China

546 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Hey Ken Burch when 500 thousand protesters storm Washington congress senate and White House carrying the Chinese flag and hammer and cicle, destroying as much as they can and demanding communism then we’ll talk. 

The Peoples Liberation Army has an obligation to protect socialism against cia plants.

Never knew you were such a defender of the imperialist corporate media’s lies. 

the 1989 protesters were not fighting to turn China capitalist-they were making a peaceful stand for socialism without repression, paranoia, and endless screaming campaigns against "deviationists".  They weren't carrying the US flag.  They WERE singing the Internationale.  And when Beijing crushed its democracy movement in 1989, Bush didn't care.  He said nothing because they weren't on his side. 

What happened in 1989 was a legitmate, libertarian socialist revolt from below.  Nothing but tragedy came of that revolt being crushed.

BTW, in case you've not noticed, China went capitalist anyway.  The democracy movement never wanted China's cities to be filled with western banks and luxury hotels.  They didn't march and die for KFC and McDonald's.  It's not a victory for socialism that billionaires are Party memberse.  It was no victory for socialism that what exists now is a capitalist dictatorship.

Socialism never needs dictatorship to survive, and when dictatorial methods are used, the socialist aspects of the state always end up vanishing, because socialism, in the end, has to be linked to human liberation in all forms.

And the Hong Kong protesters had no alternative but to occupy the airport.  They also aren't fighting to overthrow the Party on the Mainland-they are simply fighting an unjust law which would allow Beijing to extradite political dissidents for questioning and trial.  There is no reason to have such a law, because there is no reason for Beijing to try to stop Hong Kong from moving to full democracy and no reason to punish anyone for working for it.

What happened in 1989 was not a CIA plot.  What's happening at the airport is not a CIA plot.

And nothing the PLA did in 1989 or WOULD be doing if it crushed the airport protests now could possibly be called "defending socialism"-any more than Brezhnev was defending socialism by crushing the Prague Spring, or Krushchev when he crushed the fight for a humane, democratic form of socialism in Hungary, or Stalin was defending it by crushing the socialist rising against Stalin's pointless insistence that the DDR mirror Stalin's model without question or deviation, or that Stalin was ever defending socialism through the purge trials, or the Gulag and the Kolyma-or Lenin was defending it by crushing the Krondstadt rising when all that was about was a defense of free speech and the original idea of the soviets as real decision-making bodies.

None of that was ever about defending socialism.

None of that was ever necessary to defend socialism.

And there is no reason for any reason for any state which claims to be "socialist"-let alone any other state-to ever do any of those things again.

At some point in the far future, Beijing will have to apologize to the people for what it did in 1989.  Why not just call on them NOT to act in the same way in Hong Kong this time?  Why not just call on them to leave Hong Kong's internal affairs alone and let the place be a full-fledged democracy if that's what the people of that country want?

China doesn't need to be able to intimidate the people of Hong Kong to be secure, for God's sakes.   And it would certainly have no justification to storm the place and kill them by the thousands.

It's time for Beijing to just back the hell off here.  

 

 

Thats a long winded load of US corporate bullshit! I guess you really believe your horse shit hey?

Protestors I Tian An Men square killed unarmed military personnel when they fire bombed them in buses and burned to death! Those were criminals not peaceful protesters. 

Keep twisting your definition of capitalism to include those you feel are a threat to your own version of materialism. 

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken that extradition law is a red herring. Imagine not being able to bring a Canadian back to Vancouver if they flee to the North West Territories.  I think you just don't get that Hong Kong is and always has been a part of China. Tell me Ken why did the UK not give the people of Hong Kong any democratic rights, they had nearly a hundred years.

In the meantime the people of China seem to be getting on with life despite your revulsion for a system that has raised the most people out of poverty on the planet. Imagine if China was more like India, with its liberal democracy, they hardly have any repression at all in India or the Kashmir, if your a Hindu. I use India because they are another nasty country left over after British rule with a flawed system that is lauded as a democracy.

Try traveling some, maybe take a nice shuttle ride.

https://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/hongkong/zhuhai-macau-bridge...

1) I've never defended the British denying the vote to anyone, or anything ELSE the British Empire ever did.  They SHOULD have given the people of Hong Kong full self-rule from the start-just as there should never have been a start, because Britain never had any right to take Hong Kong, any more than Britain ever had any justification for ever having a single colony, including Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the first colonies of the Empire.

And it was Margaret Thatcher who cheerfully signed over Hong Kong to China-most of its population wanted independence, which they should have been given-which means that what's happening there now has nothing to do with British imperialism. 

2) I don't want the Chinese government overthrown, or "The West" taking any greater control of Chinese economic life than anybody else.  And given that the country is, for all practical purposes, capitalist, in what sense is what the regime is doing about defending "socialism" at all?  And what necessity is there for Beijing to be able to silence all dissent against what it does not only in the actual PRC, but in Hong Kong itself?  Why should this ever end with Hong Kong being put under full "Market Stalinism"?

3) If the PRC is currently prosperous, bully to them-but why assume the PRC can only be prosperous if dissent and critique of the status quo are forever treated as crimes?   Why should the Left defend what the PRC leadership now, when defending them now means agreeing to defend the country being a police state for the rest of eternity?  

4) In the case of the extradition example of sending someone who has escaped from NWT to Vancouver-obviously that person should be extradited if they are wanted for actual crimes, such as rape or murder then by all means send them back.  Buy that should not extend to people being extradited for their political involvement.  If, for example Nunavit had asserted the right to self-determination by voting to establish sovereignty-association, and subsuquently establish a government and economy run on some form of socialism grounded in Inuit traditions.  Supposing a Ginger Goodwin left-labour organizer shows up there, on the run from an even further-right British Columbia provincial government which has vowed to start executing socialists.   Would you argue that, in the name of Canadian sovereignty, British Columbia should be able to demand that that labour organizer be extradited to what we all know would be certain death?

The government of the PRC is simply another government.  It no more deserves exemption from dissent and critique than any other.

There has to be some way of recognize Chinese sovereignty without treating the government of the PRC as if it should be accorded the political equivalent of papal infallibility.   

And basically, all I'm asking for here is that the PRC not stage a massacre at the Hong Kong airport.  Why on earth shouldn't all of us ask that of them, just as we ask all other governments not to massacre people?

 

You’re basically just making up bullshit to continue to demonize the Communist government of China. 

If Hong Kong was actually run by the Communist government in Beijing, it would be more like any other similar Chinese city such as Beijing or GuangZhou. With far less poverty as it has now. 

I notice in your comments in this thread you constantly avoid the true reality of widespread poverty in Hong Kong. And substitute it with bullshit scenarios of military crackdowns that have never happened as you have narrated. 

NDPP

WATCH: 'Gang of 4': Who is Misleading the Young in Hong Kong?

https://twitter.com/CGRNOfficial/status/1161979601855234048

 

WATCH: "Hillary Clinton has called for support of the rioters in Hong Kong. Let's see what happened when she 'supported' Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq."

https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1161921720380461056

As always the 'pro-democracy' imperialists and their western liberal cheering squad are there...

Ken Burch

WWWTT wrote:

swallow wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Hey Ken Burch when 500 thousand protesters storm Washington congress senate and White House carrying the Chinese flag and hammer and cicle, destroying as much as they can and demanding communism then we’ll talk. 

The Peoples Liberation Army has an obligation to protect socialism against cia plants.

Never knew you were such a defender of the imperialist corporate media’s lies. 

Yeah Ken, we must all rally to the defence of Capitalist China. States must always smash dissent! All protesters are CIA agents! Protest is imperialism! Viva! 

(Just trying to echo NDPP's racist party line that protesters are incapable of free thought and must be in thrall to white puppetmasters.)

Not really sure if you understand what’s been going on in 香港for the last 170 years or not? But really, when people protest, it’s  for a good reason! Do you really believe that most of these protesters are all worked up over an extradition law that will never effect a law abiding citizen? And at the same time, give a total fucking ratts ass about living in poverty? Really!

And now, all of a sudden, it’s Beijings fault for 160 years of British raping?!?!?

Oh and by the way, China isn’t capitalist. Over 75% of all the corporations are owned by the state. Maybe some idiots that don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground will buy you horse shit? Or you actually believe your horse shit? I don’t care which it is so you pick. 

1) I'm fully aware of the legacy of British imperialism.  As a person whose ancestry is more Scottish and Irish than anything else, I'm descended from some of the first victims of British imperialism.

2) The legacy of the British Empire had nothing to do with the democracy movement of 1989, and it has nothing to do with the airport protests now.  If the British government wanted to mess with China over Hong Kong, why would it have signed over Hong Kong to eventually go under full Chinese rule?

3) The people of Hong Kong were the ones living under British rule most recently.  By all accounts, they didn't like it.  By most accounts, they are still furious that Margaret Thatcher signed them over to China when those people would actually have preferred independence.  Why on earth, after all that, would they only be doing the airport protests out of some sudden, inexplicable wish to become lackeys of Whitehall?

4) Agreed that it's not JUST about the extradition law-it's also about the Chinese government trying to prevent the Hong Kong government from establishing full democracy and about Beijing's insistence that, at some point, the place must be put under exactly the same uptight, paranoid, sometimes murderous constraints the people of the PRC are made to live under.  That it has to end up being a place where no opposition voices are tolerated at all, where you can still be arrested for the art you make, of all things.  Why couldn't Beijing just agree to perpetually keep Hong Kong in "special administrative" status, with free speech and multiparty elections WITHIN Hong Kong? Why not try something with Hong Kong that would be like what sovereignty-association might be like with Quebec?  The PRC would still get whatever economic benefits it gets from the place now, so what would they have to lose?

5) the Chinese government is not in a battle for survival.  They don't have to be able to suppress all internal dissent, persecute gays, or extradite dissidents from Hong Kong just to avoid overthrow.  There has never been a single moment, since 1949, when there was any real possibility of the PRC being brought to an end.  

6) For those bringing up 1989 in Easter Europe-the DDR, Poland, Hungary and what was then Czechoslovakia didn't fall because of free speech.  Those states fell because they'd never been legitimate, because they'd been used for the previous forty years NOT to build a glorious socialist future, as they should have, but instead mainly as a buffer to protect the USSR against another Western invasion-something the people of those countries never needed to be put under military occupation to agree to, since they'd all have gladly agreed to be part of a voluntary defense pact with the USSR out of gratitude for the Red Army's role in liberating them from Naziism-and as a means to mete out collective punishment to those countries for not having stopped a Nazi invasion of the USSR that those nations could never possibly have prevented.  Instead of using the situation to make those countries into better socialist models than the USSR itself-which was a clearly achievable goal-the term "socialism" there was perverted into a euphemism for collective oppression, even though the people subjected to that never did anything to deserve it.  There were chances to change that-East Berlin, 1953, Hungary 1956, Poland at around the same time, Czechslovakia during the Prague Spring-but every time, the Soviet leadership said "no, we won't allow ANYTHING to change.  We won't tolerate any variance from OUR exact model, even if you don't need our exact model in your country".   It became clear that no humane, transformative, liberating model of socialism-and, quite frankly, socialism without human liberation and freedom fear isn't socialism-and it wasn't reasonable to expect the populations of those countries to accept living exactly like they'd been kept living for the next 50 years, 100 years, or perhaps in perpetuity.  The only way to have kept those regimes in power would have been for Gorbachev to have the Red Army kill more people in those four countries than Stalin did at the height of the Great Purges.

What I'm saying is, it's never "anti-imperialist" to defend states which do things like that.  If anything, the insistence of states which called themselves "anti-imperialist" on doing things like that from the Thirties up to 1989 benefited no one but the imperialists themselves, by allowing them to claim they have a lower body count.

Socialism never needed repression.  It never needed secret police.  It never needed mass executions.  What it needs is a commitment to actually serving the people, and the people can only be served if the people themselves actually have the power to decide what "being served" means.  

 

Ken Burch

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Hey Ken Burch when 500 thousand protesters storm Washington congress senate and White House carrying the Chinese flag and hammer and cicle, destroying as much as they can and demanding communism then we’ll talk. 

The Peoples Liberation Army has an obligation to protect socialism against cia plants.

Never knew you were such a defender of the imperialist corporate media’s lies. 

the 1989 protesters were not fighting to turn China capitalist-they were making a peaceful stand for socialism without repression, paranoia, and endless screaming campaigns against "deviationists".  They weren't carrying the US flag.  They WERE singing the Internationale.  And when Beijing crushed its democracy movement in 1989, Bush didn't care.  He said nothing because they weren't on his side. 

What happened in 1989 was a legitmate, libertarian socialist revolt from below.  Nothing but tragedy came of that revolt being crushed.

BTW, in case you've not noticed, China went capitalist anyway.  The democracy movement never wanted China's cities to be filled with western banks and luxury hotels.  They didn't march and die for KFC and McDonald's.  It's not a victory for socialism that billionaires are Party memberse.  It was no victory for socialism that what exists now is a capitalist dictatorship.

Socialism never needs dictatorship to survive, and when dictatorial methods are used, the socialist aspects of the state always end up vanishing, because socialism, in the end, has to be linked to human liberation in all forms.

And the Hong Kong protesters had no alternative but to occupy the airport.  They also aren't fighting to overthrow the Party on the Mainland-they are simply fighting an unjust law which would allow Beijing to extradite political dissidents for questioning and trial.  There is no reason to have such a law, because there is no reason for Beijing to try to stop Hong Kong from moving to full democracy and no reason to punish anyone for working for it.

What happened in 1989 was not a CIA plot.  What's happening at the airport is not a CIA plot.

And nothing the PLA did in 1989 or WOULD be doing if it crushed the airport protests now could possibly be called "defending socialism"-any more than Brezhnev was defending socialism by crushing the Prague Spring, or Krushchev when he crushed the fight for a humane, democratic form of socialism in Hungary, or Stalin was defending it by crushing the socialist rising against Stalin's pointless insistence that the DDR mirror Stalin's model without question or deviation, or that Stalin was ever defending socialism through the purge trials, or the Gulag and the Kolyma-or Lenin was defending it by crushing the Krondstadt rising when all that was about was a defense of free speech and the original idea of the soviets as real decision-making bodies.

None of that was ever about defending socialism.

None of that was ever necessary to defend socialism.

And there is no reason for any reason for any state which claims to be "socialist"-let alone any other state-to ever do any of those things again.

At some point in the far future, Beijing will have to apologize to the people for what it did in 1989.  Why not just call on them NOT to act in the same way in Hong Kong this time?  Why not just call on them to leave Hong Kong's internal affairs alone and let the place be a full-fledged democracy if that's what the people of that country want?

China doesn't need to be able to intimidate the people of Hong Kong to be secure, for God's sakes.   And it would certainly have no justification to storm the place and kill them by the thousands.

It's time for Beijing to just back the hell off here.  

 

 

Thats a long winded load of US corporate bullshit! I guess you really believe your horse shit hey?

Protestors I Tian An Men square killed unarmed military personnel when they fire bombed them in buses and burned to death! Those were criminals not peaceful protesters. 

Keep twisting your definition of capitalism to include those you feel are a threat to your own version of materialism. 

I never even heard Deng Xiaoping claim that the Tian An Men Square had fire bombs, or assert that they were attacking unarmed military personal.  

What my vision of liberation is is socialism without repression-socialism where the workers hold actual democratic control of the workplace and the wealth.  There was never any good reason for any state which called itself "socialist", to reject that and put a bureaucratic dictatorship in place. 

Do you really assume that socialism cannot co-exist with liberation and freedom from fear of arrest?  Why?

And why do you assume the only way to OPPOSE capitalism is to defend everything any supposedly "socialist" government does in the name of "internal security"?  

No state should ever use lethal force against its people-and, in my view, those states which label themselves "socialist" have a special obligation not to do so, because any state which purports to be about socialism also needs to be state grounded in liberation and generosity of spirit, not paranoia-as-organizing principle.

The truth is, the model for the Left in most of the world now is not the USSR under Stalin, or China since 1949-it's the ideas of the Zapatistas in southern Mexico and the libertarian socialists of AFRIN in Rojava.

That's the path the left is moving towards-the path it would have stayed on, and on which it would have liberated the world, had the Krondstadt Rising not been crushed, had the Soviet Union actually been what it was supposed to be-a cooperative union of fully-empowered soviets in which the people of communities made all collective decisions by humane, direct-democratic means.

That's what it was supposed to be about-not the bullshit "Great Leader" model which derived from the imperialist past. Socialism needs to be built on the IWW maxim "We're ALL Leaders", not "Exceed the Bauxite Quota".
 

 

Ken Burch

And, at the same time, Hillary Clinton needs to STFU.  

Ken Burch

As to Hong Kong-I don't defend the economic status quo in that city-although Beijing clearly does, since it is essentially trying to leach off of it in current arrangement.    

On economics, Hong Kong is a capitalist hellhole for many of those who live in it.  

Why assume, though, that the only way to change that is to replicate the Market Stalinist approach?  Why insist on making the place just as politically and creatively repressive as the PRC?

And what the hell does the PRC even have to be this paranoid about?  To be constantly acting as if the Party is about to be overthrown by some sort of diabolical conspiracy that can ONLY be blocked by keeping the country in a perpetual state of fear?

What does the PRC currently provide to the people of China that it can ONLY provide by making it impossible to publicly disagree with the Party about anything?

Why can there not be prosperity, a continued reduction in poverty, AND free speech and the right to dissent from the line?

 

kropotkin1951

Ken Burch please give me an example of your socialist paradise that is not a Scandinavian country.

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

So Ken did you notice that almost 4 million US citizens don't get to cast a vote for the President or chose their own Governor. I wonder what the  US response would have been if the Chinese and Russians or Iranians were providing covert aid to Puerto Rican protestors bent on vandalizing the legislature while waving the hammer and sickle. I am sure it would be a measured response, measured in the number of dead bodies.

Ken Burch

Agreed that "The West" should not be doing anything to destabilize any country, anywhere.  

That goes without saying.

But agreeing to that doesn't have to mean assuming every government NOT in "The West" deserves uncritical support at all moments.  

And no, it would not be a victory for socialism if the PLA stormed the Hong Kong airport and started killing people there.

It's time to move past things like, that, folks.

 

kropotkin1951

Yup Ken time to move on past this stuff. Just like we've moved on from the other revolutions that have done so much to lift people around the globe out of poverty and into a democratic paradise. We've helped Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc etc.

Its time arrogant people from the NATO imperium stopped pointing fingers at anyone in the world because our ruling oligarchy is the most brutal on the planet and we are unable to reign them in and instead our "progressives" want to use that brutality to teach other nations what is right and wrong..

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch please give me an example of your socialist paradise that is not a Scandinavian country.

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

So Ken did you notice that almost 4 million US citizens don't get to cast a vote for the President or chose their own Governor. I wonder what the  US response would have been if the Chinese and Russians or Iranians were providing covert aid to Puerto Rican protestors bent on vandalizing the legislature while waving the hammer and sickle. I am sure it would be a measured response, measured in the number of dead bodies.

Obviously, the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed.  They should be given either statehood or, better, outright independence as soon as possible.  

Nobody who has read what I've posted on this board has any grounds for concluding that I've given "the West" or the U.S. or Canadian governments ANY passes on repressive acts.  I've never done that and never would.

I don't defend any state using repression against radicals anywhere.  BTW, most of those on this board identify as some form of radical, are people who want to fundamentally change the systems WE live under.  Would you argue that it's legitimate for the U.S. or Canadian governments to repress US?

 

As to My models, here are some: 

-the original idea of what the Soviet Union was supposed to be like before that idea was murdered when the Krondstadt rising was crushed;

-the secular, libertarian socialist society that AFRIN is trying to create in Rojava;

-the values the Zapatistas have worked for since their encounters and dialog with indigenous Mexicans moved them away from the discredited Leninist model and towards a humane, cooperative form of social organization;

-the voluntary, non-state socialist approach that's being created spontaneously all over the world with massive increase in the number of co-operatives, co-operatives which are being organized into networks which embody a working alternative to the capitalist corporate model.

And if the argument is that some of the models I support doesn't exist in practice yet...so what?

The idea of revolution STARTED with the notion of creating a world which did not yet exist.   

Why, then, should we limit ourselves now to nothing but the replication of already-existing models?  

What good did it do the world for "socialist" states to be created, for decades, on the exact model of what Stalin or Mao did?  Why should those models have been the only forms Mao or Stalin or their ideological descendants would tolerate? 

Why couldn't China, for example, be prosperous and have a socialist form of wealth distribution without the coercive paranoia that seems to be the PRC's organizing principle these days?  Without the ludicrous idea that all dissent is a threat or a plot? 

Why couldn't it have been possible to defend the USSR from outside attack without turning it into what Stalin turned it into?  Without absurdities like the state telling artists, writers and poets exactly what they could and could not create?

Why shouldn't it be permissible, for example, for an independent Left to exist and organize in China, just as it has a right to exist here?  Why shouldn't artists, poets, novelists, sculptors, composers be allowed to fully express their creative vision?  To, if nothing else, create a socialist aesthetic from below?

As people of the Left, we are supposed to believe in and trust the people-the PRC model doesn't trust the people.  If it did, it wouldn't be obsessed with keeping them silent.  

And of course there are always provocateurs and people trying to do sabotage in any society-should we really conclude from that, though, that ALL dissent, all opposition, is nothing but an outside conspiracy?  That nobody in a place like the PRC could have valid grievances against anything the party is doing?

Where does defending states like the PRC end?  What does it lead us to?

It damn sure can't liberate the people.

 

swallow swallow's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

There are no states that don’t repress dissent. China, like the USA and Canada, represses protesters. 

But the Chinese state, unlike the USA,  is defended on this board as some sort of paradise that can never be criticized. 

And protesters in China are demonized here as US puppets. That is racism and imperialism, pure and simple, in what is supposed to be an anti-racist and anti-imperialist space. 

Calling Ken an apologist for imperialism is so absurd as to defy belief. But here we are. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

swallow wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

There are no states that don’t repress dissent. China, like the USA and Canada, represses protesters. 

But the Chinese state, unlike the USA,  is defended on this board as some sort of paradise that can never be criticized. 

And protesters in China are demonized here as US puppets. That is racism and imperialism, pure and simple, in what is supposed to be an anti-racist and anti-imperialist space. 

Calling Ken an apologist for imperialism is so absurd as to defy belief. But here we are. 

Well said, swallow.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

WATCH: 'Gang of 4': Who is Misleading the Young in Hong Kong?

https://twitter.com/CGRNOfficial/status/1161979601855234048[/quote]

"misleading the young"? 

Sounds like some western right-winger circa 1968: "goddam stupid kids don't understand the issues, all just brainwashed by these commie agitators". 

 

Ken Burch

voice of the damned wrote:

NDPP wrote:

WATCH: 'Gang of 4': Who is Misleading the Young in Hong Kong?

https://twitter.com/CGRNOfficial/status/1161979601855234048

"misleading the young"? 

Sounds like some western right-winger circa 1968: "goddam stupid kids don't understand the issues, all just brainwashed by these commie agitators". 

 

[/quote]

And really, we should just BELIEVE the PRC's state news service when it serves up a fantasy image of the protests supposedly being planned over a fancy dinner in an expensive restaurant?

The idea is not really that far from the white Southern canard in the States, in rhetoric that would later be parroted almost word-for-word by the white minority regime in South Africa, that the only reason black people were challenging the intolerable status quo they were made to live under was that "outside agitators"-everybody knew who that term was a euphemism for-and the Communist Party "subverted" them.

 

NDPP

"The escalating use of force perpetrated against the Hong Kong protestors is extremely alarming. In the Congress, Democrats and Republicans continue to stand united with the people of Hong Kong in demanding their right to a hopeful, free and democratic future."

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1161630312415354883

 

Black: China And The Zombies Of The Past

https://journal-neo.org/2019/08/14/china-and-the-zombies-of-the-past/

"The hybrid war being conducted against China by the US and its gaggle of puppet states from the UK to Canada to Australia has entered a new phase. The latest phase in this hybrid warfare is the insurrection being provoked by the US, UK, Canada and the rest in Hong Kong, using tactics designed to provoke China into suppressing the rioters with force to amplify the anti-Chinese propaganda or pushing the 'protesters' into declaring Hong Kong independent of China and then using force to support them. There is now abundant evidence that the UK and US are the black hand behind the events in Hong Kong.

The pretexts for the riots, the first being a proposed extradition law between the mainland and Hong Kong which is similar to those that exist between provinces in Canada and states in the USA, the second being the claim that China's insistence on its sovereignty over the territory somehow overrides the limited autonomy granted Hong Kong and threatens that autonomy are without any foundation. Those who carry British and American flags in the protests in Hong Kong reveal who they are. They are not the future of China. They are the living embodiment of a dead history and dead ideas, zombies of the past."

Rikardo

Hong Kong is like a Trojan Horse the British left to China.  Its more British than Chinese, more Western than Eastern.  To bad it didn't become another Singapore.  Its great for the China-bashers of the "Western Democracies", the "International Community"!

kropotkin1951

Yes I guess just like in Egypt those of us who said that the US was a driving force are going to be proven wrong in Hong Kong. The protestors in Hong Kong are violent so why should I support them. The protestors in Puerto Rico were peaceful and that's how you can tell they are working for change democratically not as tools of the NATO regime change team.  I remember the solidarity that the people on this board had for the Black Block when they smashed the business district in Vancouver. This whole board was decrying the police for the brutal repression and demanding to know why these socialist heroes had been confronted when they tried to shut down Vancouver, sarcasm alert.

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Yes I guess just like in Egypt those of us who said that the US was a driving force are going to be proven wrong in Hong Kong. The protestors in Hong Kong are violent so why should I support them. The protestors in Puerto Rico were peaceful and that's how you can tell they are working for change democratically not as tools of the NATO regime change team.  I remember the solidarity that the people on this board had for the Black Block when they smashed the business district in Vancouver. This whole board was decrying the police for the brutal repression and demanding to know why these socialist heroes had been confronted when they tried to shut down Vancouver, sarcasm alert.

The U.S. didn't invent the anti-Mubarak protests.  They may have tried to subvert them, but it wasn't a victory for American imperialism for a pro-American dictator to be overthrown.

Are you really saying the Left should have wanted the existing Egyptian military regime to have stayed in power?  Or should be cheering that that regime was restored?

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

"The escalating use of force perpetrated against the Hong Kong protestors is extremely alarming. In the Congress, Democrats and Republicans continue to stand united with the people of Hong Kong in demanding their right to a hopeful, free and democratic future."

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1161630312415354883

 

Black: China And The Zombies Of The Past

https://journal-neo.org/2019/08/14/china-and-the-zombies-of-the-past/

"The hybrid war being conducted against China by the US and its gaggle of puppet states from the UK to Canada to Australia has entered a new phase. The latest phase in this hybrid warfare is the insurrection being provoked by the US, UK, Canada and the rest in Hong Kong, using tactics designed to provoke China into suppressing the rioters with force to amplify the anti-Chinese propaganda or pushing the 'protesters' into declaring Hong Kong independent of China and then using force to support them. There is now abundant evidence that the UK and US are the black hand behind the events in Hong Kong.

The pretexts for the riots, the first being a proposed extradition law between the mainland and Hong Kong which is similar to those that exist between provinces in Canada and states in the USA, the second being the claim that China's insistence on its sovereignty over the territory somehow overrides the limited autonomy granted Hong Kong and threatens that autonomy are without any foundation. Those who carry British and American flags in the protests in Hong Kong reveal who they are. They are not the future of China. They are the living embodiment of a dead history and dead ideas, zombies of the past."


The extradition laws in the U.S. and Canada are for actual criminals.   China could extradite ACTUAL criminals already. The extradition law China is pushing for here is for dissidents.  There's no reason dissidents should be extraditable.

It's not anti-imperialist to support the PRC.  

Ken Burch

Also...to the argument that the protests in Hong Kong are illegitimate because there was an incident of violence-a man supposedly getting beaten because the protesters thought the guy was an infiltrator for the PRC:  

1) How do we know he wasn't an infiltrator? If he was, why should the crowd have given him any better treatment than the French meted out to those who collaborated with the Nazis when the Nazis occupied France?

2) If there was a beating, how do we know those administering it weren't themselves provocateurs sent in on behalf of the PRC in an attempt to discredit the protesters?  In Czechoslovakia, after the Prague Spring was crushed, there were pro-Soviet operatives who infiltrated protests against the invasion and engaged in violent acts, such as throwing rocks and bricks through the windows of Soviet diplomatic missions, in order to justify intensifying the violent crackdown on non-Stalinists.

3) If these protests are illegitimate because there has been violence-btw, I don't recall most people on this board insisting on total nonviolence among any other protesters-Are you also arguing we should wash our hands of Antifa, since they punched a Nazi or two?  Are we now supposed to renounce solidarity with the Palestinian cause over the tactics used by Fatah and Hamas? Are people prepared to argue that the anti-apartheid struggle is retroactively discredited because violence was part of it?  Are we turning back the clock to turn up our noses at the Black Panthers after the fact because they called for violent self-defense against the white supremacist power structure in the U.S.?  Are we now washing our hands of the Sandinsta and Cuban Revolutions?  Or of the Chinese Revolution itself, since IT used violence? 

4) If you're going to argue that any protest given support by the US is proved to be an American plot-btw, the US stood with Mubarak until almost the end of the Tahrir Square protests, and pretty much had to be dragged kicking and screaming into finally making it clear that they wouldn't send in the Marines to save the old bastard-do then you've given the US an easy way to discredit any uprising it wants stopped:  Tio' Samuel simply has to say it supports the protests.  Do we really want to set something like that up?

5) What are the pro-PRC crowd hoping to see as the end of this situation?  You can't actually WANT the P:Ao storm Hong Kong and take the protesters back to Beijing for show trials and long prison sentences.  You can't seriously want the bizarre Market Stalinist/Paranoid Nationalist model the Party has currently wanted to be how the PRC is run for the rest of eternity.  There is no way to want things like that to happen and retain any personal humanity.  And there is no way those outcomes would be a victory for the cause of human liberation.  

I oppose with all my being the idea of a Western plot to invade China and make that country subservient to Western imperialism.  But nobody has to be killed to prevent something like that from happening. 

 

NDPP

'Pro-Democracy Protesters in Hong Kong Sing National Anthem' (and vid)

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1161305213841682439

I think it unlikely PRC will move to crush the Hong Kong protests despite how dearly hoped for such a scenario was by the instigators and western backers of these provocations. Hong Kong authorities are more than equipped to manage the rioters themselves using  the same methods western police forces regularly do in America, France etc. In many ways they have on the whole and given the destruction and vandalism caused, exercised remarkable restraint. In any case it is highly likely the coming weekend may be the crescendo performance and last hurrah for the bulk of these protests as students will soon be returning to school as the following article suggests.

Violent Protests in Hong Kong Reach Their Last Stage

https://t.co/ZaQhLbLPU6

"The riots in Hong Kong are about to end..."

Ken Burch

There was no reason for Beijing to demand to be able to extradite political dissidents from Hong Kong.  Rapists and murderers and thieving CEO's yes...not people who just don't want to be put under an absolute ban on dissent.

 

Ken Burch

BTW, NDPP, the Washington Examiner is a far-right U.S. rag, and if you look at the arms of those "protesters", those are clearly Westerners-it's probably from a Patriot Prayer/alt-right rally somewhere in the States.  You need to check the origins of the links you post.

voice of the damned

That Moon Of Alabama article has some interesting stuff, but gets tripped up by its own scattershot approach...

The protesters also fly Pepe the frog flags and use that rightwing fringe symbol on their pamphlets and flyers. It rather fits that Hillary Clinton and Dominic Raab support them.

If the protestors are flying Pepe The Frog flags, AND if they understand the ideology behind it, then it's highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton would support them. The kind of people who use Pepe as a political symbol despise Hillary Clinton.

 

NDPP

[quote=Ken Burch]

BTW, NDPP, the Washington Examiner is a far-right U.S. rag, and if you look at the arms of those "protesters", those are clearly Westerners-it's probably from a Patriot Prayer/alt-right rally somewhere in the States.  You need to check the origins of the links you post.

[quote=NDPP]

The flag and anthem video was widely posted and circulated across platforms worldwide and I picked the first that came to hand.  There is no shortage of similar variations and performances in any case.  Just out of curiosity and because it was not known to me I also checked out your "far right US rag" the Washington Examiner and sure enough, their 'Must Read Picks' for today included this far right piece by far right Chinese-American writer Naomi Lin. Good thing you warned me.

After Trump 'Pocahontas' Taunts Elizabeth Warren Lays Out Native American Agenda

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/after-trump-pocahontas-taunts-el...

"...Washington is failing Native communities, and it's time to fulfill our obligations to Tribal Nations. Today I'm announcing ideas to ensure that tribal sovereignty and our trust and treaty obligations are binding and legal moral principle - not just slogans..."

 I think what you're really trying to say amidst a failed insinuation that my postings are 'right wing' as opposed to the more congenial liberal-imperialist Guardianista-type orthodoxies long in vogue here, is that you would prefer I not post views which counter your own. Sorry, no can do. Speaking of which can you offer any actual proof to support your racialist theories of Asian anatomical particularities? I wonder why so many Asians viewing the video weren't as sharp as you in recognizing those mightier American arms?

The Straits Times (Singapore)

https://youtu.be/VYWuLoAYrgE

Perhaps, this American version with accompanying 'Chinese Tyranny' editorial view is more to your liking.

Hong Kong Protesters Sing US Anthem With US Flags Against Chinese Tyranny During Airport Occupation

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/08/video-hong-kong-protesters-sing...

 

voice of the damned

NDPP:

That progressive-sounding line about First Nations is a quote from Elizabeth Warren, not the opinion of the writer of the article. The overall tone of the piece is fairly neutral, but if you go to their editorial page, you see headlines like...

Foreign individuals should not be allowed to come to America in order to take advantage of its welfare programs.

Being a Trump supporter is no longer allowed, it seems

(^About how celebrities criticizing the POTUS and boycotting conservative businesses means American democracy is in danger)

Democrats signal their virtue and ignorance with $15 minimum wage bill

(The usual spiel about how minimum wage kills jobs)

Plus, their foreign-policy views are the usual neo-con stuff about how we gotta go after Russia and China, and they seem to be to the right of Trump on North Korea, ie. he's betraying "the free world" by being friends with Kim Jong Un. And they're relatively moderate on a couple of things, eg. thinking Trump shouldn't embrace ethno-nationalism, but that's about it.

Not that it really matters if the singing of the anthem(of which they approve) really took place, but I will concur with Ken's description of the site as right-wing.

 

 

NDPP

I believe the actual description was 'far right'. In any case I  anxiously await Ken's further elucidation on the allegedly bogus flag/anthem video as evidenced apparently by the er...American arms on Chinese bodies. Or something...

kropotkin1951

Ken Burch wrote:

The U.S. didn't invent the anti-Mubarak protests.  They may have tried to subvert them, but it wasn't a victory for American imperialism for a pro-American dictator to be overthrown.

Are you really saying the Left should have wanted the existing Egyptian military regime to have stayed in power?  Or should be cheering that that regime was restored?

They replaced him with another pro-American dictator so as far as Egyptians are concerned it was a wash and certainly not worth dying for.

Of course I do not wish that for the Egyptian people. I wish for them like I do for all nations on this planet, I want the citizens of the brutal empire to reign in their nasty imperial machine. After all you do live in a democracy right? If the US is a democracy then the American people are responsible for all the millions of deaths around the globe from the conflict that their regime has produced.

Stop talking about other people's governments and do something about your own. Personally I think that the US is not a democracy which is why I find the hypocrisy of regime change to get a "democracy" like the US's is beyond the pale.

NDPP

Another right-wing Star Spangled Banner Video Tweet

https://twitter.com/SullyCNBC/status/1162368819026771970

I think the profuse amount of American arse-licking on display rather gives the game away. Just as it does in Canada where it has been a national pastime, especially in political circles, for a very long time. I get what it signifies here and I get what it signifies there. And it sure as hell isn't 'democracy'. How many of these US colour revolutions, coups and regime change operations do you have to see before you begin to get it? 'Oh say can you see...?'

swallow swallow's picture

Why do you think Ken is doing nothing about his own government, krop? 

Why shouldn't people speak up about other countreis? Countries are importialsit inventions of the ruling classes anyway. 

That's why Svend Robinson spoke up for human rights in China: rights know no borders, and people's rights over-ride states' rights. They thew him out of China for it. 

kropotkin1951

I did not say that we should not stand up for rights of all humans I just think that supporting a colour revolution is not supporting rights. Its a fucking shell game that does not lead to empowerment for anyone.  What is the end game, destabilize China and let the devil take the hindmost as the carpet baggers strip the country of its state assets? That so far is the model for other countries our agencies have destabilized.  The Chinese authorities allowed peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong and then the idiots who wanted my support defiled its legislature and draped it with symbols of the imperial powers that used to control China.

I also do not support the "democracy" protesters in Venezuela because they are foreign backed and violent not because they want to install a nasty neo-con government by winning elections.  Hong Kong had elections but not for Governor. Do you think that if the UK for instance was to administer the territory again that a different ruling elite would take over or do you actually believe that the people of Hong Kong would elect a socialist government? I have met many Hong Kong ex-pats and not one of them was a socialist.  I met socialists from mainland China and Taiwan but none from Hong Kong. So tell me what is the fighting in the streets going to achieve for the rights of the average Chinese person in Hong Kong?

kropotkin1951

Interesting celebrities are not jumping on the bandwagon. Jackie seems to be asking for peace order and good government. After all that is the British formula for good government and was the main ethos in British Hong Kong.

 https://www.rt.com/news/466671-jackie-chan-hong-kong-rage/

https://www.rt.com/news/466596-boycott-mulan-hong-kong-police/

swallow swallow's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I did not say that we should not stand up for rights of all humans I just think that supporting a colour revolution is not supporting rights. Its a fucking shell game that does not lead to empowerment for anyone.  What is the end game, destabilize China and let the devil take the hindmost as the carpet baggers strip the country of its state assets? That so far is the model for other countries our agencies have destabilized.  The Chinese authorities allowed peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong and then the idiots who wanted my support defiled its legislature and draped it with symbols of the imperial powers that used to control China.

I also do not support the "democracy" protesters in Venezuela because they are foreign backed and violent not because they want to install a nasty neo-con government by winning elections.  Hong Kong had elections but not for Governor. Do you think that if the UK for instance was to administer the territory again that a different ruling elite would take over or do you actually believe that the people of Hong Kong would elect a socialist government? I have met many Hong Kong ex-pats and not one of them was a socialist.  I met socialists from mainland China and Taiwan but none from Hong Kong. So tell me what is the fighting in the streets going to achieve for the rights of the average Chinese person in Hong Kong?

I think they are badly-organized protests using bad tactics. Wish the protesters could pull it together, but the anger has sent things spiralling out of control. 

I definitely have met Hong Kong socialists -in Hong Kong. The ex-pats will almost all be conservative of course. HK'ers in Vancouver will tend to be wealthy. 

I guess the fact that I know some of these people makes it impossible for me to believe that they are all zombie puppets for America. I know they're not. I think it's racist to suggest that protesters in non-white countries must authomatically be puppets of America. They can make their own choices. And they do. 

Plenty of racism in Hong Kong too of course. The way that Southeast Asians are treated is often appalling. 

kropotkin1951

That is an all or nothing view that is just smoke and mirrors. Of course there are sincere people in the streets who want real change. However the problem is not with their intent it is with the intent of the people that are being paid to organize the chaos. What I object to is the refrain from Canadians that China needs to have a democratic change when it has been proven time and again that our form of democracy is actually just a facade for corporate control behind closed doors with no transparency. I have no time for people insisting that our form of government is a democratic improvement over any other country's. It is racist to think  that only systems derived from European liberal views can be legitimate forms of expressing the peoples will.

swallow swallow's picture

I agree 100% that China should not adopt Canada's system. There are so many better options grounded in Chinese poltiocal thought. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_views_of_democracy

China's political system is up to Chinese people to decide, no one else.

Ditto for local areas of China, such as Hong Kong. 

NDPP

Hong Kong Lawyers Call For UN Probe Into US Involvement in Riots

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-16/Hong-Kong-lawyers-call-for-UN-prob...

"The Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation will propose an application to the United Nations to investigate whether the US is involved in the city's recent unrest, seniors of the foundation  announced on Friday, at a press conference in Hong Kong. 'There is prima facie evidence showing that the US has played a very important role in the fugitive bill protests,' said Lawrence Ma, chairman of the organization."

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The U.S. didn't invent the anti-Mubarak protests.  They may have tried to subvert them, but it wasn't a victory for American imperialism for a pro-American dictator to be overthrown.

Are you really saying the Left should have wanted the existing Egyptian military regime to have stayed in power?  Or should be cheering that that regime was restored?

They replaced him with another pro-American dictator so as far as Egyptians are concerned it was a wash and certainly not worth dying for.

Of course I do not wish that for the Egyptian people. I wish for them like I do for all nations on this planet, I want the citizens of the brutal empire to reign in their nasty imperial machine. After all you do live in a democracy right? If the US is a democracy then the American people are responsible for all the millions of deaths around the globe from the conflict that their regime has produced.

Stop talking about other people's governments and do something about your own. Personally I think that the US is not a democracy which is why I find the hypocrisy of regime change to get a "democracy" like the US's is beyond the pale.

I have been an activist against the injustices done by the government for decades now.  I've never given the American regime a pass.

And it's absurd to argue that people in the States have no right to question what any other regime does until we have acheived the revolution ourselves.   By that logic, nobody in Canada has any right to be anti-authoritarian either.

I have condemned and protested and organized against American foreign domestic policiess, in my life, just as much, if not far MORE so, than I have against dictatorial and unjustly brutal actions by other states.   

Why should I be obligated to defend what the Market Stalinists in the name of "internal security" and "unification" just to prove I'm an anti-imperialist?

Why should I have to give up my humanity and be cool with the real possibility that the PLA will storm Hong Kong-when it has no reason to do so-storm the damn airport-again, when it has no reason to do so-once again, as always, never show any restraint or mercy once it starts killing, and then impose the same pointlessly absurd censorship and restrictions on independent thought it imposed on the whole of the PRC after 1989? 

And why should I see the protests as nothing but a US-Western plot to destroy Chinese independence when every major Western leader, just as in 1989, has made it clear that they don't want Hong Kong, let alone the PRC, to move towards democracy, that they want another 1989-style crackdown and the furthern entrenchment of Market Stalinism?

The West doesn't want to overthrow the Chinese government, it wants to ENTRENCH it.  What Beijing does is exactly what western capitalism wants done to China.  

As to Egypt-yes, the military retook power after the Tahrir Square protests.  But that doesn't mean the protests there weren't legitimate and nothing would be better in that country if the people of Egypt hadn't tried to bring down the police state.

I oppose capitalism AND Stalinism.  

I oppose dictatorship and support liberation.

And I've learned that you can't build anything remotely resembling socialism from above. 

What happened in the Warsaw Pact countries in 1989 proved that, once and for all.

Why would anyone, after 1989, still defend any aspect of the actually existing Stalinist-Maoist tradition?

What other choice is there but to reject all that and move on to something else?

 

That's where I'm coming from.

Nothing in that equates to being a lackey for the capitalist running dogs.

 

And I will continue to do so.

My notion of the Left means rejecting the idea that ANY regime needs to use repressive methods-or that any regime like the one in Beijing could be considered anti-imperialist. 

There is no ultimate gain for any left values to back regimes like that.  There's no chance that the Party will ever allow the creation of a socialist model with egalitarian and humane values.  

I despise what the US has done to the world...but history has proven that the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory simply doesn't work for the Left.

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That is an all or nothing view that is just smoke and mirrors. Of course there are sincere people in the streets who want real change. However the problem is not with their intent it is with the intent of the people that are being paid to organize the chaos. What I object to is the refrain from Canadians that China needs to have a democratic change when it has been proven time and again that our form of democracy is actually just a facade for corporate control behind closed doors with no transparency. I have no time for people insisting that our form of government is a democratic improvement over any other country's. It is racist to think  that only systems derived from European liberal views can be legitimate forms of expressing the peoples will.

And I don't want China to take up corrupted forms such as British-style "parliamentary democracy" or the even more corrupted U.S. form of "representative democracy" with its absure Electoral College for presidential elections, either.  I favor networks of cooperatives as the primary form of economic organization combined with direct democracy for political decisions. 

 

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

I believe the actual description was 'far right'. In any case I  anxiously await Ken's further elucidation on the allegedly bogus flag/anthem video as evidenced apparently by the er...American arms on Chinese bodies. Or something...

The arm I was talking about had light blonde arm hairs.  There was no racism in anything I said there.  The racism is in the assumption that, were it not for "The West" stirring shit up(and yes, the West has stirred things up in some countries, but are you seriously going to argue that any protest against a regime you feel you have to support is automatically a Western plot?) 

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

I believe the actual description was 'far right'. In any case I  anxiously await Ken's further elucidation on the allegedly bogus flag/anthem video as evidenced apparently by the er...American arms on Chinese bodies. Or something...

The arm I was talking about had light blonde arm hairs and had pale, Caucasian skin as I saw it.  There was no racism in anything I said there.  The racism is in the assumption that, were it not for "The West" stirring shit up(and yes, the West has stirred things up in some countries, but are you seriously going to argue that any protest against a regime you feel you have to support is automatically a Western plot?) 

 

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I did not say that we should not stand up for rights of all humans I just think that supporting a colour revolution is not supporting rights. Its a fucking shell game that does not lead to empowerment for anyone.  What is the end game, destabilize China and let the devil take the hindmost as the carpet baggers strip the country of its state assets? That so far is the model for other countries our agencies have destabilized.  The Chinese authorities allowed peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong and then the idiots who wanted my support defiled its legislature and draped it with symbols of the imperial powers that used to control China.

I also do not support the "democracy" protesters in Venezuela because they are foreign backed and violent not because they want to install a nasty neo-con government by winning elections.  Hong Kong had elections but not for Governor. Do you think that if the UK for instance was to administer the territory again that a different ruling elite would take over or do you actually believe that the people of Hong Kong would elect a socialist government? I have met many Hong Kong ex-pats and not one of them was a socialist.  I met socialists from mainland China and Taiwan but none from Hong Kong. So tell me what is the fighting in the streets going to achieve for the rights of the average Chinese person in Hong Kong?

I wasn't "supporting a colour revolution" here-I'm just opposing a possible massacre.  And I don't want the Chinese government overthrown-I just want it to give up the militaristic paranoia, as I want ALL states  to give up militaristic paranoia.   I opposed the Contras, and the bogus protests in Venezuela, and the schemes of the Miami gusanos-nobody has any freaking call to act like I've suddenly turned into an apologist for the freaking national security state in my old age.  

 

Ken Burch

And I agree that the strategic and tactical choices of the protesters have been badly flawed  There's been a clear issue with indiscipline and recklessness, and possibly with infiltration from provocateurs from both the PRC and perhaps from international alt-right types allied with Trump-both types there simply to instigate trouble and cause a more deadly set of events.

That said, things like this would be much less likely to happen-and protests within China, when they occur, would be much likely to be violent-were the PRC to make itself open to genuine dialog and negotiations, as it looked like it would do in 1989.  There's simply nothing that justifies continual decision to resort to putting down ALL protests, even those which are non-violent, by force.  Not every protest is about overthrowing the damn Party, ffs.  And there's no reason to keep making the same mistake the vanguardists have made continually since Krondstadt-saying, over and over again, that nothing can ever change unless the Party decides it should change, and even saying that change can only come in exactly the ways the Party decides. 

 

NorthReport

What with this being supportive of dictatorships, eh!

NorthReport
WWWTT

swallow wrote:

I agree 100% that China should not adopt Canada's system. There are so many better options grounded in Chinese poltiocal thought. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_views_of_democracy

China's political system is up to Chinese people to decide, no one else.

Ditto for local areas of China, such as Hong Kong. 

Thanks for making this stereotypical ignorant comment for me to sink my teeth right into!

First of all, the evolving Communist Party of China model is the best out there suited for larges population countries and would be an excellent fit for the US, Brazil India Indonesia and probably 20 or so other nations. 

Democracy is a failed imperialist invention whose only intent is to maintain corporate control of the resources that belong to ALL the people’s, not just a few. 

Hong Kong is part of China. Hong Kong needs China. The people of Hong Kong can not say “hey we don’t want anything to do with the Communist Party of China” and at the same time say “We’re going to keep profiting off your resources and you have no say commies”

I sincerely believe that what’s actually going on in Hong Kong is not what the imperialist corporate media is propagating here.
Lots of supporters of the Communist Party of China in Hong Kong! Zero in the eyes of the imperialist corporate media many narrations
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-jackie-chan-quit-hollywood-...

voice of the damned

Kropotnik wrote:

Do you think that if the UK for instance was to administer the territory again that a different ruling elite would take over or do you actually believe that the people of Hong Kong would elect a socialist government? I have met many Hong Kong ex-pats and not one of them was a socialist.  I met socialists from mainland China and Taiwan but none from Hong Kong. 

WWWTT wrote: 

Lots of supporters of the Communist Party of China in Hong Kong! 

Okay, now I'm more confused then ever.  

 

NDPP

It comes as no surprise to find Canadian liberal 'progressives' once again supporting an American backed colour revolution. When have they not? They'll ignore almost every other issue of international importance or thread, but if that imperial msm dogwhistle blows, especially against the arch enemies China or Russia, you can count on their immediate appearance mouthing faux-left gobbledygook in favour until the news cycle changes, when once again they disappear and return to one of the innumerable 'Whither the NDP?' threads. Remember Ukraine's 'revolution of dignity',  where out and out Nazi fascists backed by an American coup were sieg-heiled ('Slava Ukraini!') by well-wishing NDP MPs? Remember 'Burn the Coloradi insects' and 'Moskali on our knives?'

Hong Kong Ad Calls Mainlanders 'Locusts'

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1162743456441257984

"A top Hong Kong newspaper owned by Western-backed, Trump-collaborating [riot-funding] oligarch Jimmy Lai published a full-page ad depicting Chinese mainlanders as LOCUSTS. This is fascist symbolism. Anti-China sentiment in Hong Kong is right-wing and bigoted, not progressive."

voice of the damned

From the BBC article that Norton bases his tweet on...

The ''locusts'' advertisement follows recent controversial remarks made by Peking University professor Kong Qingdong.

He called Hong Kongers "bastards" and "running dogs of the British government" when commenting on an earlier incident in which a mainland Chinese girl was reportedly told off by locals for eating on a Hong Kong train.

I'm wondering which animal-based Chinese insults should be regarded as fascist symbolism, and which are to be considered just fair comment.

And, yes, I can imagine the BBC might be oversimplifying and decontextualizing any number of things about this back-and-forth shouting match between HK and the mainland. But Norton seems to give the article a lot of credibility when it comes to reporting on what Jimmy Lai said, so...  

 

 

kropotkin1951

voice of the damned wrote:

Kropotnik wrote:

Do you think that if the UK for instance was to administer the territory again that a different ruling elite would take over or do you actually believe that the people of Hong Kong would elect a socialist government? I have met many Hong Kong ex-pats and not one of them was a socialist.  I met socialists from mainland China and Taiwan but none from Hong Kong. 

WWWTT wrote: 

Lots of supporters of the Communist Party of China in Hong Kong! 

Okay, now I'm more confused then ever. 

I guess its hard to keep up sometimes. I have never been to Hong Kong but have met many business people from Hong Kong in Richmond, as Swallow noted, they were all focused capitalists. I also met many people from mainland China and Taiwan in Burnaby working on NDP campaigns and they were socialists.

WWWTT has been to Hong Kong and has met more citizens of that city than I have. Most Hong Kong citizens were not the rich capitalists we sold Canadian passports to in the '90's. I find it telling that Hong Kong's wealth disparity is so high compared to the mainland but not surprising given the high level of avarice displayed by those business people.

I support the people of Hong Kong going into the streets and marching and banging pots and carrying signs. I do not support violence for violence sake.  Here is an article that shows that like in Canada if you get a permit your chances of getting tear gassed drop dramatically. The problem that this movement is having is what is its goal. The original extradition trigger is gone and the people of Hong Kong get to vote in elections except for Governor. Like in Taiwan the body politic is split between those who want to be independent of China and parties that want close ties to the mainland. It will be interesting to see if this movement gets leaders who can take it on a path that makes sense.

In the end though the people of Hong Kong will get as much control over their fate from the Chinese central government as the Greek people got from the Troika when  they defied the ruling elite in a "democracy".

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3023231/thousands-t...

Pages

Topic locked