Freedom and Chaos in Tiananmen Square
China's status as one of the world's fastest growing economies, ever transitioning toward a market model, draws our attention to these fateful days of the summer of 1989, writes Angelo Mike. The political dynamic was always more complicated that it appeared on television. And yet there are still lessons for those who love liberty in what occurred in those days: the students created order on the square out of liberty without democracy. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (23)
As I read deeper into this article I realized I was reading the work of an anarchist. Mr. Mike claims that not only is this system possible but that a people can thrive in it. but as we have learned throughout history people need structure and they need leadership. The summer of 1989 was an exception, and only lasted for a few weeks. no one can possibly argue for a state of anrchy with this event being the basis of your argument. the students all had a common enemy that they could bond togehter against. They were led by theri need for change, and for freedom. But to think that this Utopia wuld have lasted with no enemy is naive.
Published: March 5, 2006 5:16 PM
One flaw in the beautiful free market of 1.2 million is that a few government tanks ended it real quick....
Published: March 5, 2006 6:03 PM
colin malone,
"but as we have learned throughout history people need structure and they need leadership."
That sounds elitist. The people have the problems, and only the leaders have the answers.
I wonder how events would have turned if those in Tiananmen Square had time to arm themselves as did the State.
Published: March 5, 2006 9:20 PM
It certainly demonstrates that the greatest danger to anyone is their own government.
It is hardly a condemnation of freedom of association that a government destroyed it.
I note that Mr. Malone states "THEY need leadership" (emphasis added), demonstrating the fundamental error of the statist: that they fear their neighbors will misbehave if not under threat of violence and death, fine and imprisonment, at ever turn.
It is unfortunate that, regardless of the examples to the contrary, the statist will look upon the actions of governments and statists in imposing their will upon others and declare: How awful that this happens to people in anarchy. They obviously need some order imposed to prevent it. Pot, this is Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
Published: March 5, 2006 9:52 PM
Colin,
The article illustrates a real-world example of spontaneous organization in an anarchistic setting. It is not the basis of an anarchist position, it is only an example of how and why it works.
There are a great deal of material available at mises.org to provide the basis for the anarchist position. The sponteneous peaceful organization of the people at Tianenmen Square is a demonstration of those principles in action, but it is not the source of them as you seem to be implying.
Published: March 5, 2006 11:28 PM
One flaw in the beautiful free market of 1.2 million is that a few government tanks ended it real quick....
In the same situation in 1991 the "Empire of Evil" which previously killed about 100 million people and terrorised the mighty U.S. with nukes went belly up, tanks nothwistanding. Death toll - 3 guys who managed to get squashed by a tank in an accident.
By now, the technique of peaceful revolution first tried by Chinese and first properly implemented by my friends is well-established (witness the series of coloured revolutions). The only thing needed is coordinated withdrawal of consent to be ruled, just like de la Boetie envisioned.
The problem is, as soon as people topple one government, they immediately start elevating the next bunch of scoundrels.
Published: March 6, 2006 12:57 AM
I respectfully remind everyone reading this fine article, that it is a FACT that for two whole days during the Tiananmen Square massacre, George Bush Senior, Leader of the "Free" world, sat in the whitehouse and said NOTHING in protest.
Could it be he was more concerned about the long established "investments" of his family and friends there in China, than matters of mass murder and honor?
It's just a question that lingers in my mind.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:28 AM
Had to chuckle reading that the Chinese were demanding democracy but they didn't know what it was.
Don't you see they already lived in a democracy? The only difference they didn't get to vote for the gang in charge. It strikes me that perhaps it is not only the Chinese who do not understand what democracy is.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:37 AM
-averros
The death toll for liberating the country is 100 million and three in that case. How many people do you think were killed because of political reasons in the gulags. Freedom isn't free. 100 million still died. That's a high price. You haven't considered all the people that died before that day in China or Russia
Published: March 6, 2006 10:22 AM
Yes, Reagan and Bush were busy trying to maintain good relations with China through the whole ordeal. Just goes to show how the well being of politicians is maintained at the expense of everyone else.
Published: March 6, 2006 12:11 PM
LibertarianTankGrease -
if you looked more closely into the Russian history, you'd know that 100 mil death toll was not inflicted on people trying to liberate themselves but rather on people collaborating with (or at least not actively hostile to) the regime.
Any meaningful resistance to bol'sheviks was pretty much over by the end of 20s. The mass killings begun later. The spectacle of people denouncing their neighbours and friends as "enemies of the people" was quite shameful.
The dissident movement from 60s to 80s didn't suffer a lot of casualties, as it didn't pose any credible threat to the regime which enjoyed support of the masses, just like the current libertarian movement poses no threat to the western democracies. It did an important job of educating people about the possibility of the alternative - unfortunately (for Russia and Russians) the dissidents believed in democracy.
Published: March 6, 2006 5:27 PM
OK, this is just ridiculous. A brief, ambiguous, un-sourced quote by a Berkeley prof intended to invoke a commie paradise does not a free market make.
Published: March 6, 2006 5:48 PM
Professor Schell said these remarks on a recent documentary on the Tiananmen Square demonstrations on the History Channel. I copied them verbatim. I don't see where the ambiguity is in what he said, nor how he could have been intending to invoke some "commie paradise".
Published: March 6, 2006 6:06 PM
Colin Malone,
Statism 'sprung from the tail' of organised religion, and in due course, it will cease to be. We are still evolving!
Published: March 6, 2006 7:22 PM
The history channel is not a credible source. Our own Dr. DiLorenzo can tell you about his horrible experiences with the history channel perverting an interview with him.
Second, Tiananmen Square is not a special organization of the free market. If Tiananmen Square is free market so is any rock concert, sports event, or almost any gathering by a private company. Most of these events are more free market with private protection.
Published: March 6, 2006 8:34 PM
Of course people generally pay to go to a rock concert or sports event – they don’t pay to go to a political protest. Such a voluntary gathering involves exchanging values, but not material ones. Furthermore, I doubt there was any commerce going on at Tiananmen Square – it was probably funded entirely by the students themselves and the charity of Beijing residents.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:48 PM
History Channel undoubtedly has problems in accuracy-but these were the words of a man who had observed the events himself.
Unlike concerts or private gatherings, people were actually living in the Square for weeks, and millions of them. A may free market exists when two friends play a game of cards as well, but obviously the issue of the scale of the market becomes apparent. So an afternoon's show with several thousand people isn't comparable.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:01 PM
What about Woodstock...or other festivals like Boneroo?
Published: March 6, 2006 10:44 PM
The students in the square bickered and argued like hell, they also quickly organised competing camps and leaders attempting to sway the students opinion.
Published: March 7, 2006 2:33 AM
Yes. And as I stated, many wanted democracy, and many wanted to leave while millions more came in.
But praxeology does not concern itself with the consequences of our intentions. It is concerned with the implications of action itself. This is why I explained that while the protestors demanded one thing, their actions spoke something else entirely.
Published: March 7, 2006 3:32 PM
We already know capitalism works. Many of these students probably didn't know what capitalism is. And the circumstances of this episode offer less than ultimate proof of anarchy's workability. (The unfortunate way it ended was pretty predictable.)
Published: March 9, 2006 1:29 AM
No one quoted was there, I was and it was a rabble, badly organised, conflicting cliques, with beatings handed out to rivals.
Well intentioned? Yes of course, but nothing like the nonsense written about here, shame on the Institute for such a badly written and poorly researched piece!
Why not talk to the students who were present, not one was quoted!
Published: April 5, 2006 1:11 AM
Impressive? Are you reading this from China? Glad to hear from someone who was there!
I'm well aware of the rivalries that went on between the different factions and radicals there. But intentions are quite different from action. That's why I emphasized the point-though it obviously didn't get through to everyone, and I blame no one for that-that though the students had differing interests there, there were radicals, moderates, democrats, and workers from around the country, that a single thing ordered their lives. That was the absence of the state.
After all, praxeology concerns itself with action, not intentions. The logical implications of the action of the protestors are something totally different from their stated intentions. They were all expert economists on themselves and were able to make order arise, though undoubtedly the situation was more than that.
But the implications are there for people to draw, and those are lessons we should adhere to.
Published: April 5, 2006 11:52 PM