this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2161 readers
8 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These two points are related. First off, Tiananmen did happen, just not as reported in the west. People can make almost any anti-China/-communist statement they like in the west and 98% of people will believe, accept, and confirm it. There is no chance of any censorship, in fact, it's the opposite. It's not just like when mainstream reactionary celebrities use the front-page of a mainstream newspaper to advertise an interview on a mainstream news website to say that they've been censored. It's worse than that.
Engels, On Authority:
Censor, defined in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (5th Edition):
Not only are 'China' and it's representatives not authorised in the west to 'suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable', the west will also share lies that are intentionally 'morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable' for China.
These stories e.g. about Tiananmen are calculated to be 'heretical, immoral, or subversive of the established order of government' of China. There can be no question of censure if such messages are (a) not prevented and (b) purposefully spread and given extra attention.
The very act of claiming that one refuses to be censored in the re-telling of Tiananmen reaffirms the idea that China is 'totalitarian' – even outside it's jurisdiction! More on this double-effect, below.
Censorship, same source:
The only disguised form in which stories about China appear in western media is the anti-China form. The only pain that most westerners are protected from is the pain of having to face the cognitive dissonance that would arise if they were to learn the truth after however many years of being lied to.
At the same time, with regard to Tiananmen, at least, part of the publication has indeed been deleted. Not by China but the west. This is counterintelligence as the deleted information would be of value to the enemy, China and the CPC. That is the very definition of censorship.
In this instance, the lie about Tiananmen is also intended to strengthen the bogeyman of 'authoritarian China'. That's the deeper motif. The surface details of the lie are practically irrelevant. It's the deeper mischaracterisation of China that is (i) harder to forget and (ii) matters more for propaganda purposes.
Tiananmen is convenient in this respect because it's supposedly about suppression of expression. By claiming that one can't speak about it, one implies that China still suppresses free expression. The perfect recipe for propaganda.
As the motif is only implicitly understood, it goes in subconsciously, underneath the intellectual guard. Someone might challenge the facts of e.g. Tiananmen, but they donn't even realise that they should challenge the framing (unless they've been taught to do so, which is really only required to get a first class degree, and even then…).
You might even successfully make someone see Tiananmen differently but, without more, you won't affect the lasting impression of China or the CPC as monstrous. And when some other reprobate like Zenz comes along with another story that supports the motif, the lasting impression becomes stronger. Even if western media puts their hands up and says, 'sorry, everyone, we got the facts wrong', all it does is make people think the press is ultimately honest. It didn't make people think fundamentally differently about China.
Millions of people accept the lie for several reasons. One of those, as discussed above, is that they're lied to. Another, as hinted above, is that they're poorly educated. A third, beneath the surface, which makes people not want to find the truth or become better educated, is that doing so might worsen their material conditions. Westerners know, implicitly, that their abundance comes at the expense of the global south, including China.
It's also not wise to discount the influence of paid bourgeois agents on the public discourse. These operate: in the open, as media personalities; subtly, as academics, teachers, priests, accountants, lawyers, economists (who are in the open but don't tell you they're propagandising, partly because they don't know they're doing it); and in the shadows, as social media puppet accounts and astroturfing campaigns, counterintelligence/misinformation ops, etc.
Just because western liberals and global south compradors claim that they are at risk of censorship does not 'change[] the thing[ it]sel[f]'. The censorship is the other way round, which means westerners are projecting. Westerners can say whatever they like about China or communists. Nobody will stop them. Indeed, they are encouraged to lie.
If it's a good lie, every media outlet will pick up the story and give it credence. That story will enter the public consciousness. It will be in the background of movies and novels 'based on true stories'. Chat show hosts, etc, will talk about it as if it's incontrovertible and common knowledge. And people will accept it, in part because:
As for the truth, you might start here: https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md#what-about-the-tiananmen-square-massacre
More broadly, you might enjoy Michael Parenti's History as Mystery.
Man one of these days I really need to just sit down with like a bottle of wine and dive into that repo. I have it saved but just never got to it yet. Thanks for reminding me about it lol.
Fantastic write up, it's easy to debunk a lot of the nonsense the press says, but it's rare that we directly talk to people about why they say things like this. Muddying the issue and forcing us to constantly be on the "defensive" with regards to AES is a very common tactic to prevent actual discourse and explanation. But this cut right through it to be very clear about why these sorts of stories propagate.
I'll be keeping this in mind in the future, far too often I get dragged into explaining an event did not happen as is popularly understood, and can even get people to understand that the press lied about it, but a week later the other person will return with a new fabricated story. I'm cutting the weeds off at the top, instead of removing them entirely, which is what your write up does.