t******n
发帖数: 2939 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
LC1 (ots) 于 (Wed Jun 5 13:45:56 2013, 美东) 提到:
顶锅盖说了赶快跑！
说是反独裁、反贪腐和反暴政都还勉强，但说是民主运动太不靠谱了。那些“领导们”
什么时候尊重民主的决定了？如果真民主，就不会有最后的流血了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Wed Jun 5 16:40:29 2013, 美东) 提到:
China has too many people like you. How do you explain the student movement
in Chinese history where blood was shed and life was lost? These are not
democratic movement?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Wed Jun 5 17:54:47 2013, 美东) 提到:
额，第一次不同意你的。
如果我看的记录片属实， 这次运动在民主方面还属于婴儿期。
movement
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
scherbenmeer (scherb) 于 (Wed Jun 5 23:27:57 2013, 美东) 提到:
不宪政无民主，
光提民主当然没用
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
LC1 (ots) 于 (Thu Jun 6 00:13:27 2013, 美东) 提到:
There are too few people like me in China, who knows to respect democracy.
movement
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
LC1 (ots) 于 (Thu Jun 6 00:15:34 2013, 美东) 提到:
如果小集团内部都不能尊重大多数的（民主）决定，谈何宪政？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cnca (爱吃苹果) 于 (Thu Jun 6 08:31:04 2013, 美东) 提到:
一粒老鼠屎坏了一锅粥。
失败当然是有原因的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
vix (do the noodle dance) 于 (Thu Jun 6 08:46:02 2013, 美东) 提到:
415到54算是学运前期的学自联很民主，后来局面逐渐失控，造成只能由越来越激进的
势力主导。想法保守一点就被赶下去了，和法国大革命一样，就差个断头台了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
syforum (syforum) 于 (Thu Jun 6 08:58:36 2013, 美东) 提到:
是这么回事，狭隘的民主概念这东西并不是普世价值，只不过是某个民族国家（集团）
的特有属性，不能照搬，应该批判借鉴，并对自身制度反省并改良之。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
vix (do the noodle dance) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:25:26 2013, 美东) 提到:
乱世只能靠强人。民主在动荡时期只能代表一种模糊的民意而已。只有等到上层折腾够
了，各方利益平衡了，分赃完毕，才有可能开始所谓的宪政和形式上好看又体面的民主。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:29:11 2013, 美东) 提到:
not sure how much you know the movement. if you only getting the news from
the communist party's "throat and tongue", then i forgive your ignorance.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:34:02 2013, 美东) 提到:
student movement is always unorganized and chaotic in any country or any
time in history. students are students. they are not professionals and don'
t probably agree on everything. but this can be said about any student
movement.
if 6.4 is not a democratic movement, then i don't know what is. one can
argue that none of these democratic student movements blessed by communist
party is a democratic movement because of the flaws you and i know.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
wonderment (wonder) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:46:13 2013, 美东) 提到:
我觉得你说的挺靠谱。。。。六四是个有民主诉求的活动，但是那些所谓学生领袖，很
多实际上就是中共思路的继承者。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:49:56 2013, 美东) 提到:
油管上看哒
from
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
newyorker13 (纽约客) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:55:16 2013, 美东) 提到:
六四有点恐怖运动性质。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 09:58:15 2013, 美东) 提到:
领导混乱所致…… 但说恐怖有点过了
民主不民主的，我的印象来自于侯同学。不是我共喉舌。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xuansu (xsu) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:25:28 2013, 美东) 提到:
movement
Simple answer: No.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xuansu (xsu) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:27:24 2013, 美东) 提到:
don'
If 64 student organizations were "democratic", then the red guards in CR
were also "democratic".
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:34:00 2013, 美东) 提到:
so which student movement in chinese history is a democratic movement?
point out just one and tell me with a straight face that it wasn't chaotic...
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:39:02 2013, 美东) 提到:
六四不是木有正面的东西。失败了，吸取教训才更重要。
...
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xuansu (xsu) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:39:50 2013, 美东) 提到:
...
None of them were really democratic.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
htd (孩儿她爹) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:48:29 2013, 美东) 提到:
法国大革命挺民主的，人头滚滚
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 10:50:02 2013, 美东) 提到:
民主和血腥是两回事。运动到最后双方杠起来了，恐怕也只能血腥了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 11:26:54 2013, 美东) 提到:
okay, if you say, 5.4, 6.4 etc., none of them is democratic movement, then
you are at least consistent. don't you think your bar is too high? you may
be wrong, but at least consistent. i give you that.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xuansu (xsu) 于 (Thu Jun 6 11:34:51 2013, 美东) 提到:
My point is, these movements might have democracy as one of the goals, but
the method/organization of the movements themselves are not democratic.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 11:43:08 2013, 美东) 提到:
i think your definition is wrong. by this standard, none could be qualified
as democratic movement, period, student or not.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xuansu (xsu) 于 (Thu Jun 6 11:48:49 2013, 美东) 提到:
qualified
My point exactly.
I don't trust any group that couldn't even organize itself based on the
principle it espouse to ultimately realize that goal.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangbin (catzilla) 于 (Thu Jun 6 11:57:23 2013, 美东) 提到:
64严格讲确实不是民主运动，而是一小撮人民向一小撮专权者争取更多权利的运动。
专权者一开始拥有更多的资源，一小撮人民在2个月中没有获得大于专权者的资源，
所以在决战中败北。一大撮人民在这两小撮的战斗中被殃及。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:35:40 2013, 美东) 提到:
基本属实
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:35:41 2013, 美东) 提到:
what a bunch of crap? 64严格讲确实不是民主运动? did you do scientific
research on that? what is your source of info? did you actually
participate? why is your claim of 一小撮人民? how much is 一小撮人民?
having a whole city of beijing people behind you is 一小撮人民? are you
kidding me?
by the 6.4 magnitude, any gov would have been toppled if it were Egypt or
any eastern european country. only in china, communist would still survive
with tanks and automatic weapons. and yet, people like you and the LZ would
somehow "change" the history and be the "throat and tongue" of this brutal
regime.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
vix (do the noodle dance) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:44:32 2013, 美东) 提到:
闹事的，搞运动的从来都是一小撮，能从45的几十个学生散步，到415几万人递请愿书
，到519几百万人游行支持，能称得上代表民意了。而敢于站在土共这个专制的对立面
的，都可以算民主了。你说的这一大撮人民反正谁上台也从来都是被代表的，无所谓殃
及了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:44:47 2013, 美东) 提到:
totally false.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:51:58 2013, 美东) 提到:
bottom line is the lack of trust of the system......because china doesn't
have such a democratic system. on that point, we agree.
but a broader point is fundamentally 6.4 started out as student appeal to
the gov for a free press, against corruption, and more liberty to citizen.
basic rights that every citizen in every democracy in the world enjoys......
but still none of which exists today in china.
to say 6.4 is not a student democratic movement is almost to say 5.4 is not
a student democratic movement.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:52:28 2013, 美东) 提到:
there wasn't a democratic process for the mass to express what they want.
the movement was badly organized, which was understandable.
to give you an example, Ms Chai decided that ppl occupying the square should
vote to decide whether to leave. that was probably the closest thing they
had to a democratic process. but the problem was many of those who wanted to
leave would have left already, so the result of the voting would always be
skewed towards staying.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:54:56 2013, 美东) 提到:
i think u and i agree on these facts you stated. our disagreement lies in
the definition of a democratic process.
..
not
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 12:59:28 2013, 美东) 提到:
personally i am not a fan of Chai or several other so called student leaders
. they definitely have personal and selfish reasons to join the movement.
but look beyond that.....beyond one or two individuals and their limitations
. look at the bigger picture. look at the will and aspiration of the
majority students and civilians.
several petitions to the gov -
1. free press
2. against corruption
3. human rights
if you focus on the fundamentals, you would conclude differently.
would you believe any democratic movement or student movement free of
personal ambitions and interests? i am not that naive. but that should NOT
stop you to believe that the whole movement was right and just for the
chinese society 24 years ago and still is.
should
to
be
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:06:58 2013, 美东) 提到:
we both believe the common goals of the mass were good to begin with. but we
need to learn from such a failed movement. the lack of a democratic process
in the movement itself is fatal and would turn me away from participating
in it. it would to naive to replace an existing non-democratic system with a
brand new one.
leaders
limitations
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangbin (catzilla) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:30:49 2013, 美东) 提到:
I think you my re-think your post. Please disregard all your questions, just
this line,"by the 6.4 magnitude, any gov would have been toppled if it were
Egypt or
any eastern european country. only in china, communist would still survive
with tanks and automatic weapons".
I don't think other tyrants did not have auto weapons or tanks, some Russian
communists even took control of the central government and sent the order
to their troops. They all collapsed.
The reason behind the survival of Chinese communists is those Chinese 64
elites only elites, they are defnitely 一小撮. By end of May 1989, they were
there because they wanted to. Students originally sitting on the square
left. At end of May, 1989, they had to recruit people to support them. Their
way: to send out lies and gossips about communists party's leader would
resign. So next day, they lost their left credit.
survive
would
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mdmx (没大没小) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:35:58 2013, 美东) 提到:
这些都是很空洞的诉求，根本没有可操作性。唯一有可操作性的就是让李鹏邓小平下台。
leaders
limitations
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:44:54 2013, 美东) 提到:
then we are sort of arguing chicken and egg - which comes first. the reason
for the movement is precisely because of discontent, unjust in the chinese
society and lack of right channel (rule of law) and due process.
the important thing isn't really to select a leader, even a wise one, but
rather to adopt a system where majority people's opinion is reflected in
making the law and governing the country (not just one party's and often it'
s the opposite of what's public wanted).
we
process
a
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:49:31 2013, 美东) 提到:
before you keep arguing it's 一小撮, you should ask the people who lived
through 89 and do an anonymous survey on exactly how much. in beijing, it's
more than 60-70% easily, either directly participated and got involved in
some shape or form. (it's definitely 一小撮 who had nothing to do with the
movement at all).
just
were
survive
Russian
were
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:50:54 2013, 美东) 提到:
believe these demands were part of the movement later on in the movement and
consequently the crackdown.
台。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangbin (catzilla) 于 (Thu Jun 6 13:59:58 2013, 美东) 提到:
lol, may I borrow your time travel device? I need it to run the survey. You
know,
it was the easiest time in life to run such a survey. People at that time
were all active and wanted change.
Aslo how did you get your 60%-70% number? My guess is 95% after 6/4/1989,
but
only 5%-10% actually "participated" before that day. Of course 100% citizens
in Beijing were affected, from middle April until early June, 1989.
BTW, if you follow your logic on the communists side, all citizen in beijing
, supported and cooperated the forcefully suppression of those "elites".
Also all people in whole China, including you and me, supported their false
claim that the "decision" was right, because no one stood up and disagreed.
It's definitely 一小撮 who had disagreed to do that at all。
s
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xuansu (xsu) 于 (Thu Jun 6 14:47:00 2013, 美东) 提到:
..
not
The students of 64 demonstrated through their organizations and actions that
they don't know what Democracy means. Then to think they are going to be
able to drive the political process to achieve democracy is entirely
unrealistic. "Asking the blind for directions" is a fitting description. "
Ye Gong Hao Long" is another description I would use.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 14:58:11 2013, 美东) 提到:
Then how to express your discontent and reason it appropriately is key.
Asking the leadership of a totalitarian government to step down without guns
and tanks in your hand is 与虎谋皮
reason
it'
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mdmx (没大没小) 于 (Thu Jun 6 15:06:14 2013, 美东) 提到:
that's my point, 唯一可操作的就是让领导人下台的诉求，表明这些人根本没有底线。
and
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
vix (do the noodle dance) 于 (Thu Jun 6 15:30:46 2013, 美东) 提到:
直到519李鹏和绝食团对话都不是这个诉求。前面在新华门和大会堂的请愿也就和胡耀
邦有关。平暴录像为了洗脑方便，突出了让领导人下台这个很另类的话题。
线。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 16:29:01 2013, 美东) 提到:
不大不小貌似是说没啥好的可操作诉求。你知道有啥好诉求呀？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
vix (do the noodle dance) 于 (Thu Jun 6 17:49:45 2013, 美东) 提到:
417请愿书的七条是这个
一，重新評價胡耀邦同志嘅是非功過，肯定民主、自由、寬鬆、和諧觀點；
二，徹底否定清除精神污染反對資產階級自由化，對蒙受不白之冤知識分子平反；
三，國家領導人同家屬年薪，以及一切形式的收入向人民公開，反對貪官污吏；
四，畀民間辦報，解除報禁，實行言論自由；
五，增加教育經費，提高知識分子待遇；
六，取消北京市政府制定關於遊行示威「十條」規定；
七，要求政府領導人就政府失誤向全國人民作出公開檢討，並通過民主形式對部份領導
實行改選。
427游行就一条，撤销426社论肯定学生爱国
绝食宣言也差不多是这个调调
第一，要求政府迅速与北京高校对话代表团进行实质性的具体的真诚平等对话。
第二，要求政府为这次学生运动正名，并给予公正评价，肯定这是一场爱国民主的学生
运动。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Rubus (树莓) 于 (Thu Jun 6 19:14:26 2013, 美东) 提到:
这个运动有很多成分吧，有民主的成分，不一定占主导就是了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Rubus (树莓) 于 (Thu Jun 6 19:15:06 2013, 美东) 提到:
进步不等于民主
movement
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Rubus (树莓) 于 (Thu Jun 6 19:16:21 2013, 美东) 提到:
心中有民主就算吧，很多人思想里都是暴政。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
CleverBeaver (我不是Otter) 于 (Thu Jun 6 22:43:47 2013, 美东) 提到:
耀邦同学那么好啊？
这几条有种民主萌芽的赶脚。主要还是反腐多些。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Fri Jun 7 09:00:11 2013, 美东) 提到:
Dude, what matters is the approval rating. Do you agree, during the 6.4
movement, the majority (more than 50% by definition) approved student's
peaceful petition and political demand for a more freer press and anti-
corruption policy.
If it were small number, as you keep saying, beijing cops would have been
capable of dealing with the crowd and put the demonstration to the rest.
Have you seen anything in this magnitude in any country when a gov needs a
formidable professionally trained army with tanks to crack down? Stop the
nonsense. It's not minority but majority people were participating and
supporting the movement.
You
citizens
beijing
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Fri Jun 7 09:05:30 2013, 美东) 提到:
I agree. But before 6.4, chinese people were told (a.k.a brainwashed) that
liberation army is people's army; communist party is people's party. how
come people's army turn the guns to the people it supposed to protect?
before 6.4, nobody believed the gov could use military tanks to stop a
student movement.
conversely, if students believed gov could use the brutal force, there would
have been no 6.4, period.
guns
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Fri Jun 7 09:22:00 2013, 美东) 提到:
Don't agree with your first point. Democracy simply means major people rule
. It's not that complicated. The complicate part is the how, not the what.
How to do it is different from country to country. In the U.S., the
founding fathers looked at all democratic systems from ancient Greek to the
more recent 16th century systems in Europe before they wrote the
constitution and proposed the best democratic system they had in mind.
Note that what students asked for isn't a democratic system yet. The
movement is asking the gov to have the willingness to move to that direction
- such as open the press, fight corruption. In order to achieve full
democracy, there must be a more organized approach (like at what the
Americans have done). I don't think students had any political or
organizational process and model worked out. That's not their demand. They
were asking the gov to at least start the basic conversation and allow more
free press as tools to fight corruption and injustice, which were among many
social and political issues then, and still now.
Unrealistic, perhaps yes in hindsight. But to deny the just cause and even
deny the demotic nature of the movement, it is indeed very sad. Because the
people who died almost died in vain.
that
"
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangbin (catzilla) 于 (Fri Jun 7 09:23:00 2013, 美东) 提到:
Well, does not look like you ever saw those few people there in real life.
You lived mostly in campus and rumors. No one knows what those students
leaders' demands, they themselves could even agree on those things.
It is a small number, but as I mentioned before, Chinese society is
hierarchical. So cops would rather stay away from higher class members, and
let them do whatever they want. Those students unfortunately a few "elites".
No cop likes to deal with them, they failed because of that too.
The approval rating is a joke in China. On 1949, evil Maoists got over 50%
approval rate, they further boosted the approval rate to 100% in 1950s. Does
it make you believe they were legit?
One last thing, the students peaceful petition. There was no such thing
there at that time. Those students originally on the square on April were
not there on June. No one seems to notice that case now as both sides want
to hide this.
The status of Beijing during those time were anarchic, the government stayed
arguing between Zhao and Li people, and student leaders did not even care,
they simply wanted more people to watch them while function as human shield.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Fri Jun 7 09:23:40 2013, 美东) 提到:
don't understand what you are saying
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Fri Jun 7 09:32:18 2013, 美东) 提到:
Approval ratings are approval ratings as long as they are accurate. You can
't say they are jokes. Mao of course has high approval ratings and the
ratings were legit. Just like Hitler had high approval ratings and Nazi
German was a democratic country. They are not jokes. You are arguing
different thing - the maturity and ideology of a democracy. Democracy simply
means majority people rule.
The 6.4 movement had high approval ratings among general public. If it weren
't, it wouldn't even be able to sustain for half long. The majority opinion
was open the press, fight corruption, start a democratic dialogue with
public on many social issues. If the party respected the majority opinion,
there would be no 6.4 massacre.
and
".
Does
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangbin (catzilla) 于 (Fri Jun 7 10:18:07 2013, 美东) 提到:
enjoy your autism world.
can
simply
weren
opinion
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yariguy (yari guy) 于 (Fri Jun 7 10:41:55 2013, 美东) 提到:
i thought we were having a debate, not engaging in personal attack and
finger pointing. well. seems you don't understand what's a debate and how
to debate without bickering and personal attack.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
noitpo (权股) 于 (Sat Jun 8 13:59:49 2013, 美东) 提到:
当时大部分学生准备在广场挺到最后的时候，学生代表决定上美国镀金去了，挺民主的
噢，LOL |
|
