Easy to be pro-China here. Enough already!

Red Winnipeg wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

BTW, would you please do the decent thing and change your posting name?  You obviously hate everything the socialist tradition of Winnipeg ever represented and want to see anything similar to it crushed and replaced by a society even more greed-based than the one we have now, so it's pretty much a lie for you to call yourself "Red Winnipeg".

Red hair, my friend.

Yeah, right.  

NDPP wrote:

'Be Hong Kong'

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1171513675838033920

"Be Hong Kong - Ranked #3 in the global Human Freedom Index - Ask #17 (US) to improve your freedom - Strive for a 'great result' of revolution like #118 (Ukraine) - ??? - Freedom?"

Or Propaganda, Subversion and Stupidity? 

What a load of stupid bullshit " global human freedom index" Don't buy into these ridiculously idiotic biased agenda driven so called study research rankings! 

Click on these links

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2089939/...

https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3023755/behind-hong-kong-pr...

https://borgenproject.org/top-10-facts-about-poverty-in-hong-kong/

Living in poverty and just above it is SLAVERY! How the fuck can a region like Hong Kong with so many people living in this post modern slavery (if someone can come up with a better term lets here it!) be ranked #3 in some kind of freedom index?!?!?!?!??!

Total shit! And on top all of that, the Hong Kong protestors are furious about an extradition bill effecting only alleged criminals according to the imperialist corporate media. But for some fucking bizzare reason, the people are OK with being slaves, living in a toilet/closet/pantry, and paying 70% of their earnings on rent!

 

WWWTT wrote:

Oh ya sorry that's right. I forgot all about those in the working class that want to work for their employers for nothing and don't mind living on the edge of poverty! Thanks for reminding me!

Caricature.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The problem seems to be definitions of things like free and fair.

“It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” — You sounds like Bill Clinton.

What is not a “free and fair” election is one where only one party rules. You have all of the choice you want — as long as you vote for the only option you have. Sounds like Henry Ford (“You can have any color [of Ford car you want] as long as it’s black”).

Red Winnipeg wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

“...better outcomes for more people than the US elections...”

I agree that the US would be better served by a parliamentary system with more parties that just two. China? It has one party.

That is your myopia.

Our political parties all vie to rule within the framework of the Constitution of Canada that was designed for us to fit into the British imperial system.  The system was designed so that the Crown is the one Head of State and it is Her Government and Her Loyal Opposition that rule on her behalf in the peoples name. The Canadian Oath of Allegiance is a promise or declaration of fealty to the Canadian monarch, as personification of the Canadian state that all Cabinet Ministers must take. We live under a unitary system. That parliamentary system has been degraded into a bastardized Presidential system where we elect majority governments based on the Leader's qualities instead of electing MP's that represent ones local interests. Once elected governments have absolutely no fetters on them for four years even though  they almost never represent the majority of the voters.

China on paper does allow other parties to run in local elections. They are the equivalent of the Marxist Leninist party here. Undoubtedly running for those kinds of parties, that have fundamental political system change as the core belief, makes you the subject matter for the internal spy agencies of your respective countries and no one takes you seriously because they are not interested in regime change.

I see a lot of political systems but I see very few that meet my test of a democracy because in the end no matter what country you live in it has a ruling elite that govern under a set of rules designed to enhance their power and influence. I also do not think that a country can be a democracy if it is part of an imperial based system because an empire's center almost always gets what it wants and always gets more than its share, therefore all citizens are not created equally or treated fairly.

If you want political power at the national level in Canada you join either the Liberal or Conservative party and you get vetted and if they deem you ideologically suitable you will get to vie for one of the 388 MP seats. In China if you want political power you join the CPC and get vetted and if they deem you ideologically suitable you will get to vie for one of the 2987 Deputy seats. A Deputy in China has every bit as much power as a backbench MP in Canada, i.e. little to none, unless they suck up to the bigger fish in the pond.

Having looked at political systems from a theoretical perspective for over 40 years I have come to the conclusion that form says little about how well a state does in achieving positive outcomes for its people that line up with the desires of the majority. In China I think the majority of the people like the fact that in one generation their system of government has allowed them to become a prosperous nation on the brink of greatness after having endured and overcome the colonial rule of the European democracies..

Red Winnipeg wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Oh ya sorry that's right. I forgot all about those in the working class that want to work for their employers for nothing and don't mind living on the edge of poverty! Thanks for reminding me!

Caricature.

 

Caricature? What are you talking about? A picture? Ya I don't get it. Please explain but I suspect it's some kind of lame ass sorry debate tactic.

Yes.  Illusion is everything. Without it denial becomes unsustainable.

NDPP wrote:

WATCH: "HK protesters wave USA National Flags, sing USA National Athem. Also holding Trump 2020 campaign banners."

https://twitter.com/liamstone_19/status/1173664416954339328

No surprise so many here in America's good doggy vassal Canada should support this.

 

Filipina Maids on HK Protests

https://t.co/qjrzNETSxB

"To talk to them about the protests amounts to a PhD on class struggle: 'It's we who should have the right to protest about our meager wages and the kind of disgusting treatment we get from these Cantonese madames,' says a mother of 3 from Luzan (70% of her pay goes for remittances home). 'These kids, they are so spoiled, they are raised thinking they are little kings."

Agreed that the Filipina maids are dumped on by the HK elite-Filipina guest workers are one of the most exploited groups of working people anywhere on the planet.  Pretty sure the pro-Beijing wing of the HK ruling class treats Filipina maids as badly or worse-not meaning to do whattaboutism on that, but simply to point out that we can't assume that those in the protests-which clearly are a vastly mixed group of people, some of whom probably were sent there by Trump to cause trouble-are more elite than the pro-Beijing wing of HK society.

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Agreed that the Filipina maids are dumped on by the HK elite-Filipina guest workers are one of the most exploited groups of working people anywhere on the planet.  Pretty sure the pro-Beijing wing of the HK ruling class treats the Filipina guest workers they exploit just as badly as the pro-Western faction does-not meaning to do whattaboutism on that, but simply to point out that we can't assume that those in the protests-which clearly are a vastly mixed group of people, some of whom probably were sent there by Trump to cause trouble-are more elite than the pro-Beijing wing of HK society.

What makes you think the pro Communists in Hong Kong are anything elites?

Nice try in making a blatantly false impression. It's because of these false hints that you make I doubt everything you write about China/Communism.

I have gotten to know Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong (pro Beijing as you put it) and they are not elites.

OK, I didn't say ALL "pro-Communist" people in HK were elites.  What I said was that a large SEGMENT of the pro-PRC faction in HK are a large component of the ruling class there.

This is consistent with the fact that the Party in the PRC has had millionaires and even billionaires as members for years.  This is simple fact.

And I agree that HK needs a clear break with Milton Friedman capitalism-but that break could be made using libertarian socialist methods, creating worker co-ops.  It doesn't have to mean having the place eventually be run exactly as the PRC is run...and for that matter, the PRC doesn't actually need an authoritarian structure to build communism.  It's about giving the urban and rural workers control of the workplace; it doesn't have to be about undemocratic planning from above.

There have been some very good things done for the people under PRC leadership; now, it's time to move on from the whole thing having to be about the leading role of the Party.

And I say that knowing I'm not the one who's going to be making decisions for the people of China, that I'm just one working-class guy saying some things.

I'd say you're anti Communist. Right?

Ya then just let Ken Burch answer the question! 

It's recognized by anyone who knows anything about Hong Kong that the wealthy elites and super-wealthy businessmen who control the city are pro-CCP. 

Filipina (and Indonesian) maids are exploited by everyone, regardless of whether they are pro-CCP or anti. Surely that's not a controversial point? 

Yes. Both "sides" treat domestic workers badly. 

In her sworn statement and report to the Hong Kong police, Uychiat attested that she was regularly beaten by her employer, deprived of her days off, was made to sleep in the kitchen, and was made to work from 6:00am to 4:00am everyday for nine months. She also said that she was prohibited to leave the house without being accompanied by her employer, and that her passport was confiscated from her by her agency. Her employer also repeatedly refused to hand her her Hong Kong identity card.

https://migranteinternational.org/2014/05/08/there-was-no-month-that-i-was-not-being-beaten-by-my-employer-abused-pinay-domestic-worker-in-hong-kong-seeks-justice/

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Filipina (and Indonesian) maids are exploited by everyone, regardless of whether they are pro-CCP or anti. Surely that's not a controversial point? 

No that is not controversial. In fact as a human rights lawyer I dealt with a couple of cases of exploited maids in Vancouver. I have never been to Hong Kong but in Richmond the people that we sold passports to in the 1990's were opportunistic business people who back in the day were mostly sweatshop owners trying to flee with the money they made off the backs of the workers. I am sure they would by now be toadying up to the CPC. WTF is it that says that those people are at least as good or better than people who support a communist alternative because Ken did not say a neutral statement he said that pro-Western capitalists in Hong Kong cannot be more exploitative that pro-CPC capitalists or officials. Personally I just call that bias because it cannot be based on actual facts. First off we would have to determine who has maids and what their political believes are and how badly they treat the hired help. I doubt if that data base exists so to say that one group is at least as bad or worse than others is bias based on nothing.

To clarify, I did not mean to say that pro-Western capitalists in HK are inherentlt incapable of being more exploitative of workers than those wealthy capitalists in HK who ally themselves with the PRC-that would be a deeply stupid statement.  I simply said that exploitation of Filipina guest workers in Beijing is not the exclusive preserve of those who ally with "The West".   

Rich people in HK, whoever they support in the HK vs PRC dispute, are known for treating Pinay guest workers like shit-as are rich people who enslave Pinay guest workers everywhere else.  I deleted the "or worse" part, because it took my comments to a place I did not mean to take them, and apologize for those particular two words.  I was simply trying to say that rich exploiters act like rich exploiters.  I could have phrased what I wrote differently and accept your critique as valid.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Affluent people abuse their workers because they can. Where are the labour unions in China that could protect workers from such abuse?

The same place they are in Canada, in a different sector of the economy. No unions in Canada are trying to organize our abused foreign domestic workers because they all work for different employers, no different in China.

Does Canada have the same situation as the US, in which domestic workers(and farm labourers) are not covered by federal or provincial labour law?

We Work To

 

• Promote migrants’ rights and dignity against all forms of discrimination, exploitation and abuse in the work place and in the community and resist all anti-migrant policies
   

• Assert the right to organize
   

• Strengthen unity among migrant and immigrant Filipinos and rally their families and advocates towards the upholding of migrants’ rights for jobs, fair wages and recognition
   

• Along with the national democratic organizations in the Philippines, we participate in pushing for the building of a self-reliant economy to stop forced migration, promote social equity and justice and unite with other sectors of society for the advancement of national development and democracy with compatriots in the Philippines
   

• Build solidarity with migrant organizations of other nationalities and peoples who are against the plunder of economies, destruction of the environment and wars of aggression that cause widespread poverty and injustice

http://www.migrante.ca/

NorthReport wrote:

So the citizens of our fragile planet protest against climate change today except in China which is the largest greenhouse gas emitter. Go figure.

I have no intention of posting in this snake pit frequently again - but I do want to correct this misconception because there is far too much at stake in the conversation not to do so.

****

The problem with stats on GG emissions is one of methodology. It is a critical one given the obstacle that global inequality represents to responses to the climate crisis.

Emissions are measured based on the geographic territory where they occur rather than based on consumption of the product of the emission or the source of the money behind the emissions and the direction of the profit. In many cases global production is based on parts coming from one place that are used or assembled in another. To see global emissions in this way is ludicrous.

I do not believe this way of measuring emissions is consistent with a social democratic, non-imperialist perspective as it blames the emissions on the host territory or the workers rather than the capital or purchasers. It blames the exploited rather than engaging with the exploiters.

Global business emissions production (think factories) is based on the same exploitation that is the foundation of modern imperialism. Global individual emissions production (think efficiencies in terms of how people live - cooking etc.) is directly connected to economic means and therefore to the exploitation of whole countries.  

I understand that capital and profit may be the fairest and most accurate way to measure emissions, however, I do not think it is as traceable as it should be, and I fear the loss of a critical statistic. Therefore, as a compromise, I would use the destination of the product - a consumption model (end user). This is easily established with importation statistics. Applying a consumption model, China would indeed be a major emitter, but relative to its population. It would not come close to North America either per capita or in total volume (I use the continent to include Canada on purpose).

North America is cleaner because it uses its wealth and power to move its pollution to other countries. While countries cannot agree on climate change solutions, at the very least let us on Babble understand the role of exploitation of workers and countries in the problem.

Put bluntly, if workers in other countries were not exploited to produce for wealthy North America, we would consume less. If we consumed less, then the territories where the most pollution is produced would be less polluted and much better off.

Putting a price on carbon ought to mean recognition of the economics behind the production of carbon and therefore the capital and consumption must be central to the equation rather than the physical location of the emission. It is uncomfortable for Canadian consumers to realize that they are exploiting others when buying products made below a wage they would accept in Canada, but that remains the reality.

NorthReport wrote:

So the citizens of our fragile planet protest against climate change today except in China which is the largest greenhouse gas emitter. Go figure.

I guess they don't feel that their government is totally ignoring the problem like our pipeline building governments in Canada, both federal and provincial. Our governments are tone deaf to the cries for action which is why people have to take to the streets. North Report you read so much US propaganda you can't help but repeat right wing talking points. Its sad actually.

Earlier this month, Donald Trump’s economic advisor Stephen Moore claimed that limiting our carbon pollution is pointless because of China’s supposedly growing coal dependency. “Every time we shut down a coal plant in the U.S., China builds 10,” Moore told E&E News. “So how does that reduce global warming?”

Not only is Moore’s statement simply untrue, but the broader conservative theory behind it is badly outdated. China’s coal use and carbon emissions have dropped for the last two years. In 2015, China cut its coal use 3.7 percent and its emissions declined an estimated 1–2 percent, following similar decreases in 2014.

If China continues to cut its emissions, or even just keeps them at current levels, the country will be way ahead of its goal of peaking emissions by around 2030, which it laid out in 2014 and recommitted to during the Paris climate talks last December.

In part, China’s emissions are dropping because the country is undergoing a dramatic shift in the nature of its economy. For years, China had been rapidly industrializing and growing at a breakneck pace. Growth often causes emissions to rise, all the more so when a country has an expanding manufacturing sector and is building out its basic infrastructure such as highways and rail lines. Heavy industrial activity — especially making cement and steel, which are needed for things like buildings, roads, and rail tracks — can be extremely energy intensive and have a massive carbon footprint. But now, as China is becoming more fully industrialized, its growth is slower and driven more by service industries, like technology, that are much less carbon intensive.

And the Chinese government is spurring this shift to a lower-carbon economy by reducing its indirect subsidies, such as favorable lending from state-controlled banks, for coal and other carbon-heavy industries.. “This is actually a correction for the economy because China is adopting a more market approach,” says Ranping Song, an expert on Chinese climate policy at the World Resources Institute, an international environmental research organization. “That will have an impact on emissions.”

We can’t know whether Chinese emissions will continue dropping every year, but China is committed to improving the energy efficiency of its economy and the cleanliness of its energy sources, and it’s already off to a strong start. “There is a set of things happening in China that will continue to change the trajectory of its emissions,” says Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Here are seven things China is doing to curb its climate-warming emissions:

— Limiting coal use. Just a week after that 2014 announcement with Obama, China released an energy strategy that called for capping coal consumption by 2020. China also put a three-year moratorium on new coal mines, starting this year, and it’s been shutting down existing coal mines. Cutting back on coal not only reduces carbon emissions; it combats poor air quality, which has been causing serious health problems in notoriously polluted Chinese cities such as Beijing and Wuhan.

— Carbon trading. Next year, China will launch a nationwide carbon market, the world’s largest. It will cover six of the biggest carbon-emitting sectors, starting with coal-fired electricity generation. This cap-and-trade program will build on programs China has already created in two provinces and five cities.

— Cleaning up cars and trucks. China is the largest car market in the world. Cutting pollution from automobiles, like cutting pollution from coal plants, is essential not just to reducing CO2 emissions but to clearing the air in cities: The government estimates that roughly one-third of Beijing’s epic smog is from automobiles. China is pulling old, inefficient cars off the road, providing incentives for buying hybrids and electric cars, and enforcing stricter fuel-efficiency standards for new cars.

— Making buildings more energy efficient. Two years ago, China started issuing requirements for buildings to be given energy-efficiency upgrades. The energy savings are just beginning to be felt, but given that buildings can last for decades or even centuries, there could be a long payoff period.

— Building renewable capacity. China knows it needs alternative sources of energy to replace coal, so the government is investing heavily in developing wind and solar energy. “China has emerged as a leader in renewable energy,” reported Song and one of his colleagues in a blog post in April. “Investment soared from $39 billion to $111 billion in just five years, while electric capacity for solar power grew 168-fold and wind power quadrupled.” In Paris, China promised that at least 20 percent of its energy portfolio will come from non–fossil fuel sources by 2030.

— Building nuclear reactors. Whatever you think of nuclear energy, it is one of the lowest-carbon forms of electricity out there. Earlier this month, China announced it will build at least 60 new nuclear power plants within a decade.

— Building high-speed rail. A wealthier citizenry in a more industrialized country will be traveling a lot more. To limit transportation emissions, China is rapidly building high-speed rail. It already has more than 11,800 miles of high-speed rail that carry 2.7 million riders daily, and expansion plans are on the drawing board.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/7-signs-that-china-is-serious-about-com...

NorthReport wrote:

We have had enough of the moaning and gushing of teeth. Let’s get on with it and turn Ms Meng over to the US as it is obvious only then will China perhaps wake up and release the Canadians they are holding under false pretenses.

Given your logic North Report I have no idea why the people in Hong Kong fear the Chinese secret police. They are so incompetent that they arrest innocent people from Canada and don't have a clue who our real spies are.

It comes down to what one believes. I believe China has a very good system of surveillance and knows the roles that most embassy staff play. I also believe that Canada like every other country employs people under the guise of being part of the embassy staff but whose main job is surveillance of the host country. Since I believe the Chinese are more than competent at the spy game I have no problem believing that the two people they arrested were low level spies. If they aren't why didn't they just arrest the real ones?