The simple fact of the matter is that nothing of any real relevance happened in Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989. The Western media was present at a minor demonstration that was eventually dispersed by the Chinese authorities. Contrary to Western misrepresentation, people are allowed to protest in China, and exercise this right all the time. There have been many such protests both before and after Tiananmen in China, many of which could be construed as far more significant for various reasons as that which occurred in Tiananmen in 1989, but which the Western press have completely ignored.
It is an astonishing situation to see the majority of Indian voters elect an openly racist and hate-filled party that espouses intolerance, separation, and discrimination as normal modes of political, cultural, and social interaction. Particularly when viewed in the light of the fact that India as a country suffered under decades of British imperialist rule that saw the most vicious application of racism and ignorance in the name of commerce and the gathering of profit.
The latest re-writing of history in the royal mould has emanated from the mouth of the next king of England – Prince Charles – who whilst visiting an immigration museum in Nova Scotia, is reported to have likened Russia’s anti-fascist policy in the Ukraine, to ‘Russia behaving like Nazi Germany’!
Philips Matthews made an excellent speech quoting Stalin, stating how grateful the Soviet was for the European (and USA) support during the Great Patriotic War, and how he (Stalin) valued the efforts of the Western forces as they invaded France and began to fight their way across Europe, freeing it from Nazi control. Stalin said that the Soviet people drew strength from this show of support. The Mayor of Southwark, Abdul Mohamed, spoke about the importance of the defeat of fascism and communities living in peace, whilst the Russian Embassy representative – Minister-Counsellor Alexander Kramarenko – made a very poignant speech stating that as long as Russia exists, the Soviet sacrifice will never be forgotten. He spoke at length about the importance of the defeat of fascism in 1945, and how it is important to remain forever watchful in the present time. He reminded the crowd that fascism had re-emerged in the Ukraine, and that it was a threat to world peace. Indeed, the Ukrainian delegation refused to visit the memorial on the same day as the surviving veterans (who had fought for their freedom in WWII), but instead elected to lay their wreath a day earlier. The only speaker who was noticeably out of place was Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes representing the current and highly rightwing ConDem Coalition government of the UK. Simon Hughes is the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties, and yet ironically attracted controversy in 2013 with his pro-Christian, homophobic rhetoric, which he used when expressing his opposition to gay marriage, and the principle of equality between gay and straight people.
Bourgeois feminism is very different. This is the feminism of the middle class, and already socially privileged women. These women, as wives of the rich and famous, have had historically a remarkable amount of leisure time and relative freedom compared to their working class counter-parts. This apparent ‘freedom’ exists only within the framework of an unquestionable bourgeois patriarchy. It is freedom at a cost and the cost is humanity living free of oppression. Middle class women have had access to a greater array of educational facilities, be they teachers, books, or academic instruction. Middle class women fought for, and finally secured the vote because their privileged socio-economic conditions allowed them the insight to see partly beyond their own negative conditioning. Bourgeois feminism is nothing more than the exercise of political compromise as whatever concessions are granted to a middle class woman, they can not be allowed to directly challenge or alter the essential framework of the bourgeois exploitative state. Exploitation and class difference must be allowed to continue unopposed, in the old way.
UN anti-racism is thoroughly bourgeois in nature and those of the Left should treat it with the contempt it deserves, whilst simultaneously using the ‘official status’ of the UN day to work for the true ending of racism through the complete over-throw of the inherently unequal, uncaring, and brutal bourgeois capitalist system. Bourgeois ‘equality’ is not equality at all, but a sinister mirage designed to make fools of its intended beneficiaries.