eventual took over the seat of power from the nationalists. So the CCP’s determination of the 1989 student movement, at its later stages, being organized and manipulated by “a few people” behind the scene, was perhaps “authoritative”. It was, after all, an indisputable expert at organizing student and labor movements.

愤怒的学生可知道GCD当年是怎么起家的?是靠群众,靠组织学生运动和工人运动。说句难听的话,新中国建立前的早期GCD就是屡屡扮演了这”一小撮“组织者的角色,才能让千万的学生联合起来喊出同一个声音,才能让千万的工人们联合起来搞出了那么多轰轰烈烈的大罢工,最终慢慢壮大,有了自己的军队,才把 GMD赶下了台。所以由学运、工运专家GCD政府说出89年的学运到后期是被少数”别有用心的人“操纵了,这种判断是具有黑色幽默般的”权威性“的。

But seriously, it was true that the 1989 student movement was being manipulated by someone, wasn’t it? The students had nothing but boiling emotions and superficial knowledges of politics. We started only demanding the cleaning up of corruption and smuggling by officials, yet the slogan were somehow led through a transformation into ones “demanding democracy.” There is a huge difference in political implication between these two classes of demands. So what was democracy? What kind of democracy was practiced in the west? What kind of democracy would befit China? Frankly, I (we) didn’t have clue. In other words, I didn’t know what I really wanted. I simply had this frustration inside, and a resulting impulse to go onto the street and shout slogans. It was as if I participated just to participate and I was moved by the simple fact of experiencing a students movement. Oh how very much we were moved by ourselves. And then things got out of control. The “student leaders” advocated for a hunger strike to force the issue on the government. And just like that, many students heeded the call and went on hunger strike. When the government repeatedly appealed for it was time to end the madness and repeatedly requested people to stay home in radio and TV broadcasts, one with some common sense should have expected something was about to happen. But because the “leaders” refused to change stance, the students wouldn’t back off. So the whole thing dragged on, until the dawn of 6/4, into a bloodshed. Yet a miracle happened, those “leaders” somehow managed to escape unharmed.

89 学运最终被人利用,难道不是这样的么?学生们几乎一无所有,有的只是满腔的激情和对政治的一知半解;我们只知道要反贪污、反官倒,但后来的口号被引导成 “要民主”。从“反贪污”到“要民主”,这其中的政治意义上的差别是非常大的。但到底什么是民主,西方社会的民主是怎样的,什么是适合中国人民的民主,老实说我(们)当时真的没有概念。换句话说,我并不知道我真正想要的是什么。反正就是不爽,就是想上街喊口号,就是为着能体验一下学生运动而感到激动。我们被自己的所作所为感动得一塌糊涂。再后来,局面失控了,“学运领袖”们呼吁绝食逼政府表态,那么多的学生真的就绝食了,一直到政府反复提醒是时候收场了,反复在收音机里电视里说不要出门不要上街,有点政治嗅觉的人都或多或少感觉到有事情会发生了。可“领袖”不发话,学生当然不能撤,就这么一直到六四的凌晨,到传说中的“血洗”发生。然而“领袖”们却奇迹般地全身而退。

Yes, we were young and naive, but weren’t there supposed to be many “mature and thoughtful” people as well? Let’s turn around and see where those “student leaders” are and examine their words and deeds nowadays. For example, didn’t Wang Dan [note: one of the most prominent 1989 student leaders] just pick that so called “born for politics” Grace Wang for the [Chinese Youth Human Rights] award. If you have similarly experienced those events in 1989, please put your hand over your heart and answer this question: if the time could be turned back twenty years, would you still follow those “leaders”? I know I wouldn’t. The very thought of it sickens me.

我们年轻幼稚,可是“成熟有想法”的大有人在。如今回过头来看看那些当年的”学运领袖“们现在在哪里,再看看他们如今的言论吧。看看王蛋做评审选出来的那个号称”为政治而生的“脏毒千元女吧。大家都是过来人,扪心自问,如果时光倒流20年,你还会追随他们吗?至少我不会,恶心。

Let’s move on to the topic of the government’s tolerance (or lack of) for the protests and disturbances back then. How many governments in the world would tolerate people that block traffic in the city, intercept rail road transports, attack government offices/facilities, assault the military and even cruelly kill soldiers who were just following their orders?! Keep in mind, even in the “most democratic” US, the result would not be pleasant if one acts with a drawing motion in front a policeman, let alone an armed soldier. So why are there so many people blindly following the lead of the western media in blanketlly condemning the crackdown on those that attacked/assaulted the soldiers?

再说政府的容忍。现在想想,世界上有那个政府能够容忍民众随意堵塞市区交通,拦截铁路运输,攻击政府办公机构,攻击军队甚至残杀执行任务中的军人?!我们都知道,在号称”最民主“的美国,不要说面对武装的士兵,哪怕是一个警察,你对着他做一下掏口袋的动作试试?你死一百回都是白死。可为什么89年时的中国政府”镇压“了袭击军车、残杀士兵的人(不管这些人是什么身份,是学生还是”暴徒“),就会有这么多的人随着西方媒体而起舞呢?

It is true that shots were fired, and those who were killed must have included many innocent bystanders. The question is who should be held ultimately responsible for the killings; Is it the government or the “leaders” who conveniently abandoned the students behind? I don’t how many innocent lives were lost, but I know those “leaders” are enjoying their comfortable lives aboard. They have loudly proclaimed to be ready of “sacrificing themselves for democracy”, yet somehow have all managed to avoid that fate. So between the two, which do you think I would lay most of the blame on?

不错,如果当时真的军队开了枪,肯定有不少冤死的,子弹不长眼这几乎是肯定的。问题是这些冤魂应该去向谁索命。向政府,还是弃百姓和学生生命于不顾的”学运领袖“?我只知道无辜者死了不少,但”领袖“们至今都活得还不错,没有一个如他们宣言的那样“为民主事业而献身”。一忍再忍的GCD和撒腿狂奔的学运领袖,你说我该相信谁?

For many years since 1989, I had been reluctant to accept that I and the other students were actually so stupid and naive to be truly manipulated by others behind the scene. It was not until seeing the sickening words and deeds of some Falun Gong followers that I began to seriously consider if we were truly being fooled around, which is a humiliating thought for me. It was during Jiang Zemin’s rein when FLG was declared to be a cult. It was characterized as a case of a large number of believers manipulated by “a few people” with ulterior political aims. I had many close friends and classmates who were practitioners of FLG, and some still are. So you can imagine how I scoffed at such claims. Was it really necessary to condemn FLG as an evil cult when it seemed like nothing more than a loose organization meant to extract some money out retired men and women with promises of enhanced health? Yet it didn’t take many years for it to become apparent what kind of a cult FLG really was and what the forces behind Li Hongzi really aimed for. I have to give credit to the CCP, which after all was an expert at mobilizing the mass for political goals and interest. Looking back, the move to force FLG out of China really demonstrated the wisdom and foresight of the CCP. I used to merely feel amused about FLG and its silliness. Now I know better and simply feel sickened by it. So much so I just don’t want to talk about it.

这十几年来,出于自尊我一直不原意承认当年的学生们是属于”太傻、太天真“而被人利用的那一类,直到F LG在全球范围内一而再、再而三地恶心了亿万地球人,我才开始思考“被人利用”这个很耻辱的问题。还在江核心任职的时候,F LG就被宣布”是被一小撮别有用心的人“操纵和利用的团体,继而被宣布是”有政治目的的邪教“。我有很亲近的同学、朋友至今还相信F LG,所以当时相信有很多人和我一样,对这种“政治目的”说均置之一笑,至于么,一个森林警察,集结几个老头老太,搞搞迷信、练练体操,到顶了骗几个香油钱而已了,能有什么劳什子“政治目的”?可几年后图穷匕见,FLG到底是什么货色,隐身于李大尸背后的势力矛头所指何处,脑子正常的人现在都知道了。从这一点来说,我很佩服嗅觉敏锐的GCD。还是那句话,GCD是搞什么出身的?就凭那个吹小号的,也想跟 GCD玩?差了不知道多少等级啊。。。当年干脆利落地把F LG打出中国,让轮轮们如今整天恶心美帝国主义的人民,GCD真的是很英明。以前提到FLG,只是觉得好笑,但现在就是觉得恶心,太恶心了,不提也罢。

Just compare how the CCP reacted to the Sichuan earthquake with what those overseas democracy fighters and FLG did… enough said.

这次四川大灾,看看GCD政府的表现,再看看民运和F LG的表演。。。够了,不用再多说了。

Here is my closing thought: If I were to be still in China and my son was about to join in a “student movement” like the one in 1989, I would give him exactly the same admonishment my father dished out to me, “you think you understand democracy?! You don’t know nothing yet!”

作为结束语。如果我在国内,而今后我的儿子也想参加再一次的类似“学运”的话,相信我也会象19年前父亲痛斥我一样骂他:“你以为你们这样就是要民主?!你懂个屁!”

PS: Someone commented to me that I still don’t know nothing yet (about democracy). He is right. I still don’t really understand democracy. But it is precise due to this realization of my limit, that I would not throw myself into politics. If I don’t mess in things I know little of, at least I won’t be fooled and manipulated by others. And that is one of the key reasons for me to write down this post.

(顺便说一句,有位网友回应我的一个跟贴,说“你现在还是不懂(什么是民主)”,他说的非常对,我真的还是不懂什么是民主。但正是如此,我才再也不搀和政治,从不跟人辩论政治。不做自己不懂也不擅长的事,最起码不会被人利用。其实这一点也是我写这个帖子的原因之一吧。)


There are currently no comments highlighted.

39 Responses to “Six Four: 1989 and Falun Gong”

  1. Buxi Says:

    Great translation, DJ.

    It was just a few threads ago that some were expressing doubts that Wang Dan and Grace Wang are really less than popular amongst the Chinese community… anyone that spend any time *in* the Chinese community would know otherwise.

    The Communist Party is pretty amazingly skilled at sniffing out political opposition. I too had no idea what FLG would become 8 years later when the crackdown first started… but the political nature of it now really can’t be denied.

  2. Phil Says:

    ” I too had no idea what FLG would become 8 years later when the crackdown first started… but the political nature of it now really can’t be denied.”
    Self-fulfilling prophesy, perhaps? I’m never keen on defending FLG because it’s clearly a crazy cult, but I don’t think your logic here quite holds up. They’re anti-CCP now because the CCP is anti them. Pre-crackdown, it was as you say, just another bunch of old (and young) men waving their arms about in the park.

  3. MutantJedi Says:

    Echoing Phil, a good way to polarize a crazy cult is to persecute it. Martyrdom is a powerful aphrodisiac to culties. It’s an oversimplification, but where would Christians be without Roman lions?

    The brilliance of the freedom of expression is that it can do a better job at neutering crazy cults than oppression.

  4. Buxi Says:

    Phil,

    You ask an interesting question… we’ll never REALLY know “what if”. But we do know that this all started back in 1999, when in order to push the government into punishing FLG critics, Li Hongzhi mobilized tens of thousands of his supporters to converge around government offices in Beijing.

    That’s a pretty political act.

    MutantJedi,

    The counter example on my mind (especially when it comes to the FLG) isn’t Christians and Roman lions, but rather the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace (taiping diguo). Again, another example of different histories leading us to different conclusions.

  5. Opersai Says:

    @Phil,
    In the beginning of the crackdown on FLG, most Chinese were neutral, if not sympathetic to the FLG, even for a while after they were expelled from the country. But it’s what they did continuously these years that dug their own grave in the Chinese community.

    And, I don’t remember very accurately, but I think the FLG started to exhibit signs of political dangers and cult when they attacked few scholars who criticized them, such like the scientologies here. This was all before the crackdown of the government. I remember reading that Li had started to be politically motivated around the time the government was starting to cracking them down.

  6. Opersai Says:

    On another note, for likes of Grace Wong and student leaders, once they are expelled by the government, expelled from the Chinese community, whatever their intention or motivation in they had in the beginning, they fell into no more than the dogs of anti-Chinese force. They will have to write, talk and support whatever their masters want, if they want to get the budget, keep the “movement” live. That’s a sad ending to be.

  7. yo Says:

    MutantJedi,
    I agree to a point. Consider Al-Queda for example. While some of our actions has indeed helped their recruitment efforts, I think we will hurt them more in the long run if we kill/capture their top level leadership.

    But of course, and correct me if I’m wrong, an important delineation is that FLG has only resorted to soft power tactics and have not used violent tactics.

    In addition, I think it is more important how the “persecuted” utilized their blight to their advantage. Some Scientologists will argue they are persecuted but so far, imo, they haven’t utilized it to their advantage.

  8. Nimrod Says:

    Although FLG followers can be rabid, FLG is more of an annoyance than anything else. I agree that just giving them the noose to hang themselves is more effective (as we’ve seen) than persecuting them. Let’s just hope the next foreign-funded cult doesn’t read this blog and become more sophisticated and on message, hehehe…

    By the way, there is the theory that FLG rose in the Northeast where there was a lot of disgruntled layed-off workers and cadres in the 90’s, and that’s one reason why they hated Jiang Zemin so much that it was almost like a personal hatred.

  9. MutantJedi Says:

    Buxi,

    Good example of your point. 🙂
    However, I think the FLG doesn’t quite fall into the same category. What happens when you mix crazy cult with a popular political agenda? Taiping Rebellion. But I think in Taiping, the political atmosphere was ripe for someone to step forward. It followed on the heals of the First Opium War. The historical contexts are very different. Did the FLG represent the same degree of danger?

    yo,

    The Al-Queda is very different than a crazy cult. And much more dangerous. In the bigger picture, fundamentalist theology (pick – Christian, Islamic, whatever) mixed with an equally myopic political agenda is scarier than a zombie movie. At least the zombies are looking for brains.

    Scientologists aren’t so much persecuted as mocked and exposed. What can they say when Tom Cruise froths on YouTube? Xenu? You’ve got to be kidding.

    About FLG, I don’t know a lot really but probably more than most Westerners. I’m skeptical of Qi and suspicious of people claiming to have special truth. Li Hongzhi says that my kids have no place in heaven, implying that they are a spawn of moral degeneration. Racism, eh. Too bad that isn’t on YouTube. I wonder how many New Agers know.

    I don’t know how dangerous they were/are as there is so much I don’t understand. How could they have been criticized? Question Qi? But that’s a big part of the culture right? Something I’ll need to understand. Rat out the Racism? But maybe that might find sympathetic ears and it probably wasn’t even an issue in 1999. Or just write them off as an annoyance? But a witch hunt? Again, scarier than a zombie movie.

    The fascinating thing about the FLG story is the storm that surrounds it. For example, I listened to a report on the CBC about Kilgour and Matas’s report about organ harvesting. It may be an over simplification of the report but it certainly seems that the most damning evidence to them is the lack of refuting evidence. It’s like the old question “Do you still beat your dog?” I think that part of this storm is the FLG hitting a sympathetic cord in the West.

    Sigh. I’ve rambled enough about the FLG.

  10. Charles Liu Says:

    Might be funny to see Six Four and FLG linked – but they really are.

    The US intel ops, a DIA officer named Robert Helvey, trained the Six Four student leaders on mass demonstration, “non-violent warfare” techniques in HK prior to the protest.

    And today Col. Helvey is a advisor to FLG. BTW Heley, Sharp, are key figures in “color revolutions” around the world (Burma’s “Saffron Revolution”, “Orange”, “Velvet” revolutions of Eastern Europe.)

  11. yo Says:

    Charles,
    Well, I’m wondering if Robert Helvey was working as a representative the of U.S. gov or was he doing it as a private citizen. Perhaps I’m reading in too much.

  12. Buxi Says:

    MutantJedi,

    I don’t know how dangerous they were/are as there is so much I don’t understand. How could they have been criticized?

    Here’s the sequence of events according to the Chinese government (and I don’t think these basic facts are in dispute)…

    http://www.cctv.com/specials/falungong/990722/fl8.html

    – April 19th, Tianjin Normal University’s campus newspaper published an article by a science academic titled: “I don’t approve of young people training with Qi Gong”. (我不赞成青少年练气功)

    – By April 22nd, 3000+ Falun Gong people began to protest in Tianjin, holding a sit-in on campus,

    – Li Hongzhi arrived in Beijing on the 22nd, and then left on the 24th.

    – On the 25th, 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners surrounded the central government compound at Zhongnanhai.

    This definitely got the government’s attention.

  13. yo Says:

    So there is a cult of personality around Hongzhi and a clear organizational skill. Dangerous, I wouldn’t say so, well, as far as the evidence suggests. I read somewhere here that Hongzhi had a grudge against the government even before the crackdown, is there evidence to suggest this?

  14. Charles Liu Says:

    Yo, Col. Robert Helvey, and Gene Sharp, their Albert Einstein Institute, are key figures in America’s “non-violent warfare” foreign policy implement.

    Helvey was definitely an intelligence asset at the time, as he was still a DIA officer and US mebassy military attache in SE Asia. Today Einstein Institute is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (check wikipedia for NED.)

    All this is public information that can be Googled, like this one:

    http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Color_Revolutions/color_revolutions.html

    As to Falun Gong, here’s a Pulitzer winner from WSJ that sheds light on what went down:

    http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/international-reporting/works/index3.html

  15. Buxi Says:

    yo,

    I don’t think defining anything/anyone “dangerous” can be an objective thing, it’s obviously subjective. Superman wouldn’t think a nuclear warhead was dangerous, while diabetics fear ice cream. So, what I said above isn’t meant to be proof Falun Gong is “dangerous”.

    I was just recapping what Falun Gong did back in 1999 to show it was an organization with *political* strength and intent.

  16. yo Says:

    Buxi,
    ah, my misinterpretation. Sorry about that. As for dangerous, I would say if lives are threaten, then it would be dangerous, but then again I’m not satisfied with that definition myself and how it relates to the current situation. So I agree that the term is still too vague in this context. For example, there is a strong argument which suggests FLG are dangers to themselves because they are against medical intervention(If you have cancer and don’t get treatment, and only relying in qi gong, you are as good as dead) but that’s a slippery slope and that would be a long topic for another time and thread.

    P.s. Your comment about superman, well, let’s stick with real people in your examples 🙂

  17. MutantJedi Says:

    Dangerous are people who plant bombs, who throw Molotov Cocktails, who kidnap people, who murder, who seek change through violence, or who counsel others to do such.

    Elderly people sitting in protest are not dangerous.

    An organization of political strength and intent could describe a union of librarians bent on literacy.

    Ice cream is only dangerous to someone with a medical condition. A normal healthy person doesn’t fear it. So, what’s wrong with a government that fears a bunch of old people?

    I’m not a fan of religions. But there is a wiser way to deal with their nonsense – expose it. The most vulnerable can be protected by legislation. In the West, Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to refuse blood. An adult can refuse treatment and, tragically, die. But the children can become wards of the state and protected from the nonsense of their parent’s faith.

    Is the religion a tool of an external enemy? Again, expose it. A 60 year old in 1999 was born in 1939. They were children during WWII. They survived the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. They bore the creation of a nation on their backs. I really doubt if any of them would knowingly join in on something that was anti-China, funded by foreign interests.

    What sort of sickness would make a government afraid of some ice cream?

    So. The measures of the government have been effective? Prior to 1999, the FLG hardly made a blip on the Western popular radar. Now, we have the Epoch Times. We have torture and rumor of torture. We have a couple of Canadian lawyers writing stores about human organ harvesting. Regardless how Robert Helvey’s of the world capitalize on the situation, the government made this mess.

  18. Buxi Says:

    MutantJedi,

    Elderly people sitting in protest are not dangerous.

    How about elderly people who write about the Holocaust? (See: David Irving) Or elderly people who preach from the Koran? (See: United States and United Kingdom)

    I’m not insisting that the Falun Gong was 100% destined to be dangerous. But I also know that the Beijing government isn’t paid to take chances.

    If, as rumors have long held it, Falun Gong was starting to reach high into both government and military branches … and if those practictioners were as faithful as the other elderly folks who’d surround Zhongnanhai without warning … and if the Falun Gong truly had political motivations…

    There’s absolutely at least the potential of danger.

  19. MutantJedi Says:

    Buxi,

    🙂 I’d be the first to insist that any issue is not black and white, even when I paint with a monochromatic brush.

    How dangerous is writing about the Holocaust? Deniers wish to cover our eyes to a systematic attempt to eradicate an ethnic group. Promoted too far and you have a host of other distortions. What is wrong with elderly people preaching the Qur’an? It is no more offensive to me than preaching from the Torah or the Bible. Using any of those books to insight violence, racism or other social harm is another story. Social harm is the sticky thing, isn’t it. I have no patience for the brain melting nonsense of Christian Fundamentalists. Which is wackier – Young Earth Creationism or Xenu?

    And you know, I hear rumors that Christian Fundamentalists have already reached high into the government and military of both Canada and the USA. How is that sort of mindset ever going to broker peace in the Middle East? Now, these people are dangerous in a world peace kind of way.

    Buxi, I know you’re not saying that the FLG are not 100% destined to be dangerous. And I’m not saying that they are totally benign. In fact, with their leader’s comment about the nature of my kids, I’d peg their culty danger mark higher than Scientology.

    http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/international-reporting/works/falungong9.html
    I’m of the opinion that the FLG is a bit of an opportunistic infection due to an imbalance of flora. Instead of chemotherapy, society just needed more orthodox flora. I think it spread rapidly, including into the higher levels of government, because the people didn’t have a competing knowledge base to challenge it. A little religion is good for a society.

    Squashing it violently only pushes the infection deeper, out of sight. As long as healthy and loyal religious expression is kept in a jar, the Chinese society will be vulnerable to infection. And, going further with the metaphor, the government has selected for a more virulent strain of well organized and underground type of FLG.

  20. lee Says:

    You guys are killing me here. Talk about “Dangerous”; is there anything that is not “dangerous” to the Chinese communist?
    6.4 was a joke, the dissidents of 6.4 were a joke. Many escaped to US and total forgot about the ones left behind. At least history remembers the sacrificed ones in the cause, but those escaped, they make me puke. I see them as faithless surrenders. I can’t compare 6.4 to FLG because FLG has the heart, they have the will, and they aren’t going away without verdict.

  21. Nimrod Says:

    lee wrote:

    …because FLG has the heart, they have the will, and they aren’t going away without verdict.

    +++++
    Then stop bothering ordinary people, they aren’t going to give you any verdict. Hello!? You realize that’s why people consider tonedeaf FLG activists to be nothing but annoying buzzing flies, right?

  22. Charles Liu Says:

    Lee, the recent counter-protest by the people of Flushing says it all. If you want a verdict there it is.

    FLG was outside the Flushing library telling people not to donate to the quake relief, drumming and trumpeting about the quake being retribution from God, BS like quake was predicted:

    http://falungongpolitics.blogspot.com/

  23. Wahaha Says:

    It is funny that you can always find “communist” or “communism” in their comments, it is like their views are justified when either of these two words appears.

    BTW, there are big difference between 6.4 and FLG : most students in 6.4 cared about Chinese and the future of China, FLG dont care. That is what I dont understand : they dont care Chinese or future in China, Why the 1234 do they care the situation in China ?

    Also, I dont think they use their brains, as you will ALWAYS get the same answer on the same question about China, like they are reading a pre-prepared transcript.

    Like the question : why didnt you donate money to the victims in earthquake ? the answer is always the same : cuz the money will not be given to the victims, the communist party will take the money.

  24. FOARP Says:

    @Wahahaha – If China now is not Communist what is it? Is that not one of the biggest questions facing China now? I’m afraid a simple process of elimination leaves only Nationalism as the main Chinese ideology.

  25. Buxi Says:

    @FOARP,

    China is a country. If you’re asking what the Chinese *government* is, it’s an authoritarian political party that claims to represent the voices of all segments of society as it tries to transition to a developed economy, and forward the interests of the Chinese nation.

    I don’t know if a simple label applies, or whether any labels would make any difference to you/me/anyone.

  26. lee Says:

    To me, the real patriot is the one who dare to stand up against the communist/communism.
    1. Communism was adopted and not originated in China
    2. Communist killed thousands of innocent Chinese civilians over the years
    3. Communist offers no human rights to the Chinese people
    4. Communist destroyed Chinese traditional culture
    The list can go on, but why those still remain silence? “Fear” and “Selfishness” is your answer.
    Some argue say communist has changed and allow some time. I disagree because their true nature will never change as proven in history.
    It is so absurd some “Chinese” would spend more time worry about flg than the communist. Please ask yourself what have you done for China and its well being?

  27. Wahaha Says:

    To FOARP,

    It is not communism.

    I am not politician, so I just tell you what I think of this system.

    1) Economical system is capitalism but government has control of most important resources and most important manufactures, like steels and military products. This is also one of the aspects how government controls the macro economic policy.

    2) Political system in China is single-party system, becoming CCP member is just a procedure of ensuring that only those who are willing to accept this system and accept the leadership of CCP, have political future or become a leader in the future.) No body will ask you to explain Marxism or Maoism before being promoted.

    A single party system is not necessary a communist party, I THINK the essence of Marxism is class struggle.

    http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm

    a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.

    In old times dictators brainwashed people to believe class struggle was necessary for social improvement or better life, and sometimes dictators used this to maintain their power.

    This idiocy was completely abandoned during Deng’s period. I believe you know the famous “cat theory” by Deng : “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice.” It is obvious that in Deng’s theory, class struggle is nowhere to be found.

  28. Wahaha Says:

    To Lee,

    Just say something about your master, Li HongZhi, the only one on earth who can decipher the mystique of human being and universe.

  29. Buxi Says:

    Lee,

    Why does Falun Gong care so much about China? Most Chinese don’t care about Falun Gong.

    I don’t really care about the Communist Party either, but I support its current policies. But it’s clear in my mind that eventually, probably in only 2-3 decades, the Communist Party will either disappear, or at least be extremely modified from its current form. If there’s a good alternative to the Communist Party, for the benefit of China I wouldn’t mind if the Party disappeared tomorrow.

    What about you? Do you think China can or should exist without Falun Gong? What is Falun Gong to you?

  30. Nimrod Says:

    FOARP Says:

    @Wahahaha – If China now is not Communist what is it? Is that not one of the biggest questions facing China now? I’m afraid a simple process of elimination leaves only Nationalism as the main Chinese ideology.

    +++++
    FOARP, you seem to be grasping a bit there to find an ideology. Nationalism (patriotism, really) is kind of the default for any country so stop trying to make it sound like something untoward. But does a country even need an ideology? I thought people living good lives was the name of the game. It’s a nice plus if there is an ideology to export thereby gaining moral dominance, but at this point it’s not at the top of my list really.

    But to answer your question, China is either running state capitalism, or market socialism, whatever you want to call it. The fact that government has its tentacles all over the place and is supposed to, puts China’s ideology solidly in left field.

  31. yo Says:

    Nimrod,
    I personally go with Fareed Zakaria’s description of China as an autocracy.

  32. DJ Says:

    China is not a communist country, despite the name of the ruling party. I mean, you won’t think North Korea to be a democracy because of its name, right?

    Now, let’s look at some numbers. According to the report at http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/734/38026

    [in 2006] the public sector employed only 32% of China’s industrial and service workers, and accounted for 37% of the country’s GDP. This represents a huge change from just over a decade ago. In 1995 the public sector accounted for 78% of GDP.

  33. Opersai Says:

    Yo,

    I personally go with Fareed Zakaria’s description of China as an autocracy.

    I’m not sure about autocracy. Definition of autocracy:

    An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single person.

    I don’t think CCP is a government where a single person rules. It’s authoritarian, but the power isn’t held in one single person’s hand.

  34. Charles Liu Says:

    DJ and Nim are right, communism is an economic system, beyond that is just political characture. Do you know America is not a democracy? We are a republic (so is China.)

    BTW when did China expand village election to township? Municipal, provincial level? I have heard district level People’s Congress deputies are now elected. So everyone in China vote in an indirect electoral (directly elected District PC elect NPC?)

    Sorry, in some respect I’m just as ignorant of China as other Americans.

  35. yo Says:

    Opersai,
    You got me 🙂 I had another definition in mind for an autocracy. I’ll probably disagree with Fareed for the timing being then. A single party – authoritarian government sounds like a good description, I’ll go with that one.

  36. Buxi Says:

    Charles,

    BTW when did China expand village election to township? Municipal, provincial level? I have heard district level People’s Congress deputies are now elected. So everyone in China vote in an indirect electoral (directly elected District PC elect NPC?)

    To be honest, other than academic political scientists, I think most people don’t have a firm idea on *what* is standard policy in terms of electoral reform. It hasn’t really been discussed in a very comprehensive way nationally (and definitely not internationally)… and it differs from district to district, county to county.

    District-level elections for the People’s Congress have been on-going for some time, but I’m not sure they’re competitive (more candidates than positions), and I’m not sure campaigning is even allowed, and I don’t believe it’s *universal*… it’s more typical for some group, organization to vote internally for a representative, etc. And then as you said above, the district level Congress than elects a higher level, etc, etc. Very far from a true representative democracy.

    There was a blog post here a few weeks ago about Shenzhen’s plans to implement true, competitive, campaign-based district-level elections. If these succeed in Shenzhen, I can only assume they’ll gradually roll out across the country.

    http://blog.foolsmountain.com/?p=148

  37. FOARP Says:

    Here’s Hegelian philosopher Eric Nolte’s definition of Fascism:

    Fascism is anti-Marxism which seeks to destroy the enemy by the evolvement of a radically opposed and yet related ideology and by the use of almost identical and yet typically modified methods, always, however, within the unyielding framework of national self-assertion and autonomy.

    Remind you of anything?

    On the other hand, here’s legendary anti-totalitarian George Orwell on the subject:

    But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

  38. yo Says:

    “Facist” degraded to a level of swearword, that’s a good observation. My oppression is it’s basically used in a superficial manner to insult a government one doesn’t like. For example, calling the U.S. government or Bush a Facist, give me a break!!!

  39. yo Says:

    Ha! I meant “impression”, got big brother in my head lol

Leave a Reply


Warning: fsockopen(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/chenlc03/blog.foolsmountain.com/wp-content/plugins/sweetcaptcha-revolutionary-free-captcha-service/library/sweetcaptcha.php on line 81

Warning: fsockopen(): unable to connect to www.sweetcaptcha.com:80 (php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known) in /home/chenlc03/blog.foolsmountain.com/wp-content/plugins/sweetcaptcha-revolutionary-free-captcha-service/library/sweetcaptcha.php on line 81