this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
154 points (76.4% liked)

GenZedong

4186 readers
25 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Shouldn't even take a book to come to that conclusion, honestly. Frankly, I doubt anyone who is entrenteched in the propaganda around the event would change their mind no matter how much evidence you show them. For them, China is bad, so everything else must follow from that.

Even western media, at the time of the event, said that basically nothing happened in the square. It wasn't until they realised that didn't line up with the US position that they changed their line, but you can find old articles (including first hand accounts from diplomats in the area) that say there wasn't much.

I don't think anyone denies that some violence occured in the city as a whole, though it was very often levied the opposite way of popular portrayal. Especially because a lot of the PLA that were initially deployed were not even armed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] comradePuffin@lemmygrad.ml 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sorry for the shitpost reply, but, lol no shit.

[–] StalinForTime@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I mean Gaddafi was by many political and social measures somewhat reactionary, due to some aspects of his nationalism, religious orientation, as well as traditionalist views of women, despite being more progressive in this respect that that conservative Islamic figures or Islamists. There was an immense concentration of wealth around Gaddafi, although there was also undoubtedly a massive restribution of wealth and improvement in quality of life, I don't think it amounted to a genuinely socialist society.

Ofc you are correct that this becomes irrelevantly weaponized by Western imperialism. The reason Gaddafi was removed was because he was promoting an alterative international monetary system to the dollar, presumably underwritten by Libyan (and allied countries') oil. More generally the anti-imperialist geopolitical policy of the Libyan state clearly played a key role, having targeted foreign capital the moment he came to power. There was probably also a central role being played by the French regime's special forces and intelligence under Sarkozy, as the latter had confirmed links with Gaddafi. A lot of investigative reporting has indicated that Gaddafi was threatening Sarkozy to go public with the fact Gaddafi has brided him. If seems that French intelligence located Gaddafi and likely organized the manpower who actually merked him.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fissionami@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago

~let me put this here real quick~

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Damn this post is a warzone 😂

[–] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 1 year ago

There wasn't a massacre on June 4^th^ 1989, but there is in this comment section.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›