• Elon_Musk [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I'm reading A. B. Abrams - Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences: How Fake News Shapes World Order. And I'm confused, he states that the Tianamen square protestors were protesting in favor of a stricter adherence to Maoist principals but also at the same time that were turbo libs and wanted western style "democracy", not to mention the "anti-government insurgents"

    Please send help. All of this can make sense in a disorganized movement but he does a poor job of explaining this imo.

    • KobaCumTribute [she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      There were different blocs. There were both weirdo libs and anti-Deng Maoists/ultras involved, who wanted diametrically opposite things. The western liberal narrative is that the maoists were a small bloc (if they acknowledge them at all) and the liberals were the bulk of the protesters, and AFAIK the ultra narrative is that the maoists were the main movement and the liberals were tangentially present wreckers.

      • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not to mention that the liberals were trying their hardest to get some bloodshed happening so that they could cry about the government's 'brutality' and lack of democracy. I think one of the liberal leaders actually said that other atudents should be brutalised for her cause but not her because she was too important.

      • Elon_Musk [none/use name]
        ·
        6 months ago

        "4) When protests broke out in China in April 1989, demonstrators were not calling for democracy, but purer socialism, free of corruption and inequality, which were endemic at the time. Students carried pictures of Chairman Mao and sang the Chinese national anthem repeatedly.

        Western hybrid warfare includes two key principles:

        1. Locate and amplify GENUINE local grievances, and

        2. Rebrand them as calls for western liberal democracy and freedom."

        interesting