«12. . .16,35016,35116,35216,35316,35416,35516,356. . .20,56120,562»
But sparrows carried the debilitating disease of schistosomiasis. It originates in snails which were eaten by sparrows. Infected animals release Schistosoma eggs into water via their fecal material or urine. Sparrows which ate a lot of these snails spread the eggs and larvae far and wide into freshwater across China.
How were they able to clean the rivers afterwards? You can get schistosomiasis just by coming in contact with affected water, and killing the crows who spread it wouldn’t have solved it
That’s rough, schistosomiasis can do horrible things to a human much less to a smaller animal, if there was truly no other way to stop this it may well truly have been an example of the most good for the most people, even if what happened to the crows was still a tragedy
I think a larger question directed towards those who do believe that someone being human is the ultimate moral characteristic is, what exactly is human, at what precise point is someone no longer “animal” and is now “human”, because that’s not an answer that even evolutionary biologists can agree on, and that’s the case for all species not just homo-sapien, evolution is a billion year process of random change where those who adapt to their given environment survive and reproduce and those who don’t don’t, it’s not a thing with nice little boxes, and if we can’t even really say where humanity begins and the rest of the animal kingdom begins then clearly that’s not any category we should use to determine the moral value of individuals
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/species-problem
And maybe this is a bit more abstract of a question but it’s going to be more and more relevant as science progresses and this becomes a real possibility, it is entirely possible that we are nearing an age where humanity will be able to manipulate genetics itself to their own end, if we follow that and say that a scientist manipulates the genes of a human embryo and inserts the genes of a pig, or whatever infinitesimal amount of their genetic code we don’t already share, at what exact point does that child lose moral value as an individual?
And all what I’ve said is irrelevant if we can’t pinpoint what exactly all humans possess that put them on another moral plain altogether from other species, and I say all because from what research I’ve done there is no meaningful difference that humans say make them fundamentally unique that isn’t the case for some group of humans, Anencephaly is a condition where human children are born without the whole front of the brain and with that the cerebral cortex, which is often said to be unique to humans although we have found it in other animals, should they be treated with any less respect than anyone else?
What gives someone moral worth is their ability to suffer and to feel pleasure, not appearance, not intelligence, and not ability, there are so many species we know for a fact experience those things because we do have a basic understanding of what a central nervous system is, and on a chemical level what causes pain, but it would be extremely vain for us to declare some types of beings as not morally relevant, especially when we’ve been so wrong about this before, the mainstream scientific community didn’t even believe black people had moral relevance for a long long time
Hello again
Exactly, and I believe that was precisely the assessment that Mao made. Unfortunate, but again it is a debilitating disease. As for it just staying in the water, it can’t for long. The parasite can live in the water for only 48 hours without a host. Host sparrows with the disease in their blood vessels excreted either urine or feces into freshwater sources, and people become infected when larval forms of the parasite the skin during contact with infested water. It hit the peasants incredibly hard. It caused them immune reactions and progressive damage to organs.
Greetings, comrade!
Sure if you think impressement into the army of a polity that forcibly kurdifies you through their varying unicultural policies in a multi cultural poly ethnic zone is sensible or leftist then sure "Salute" them.
Or if you fail to wonder what kind of "libertarian socialists" indiscriminately jail dissidents and journalists worse than Syria which dosrnt even call itself left wing.
Oh and has one noted the hundreds of millions of us taxpayer money that is stolen to help aid them in their unknown end goal.
Prevention is better than cure, sensible educational policies would have prevented anyone from getting the disease and avoiding contact with unprotected water sources, boiling the water, etc the crows to me were an unfortunate and unnecessary example of excesses of making decisions without in depth studies and scientific proofs. After all we are scientific socialists as Marxists aren't we?
The United Kindom under Socialist Rule, Che triumphant, Shamian, and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia
I agree with this stance, but you do have to remember the context and in the conditions in China at the time, I don’t know if it would have been viable. People lived off the rivers, it was before Mao’s industrialisation, so there was not much electricity, running water etc in the rural areas. There was a lot of education in the Public Health Campaign, teaching people not to spit, teaching the peasants basic sanitation, but really things would improve with the barefoot doctors and local clinics of the Cultural Revolution
I understand the context of the period it was similar to that of the Russian Empire before the revolution, equipped with the lack of cooperation of some communities of people that would've spelt disaster for effective organised campaigns.
Unfortunately the plan would have been implented over longer periods resulting in more deaths over the period. So regrettably I'd admit that theirs was the only viable option at the time.
The United Kindom under Socialist Rule and Czechoslovakia and zakarpatia
The people in China were not really uncooperative, striking peasants as in Russia, they were enthusiastic to develop the country. In China, Mao already had peasant support, that’s what rose him to power. But, the country was torn apart by war and horribly underdeveloped, disease ridden, naked, starving, Mao inherited this and had to drag China into the modern world. When you think about China in the mid 70s, the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people had been improved beyond measure, and cities constructed to rival the First World. China was an industrial, modern nation by the time Mao died, and when you reflect on it, it is truly an amazing achievement.
On the idea of the separation of China what has to be considered...
Territories that aren't theirs...
Hong Kong and Macau
Hong Kong and Macau were Chinese territories up until the invasion and colonization of Hong Kong (1841) by the british and the colonization of Macau (1557) by the Portuguese. To support the notion of these territories not bieng Chinese is to simply blur the lines between the truth from the fiction you'd want to be true. The hundreds of years these territories spent under occupation obviously left a mark in the form of quasi-irredentism of the brainwashed people's wanting to continue with the neoliberal western nations that destroyed their culture and language.
Not to mention the catastrophic chaos of separating people into varying nations as iredeamably silly and not at all consistent with any form of communism especially given the the fact that they are all ethnic Chinese and to do so would be to divide people's and cultures which is nothing other than the role of capitalism.
Tibet
You do know that Tibet was part of China consistently for about 500 years and that this mixed polity only ceased bieng so after the British raped them with a treaty they completely violated and ended up making them a vassal puppet state in the treaty of Lhasa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lhasa
And even now your quest for independence is nothing if not either from misinformation or gross arrogance. You do know the Dalai lama supports and considers Marxism-Leninism as a very compatible (only compatible) political ideology with that of his Buddhism and considers them technically more or less the same. His quest isn't for separation but only for more autonomy in his region, which is de jure granted to every region of China autonomous or not and it would have come into force in Tibet if it wasn't for the political impasse in the region.
And besides do you really think supporting a polity that wouldn't allow democracy but some form of a monarchy system in Tibet in which people can't choose their leaders is sensible or even an alternative, maybe an alternative to saudi Arabia but not to China.
Our job is to destroy monarchies to to support and prop them up, what are we the 18th-20th century British?
Taiwan
Now of you think supporting a nation that is openly nationalistic, and a US ally is going to help with any self justified quest for freedom then you are deceiving no one else besides yourself.
A nation founded on Chang Kai shek a tyrant that murdered communists is one you'd chose to support instead of an openly socialistic nation then I ask you to review your standing in our movement.
Now disregarding all the above with what is suspect would be your typical anti-Marxist-Lenninst self justification, you should consider the fact that the rulers of Taiwan now are very sh*ty colonizers who occupied the island, displaced the natives and mistreated them more than what even empires like the Chin Dynasty did to them.
The indigenous of Taiwan lost their land, were culturally suppressed through direct and indirect methods, have to share the little land they have left with a nuclear waste storage facility (obvious industrial racism given there was an uninhabited island they could have stayed it from) and the death of their language.
Reminds one of the US oppression of native populations, impossible to support the ideas is of one without endorsing the other.
The Void left behind
I'd ask if there nations were "freed" who would come in to exert their influence an obvious answer is the US they already do have influence in all the separatist movements in the region. There is absolutely no possibility of a socialist let alone even an anarchist government coming into power all your support and advocacy will be in vain
The division of the peoples would be about the same as the the geopolitical chaos of the undemocratic dissolution of the СССР. Some of us have to get passports to visit relatives left in a whole different pilolity than that of myself, multiple wars affecting millions because of this and the subjection to secondary citizenship status of some of my very own relatives left in the Baltic states and some of my own relatives bieng in opposing sides in a war that shouldnt have happened in the first place.
The only way forward in this situation can only be with in depth knowledge and context to the local conditions and asking the population about how they feel about this (most support the PRC in all instances) then basing any arguement on this from fact and with local knowledge and with the future impact on this and not from baseless beliefs and shady western oriented critiques and sources.
Czechoslovakia is not dead yet, Comrades! I have returned. It feels good to be at the RMB at last, after weeks of absence. What did I miss, Nate?
Che triumphant, The Workers Union of Habsburg-Lorraine, Ubertas, Sodoran Alesia, and 1 otherBrightbayuniversity
Worse than Syria? I don't think so. Compared to Assad or FSA-controlled territories in Syria, Northern Syria has a diverse media landscape, and while hampered by economic troubles and political instability, they are much more free to actually publish reliable information than in Damacus for instance. Here is an overview of what the situation of the press in the DFNS looks like:
"Incorporating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other internationally recognized human rights conventions, the 2014 constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As a result, a diverse media landscape has developed in the region.
However, media often face economic pressures, as demonstrated by the shutting down of news website Welati in May 2016.
Political extremism incited by the context of the Syrian Civil war can put media outlets under pressure, the April 2016 threatening and burning down of the premises of Arta FM ("the first, and only, independent radio station staffed and broadcast by Syrians inside Syria") in Amuda by unidentified assailants being the most prominent example.
International media and journalists operate with few restrictions in the region, the only region in Syria where they can operate freely. In August 2015, the withdrawal of a press licence for the Rudaw Media Network based in Iraqi Kurdistan drew attention."
A general overview of human rights in general within Rojava is available here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_and_East_Syria
Thank you, Bratishka. Now, I see that you were once again involved in an argument with Kaltionis regarding the subject of Tibetan/Taiwanese independence, apparently related to the debate over the Hong Kong protests that have lasted for months now. Is everything alright? I don't want either you or Kaltionis to be exiled from TCB just because of sectarianism, and more than that, I don't like false accusations being levelled against him that describe him as a "anarchist traitor", especially as there is no evidence he is planning to unsermine our cause in any way.
The Chinese state today has its flaws, such as its delayed endorsement of LGBT rights, the relatively low wages of blue-collar workers, the Great Firewall, (Which is an egregiously repressive and ridiculous censorship apparatus) and the pathological workaholism they often force on their children, etc etc, which merits constructive critique.
Presumably when the individual/species evolves/is modified to become sophont? This would by necessity have to cover both sophont individual organisms and any sophont meta-organism, group or gestalt intelligence occupying, comprising or interfacing with multiple physical bodies.
But why should I support an imperialism, both from the china and the U.S. ? China is a nation, but in good time, the Anarchist Commune will replace the nation, and it will replace the greed of nations, for patriotism is human failure. It is Patriotism that Hitler came to power, and it is patriotism that continues to kill fine young people, and It is patriotism that needs to die, not these "Western Ideologues"because their is no such thing. Propaganda is propaganda, western or eastern, we must accept that and move on, comrade.
Seriously? Comparing 2 million man-strong protests (At their peak) which were also assaulted by Triad thugs in Yuen Long to far-right white supremacists and 4chan trolls who sought to establish an oppresive regime that resulted in the deaths of 50 million people in World War 2? I understand that you are skeptical of virtually anything that challenges the Beijing government out of fears it may be hijacked by the Trump Administration, but you have to admit that comparing opposition parties such as Demosisto, Labour Party, and the League of Social Democrats (All of whom are left-of-centre) to a regime that indiscriminately murdered tens of millions of people it considered inferior and personally attacking the protesters in bad faith (Such as accusing them of only doing it because someone else pays them to do so) is a blatant case of fractal wrongness, the shill gambit fallacy, and false equivalence on a unprecedented scale.
For reference, here is a leftist perspective on the Hong Kong protests that does not endorse a right-wing government:
Everything You Need to Know About the Hong Kong Protests
AN INTERVIEW WITH AU LOONG,YU CHRIS CHAN, LAM CHI LEUNG, CHUN-WING LEE, ALEXA, STUDENT LABOUR ACTION COALITION
"Hong Kong's government tried to rush through a bill that would limit civil liberties. Instead they triggered a tidal wave of protests — some of the largest in modern history.
On June 9, Hong Kong was convulsed by a million-strong march against a proposed amendment that would allow suspects to be extradited from the former British colony to mainland China, along with other countries. The government — chaired by the Beijing-approved chief executive Carrie Lim — insists that political dissidents and activists would be unaffected by the amendment. But the measure set off a firestorm, igniting public anger even as the government rushed to push it through the Legislative Council by July.
Last Friday, following days of protests and clashes with the police, and amid growing calls for political strikes, Lam tabled the amendment. And on Saturday, hours into another massive demonstration — said to number over two million out of a population of seven million, with protesters demanding the amendment’s complete withdrawal and Lam’s resignation — the Hong Kong government issued an apology.
Why has the amendment aroused such indignation? How did the legacy of the 2014 Umbrella Movement, Hong Kong’s last major wave of demonstrations, shape the current protests? What are the politics of the protesters? And what are the prospects for democratic movements in Hong Kong and China going forward?
To shed light on all of these questions and more, Jacobin contributor Kevin Lin talked to a range of activists and scholars: Chris Chan, a sociologist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a student and labor activist; Lam Chi Leung, a socialist in Hong Kong and a member of Left21; Chun-Wing Lee, a socialist, member of Left 21, and editor of The Owl, a left-wing website in Hong Kong; and Au Loong Yu, a writer and activist. Lin also solicited comments from Alexa, a Hong Kong-based activist, and the Student Labour Action Coalition, a distinctly left-wing group in a place with few of them. The interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
*The Protests*
KL:
What is the significance of the extradition amendment? Why has it garnered so much opposition in Hong Kong?
ALY:
Hong Kong has extradition agreements with twenty countries, including the UK and the US, but not with mainland China. The pro-Beijing camp, here in Hong Kong and overseas, argues that since Hong Kong has extradition agreements with the West, why can’t it have an agreement with mainland China?
Under the “one country, two systems” arrangement, Article 8 of the Basic Law stipulates that “the laws previously in force in Hong Kong . . . shall be maintained,” which means that Hong Kong is insulated from China’s legal system. Hong Kong, as a special region of China, does not have the necessary power and strength to resist the Chinese central government’s legal persecution if Hong Kong’s legal system is not insulated. China is not only disdainful of basic due process but also of judicial independence. An extradition agreement between China and Hong Kong necessarily undermines “one country, two systems.”
LCL:
The amendment to the Extradition Law touched the nerve of most Hong Kong citizens. Under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), citizens often do not have due process, resulting regularly in wrongful convictions.
Those who have criticized the CCP, those who organize the Tiananmen vigil each year in Hong Kong, those who have helped Chinese dissidents, or even those Hong Kong activists who have supported labor and other rights organizations in mainland China could be considered “endangering national security” and extradited to mainland China. Ordinary citizens are concerned that Hong Kong will be like any other mainland Chinese city, where the freedom of citizens could be at risk.
ALY:
Hong Kong people have the bitter memory of the Bookshop Five incident. Between October and December 2015, five owners and staff from Causeway Bay Books went missing. They were believed to have been arrested for publishing books about the private life of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
What is alarming is not only that this violates the “one country, two systems” principle, but also that two of the arrests were extrajudicial arrests. Two of the booksellers, Gui Minhai and Lee Bo, were abducted by Chinese agents in Thailand and Hong Kong, respectively. If China’s legal system improved significantly then it would be possible to discuss an extradition agreement with China. But in reality it has gone from bad to worse.
CWL:
The turnout has been so large because even those who can be considered allies of the Hong Kong government do not support the amendment bill. Since 1997, when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule, the Chinese government has been ruling Hong Kong by forging an alliance with the big capitalists and the middle class in Hong Kong. This strategy is understandable because they, as the major beneficiaries of Hong Kong’s capitalist development, are inclined to support the status quo.
But throughout these twenty-two years, the younger middle class, especially professionals, has become quite discontented with the government. While the fear that the relatively liberal lifestyle in Hong Kong is under threat is a major reason, it is undeniable that rising living costs, especially housing, is another factor.
Since 2003, the Chinese government has tried to stabilize this alliance by increasing asset values in Hong Kong. Capital from mainland China is one of the causes of the growth of the property market and the stock market. But this governing strategy has clearly backfired, as it has become increasingly difficult for young people to purchase their own homes. The young middle class and students have become the cornerstone of the opposition forces in Hong Kong.
KL:
Alexa, you’ve been at the demonstrations. Can you describe what you have seen? Who are the protesters, and how are the protests organized?
Alexa:
The protesters are people from all walks of life, high in spirit and hopeful. There are no longer just young students.
While there are no [formal] leaders in the protests, people have self-organized, mainly through Facebook, Telegram groups, and lihkg [an online forum like reddit]. They are super creative, making memes mimicking the pro-Beijing propaganda to appeal to the older generation in Hong Kong for support. They have created “meditation” and “picnic” events on Facebook to call on people to gather at Tamar Park. Some people also established a page to call people to go to the MTR [Hong Kong’s metro system] for actions too.
At the scene of the mass protests, people are organized, and they know what resources they need. I think all these were learnt from the Umbrella Movement in 2014. The high level of civic participation and the concerns for Hong Kong’s development, human rights, and rule of law are at the highest point since 1997.
It is also the first time in my life seeing people, who have been mostly silent, express anger towards the government. They are disgusted by what the police force has done to peaceful protesters. The police force has obviously violated the United Nations conventions in its use of excessive force.
KL:
While the Civil Human Rights Front (a coalition of civil society organizations) formally called for the June 9 demonstration, the current movement, as Alexa noted, appears to be horizontal and leaderless. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the protests?
ALY:
While the 2014 Umbrella Movement was largely spontaneous, the HKFS (“Hong Kong Federation of Students”) was still instrumental in making that happen. The student organizations are now much smaller and very fragmented. Political parties, willingly or unwillingly, have also been marginalized in the mobilization.
The Civil Human Rights Front was instrumental in making the June 9 and the June 12 actions happen by getting the licenses to march and assemble in the first place. But it simply does not have the organizational capacity to lead massive civil disobedience.
In this 2019 movement, we are witnessing the continuation of a trend already very visible in 2014 — namely, the strong feeling in favor of decentralized and leaderless actions. The communication revolution makes coordination much easier now and rigid organization less necessary.
Yet there is a kind of fetishism of spontaneity among young activists. Many simply see organization as superfluous or necessarily authoritarian. Even the relatively new Demosistō, founded and led by Joshua Wong [a twenty-two-year-old activist who came to prominence during the Umbrella Revolution], seems not to be attractive enough to the current youngsters.
Today anyone can be a temporary leader and call for radical actions without weighing the pros and cons. For instance, on June 11, certain small pro-independence localists called for “proportional violence against the government” and for people to break into the legislature and the government headquarters the next day to block the amendment bill from being introduced. Eventually hundreds of youngsters did try to break into the legislature on June 12, despite the fact that by then the legislature hall was empty, as there was no meeting at all. This was also the moment when the police began to fire rubber bullets, causing injuries.
Leaderless struggles, however great, are also less able to have careful deliberation before taking drastic actions, let alone able to fight against provocateurs and agents from both the Hong Kong and the Beijing governments. That said, one must also recognize that the controversial attempt to break into the legislature was, for the first time in decades, positively received by many in Hong Kong.
KL:
Despite the weakening of university student associations, other new groups have emerged. One of the more radical left groups, the Student Labour Action Coalition, seeks to link up student and workers’ movements and has taken direct actions. Would you tell us about your coalition, and how you have participated in the protest movement?
SLAC:
We are a coalition of concerned labor and social groups and unions founded in 2017. We believe that worker and student movements cannot be separated, and we focus on improving workers’ conditions at universities by linking up students and workers.
We have been supporting the protest movement by taking direct action. On June 8, we joined with the Hong Kong Federation of Social Work Students to march on the street to rally Hong Kong citizens to participate in the demonstration the next day. We participated in the demonstration with college students on June 9.
After the march, we joined the picket line and mobilized support for strike actions planned for June 12, and surrounded the Legislative Council. Because the Legislative Council is not democratic and most members are puppets of the Beijing government, we needed to surround the Legislative Council to stop the meetings.
KL:
There are often accusations of foreign powers instigating Hong Kong’s social movements, whether it’s the Umbrella Movement or the current protests. What is your response to such accusations?
ALY:
The Beijing and Hong Kong governments have said that the protests are funded by the American NED [National Endowment for Democracy].
It is true that most pan-democrat [pro-democracy] parties have received funding from the NED. But it is also undeniable that both the big protests and clashes on June 9 and 12 were not called by these parties. The Civil Human Rights Front is a coalition of more than fifty organizations, most of which are civil associations and trade unions. The main pan-democrat parties are part of it, but only constitute a minority.
The Front was founded in 2002, in a moment when the main pan-democrat parties were afraid to take the lead in mobilizing people. Precisely because of this history, the main pan-democrats have not been dominant within the Front.
Not to mention the fact that the Front possesses no authority over the people who come to their rally. Often the young people just do what they want upon joining.
Hong Kong Since the Umbrella Movement
KL:
Many compare the current demonstrations with the Umbrella Movement, in which tens of thousands of people occupied key roads for seventy-nine days to protest the Chinese government’s refusal to allow universal suffrage in Hong Kong’s chief executive election. Five years later, what is your assessment of the Umbrella Movement?
CWL:
The Umbrella Movement is a very complex story. Before 2014, the leaders of the opposition forces (the so-called pan-democrats) in elections were liberals. On the streets, social movement leaders could be understood as people embracing center-left policies.
To simplify an extremely complex story, the emergence of a huge of number of “new” social movement participants overwhelmed the organizational capacity of the established political parties and social movement organizations/networks. From the perspective of many new and young protest participants, the established figures and organizations lacked legitimacy. Many of them therefore embraced what we call “localism” and/or oppose the idea that collective action should be led or coordinated by organizations.
The rise of localism and the distrust of organizations, from my point of view, are the major negative consequences of the Umbrella Movement. But the experience of confronting the police in the streets in 2014 clearly empowered many activists, and more people have become receptive to radical actions in the streets. Without such a change, which is partly a legacy of the Umbrella Movement, the protesters probably would not have been able to occupy the areas outside the Legislative Council, forcing the cancellation of the Legislative Council Meeting.
ALY:
Soon after the end of the Umbrella Movement a wave of demoralization swept through the young people, even though it was they who had made the occupation possible. Most loose organizations set up by young people in the previous years crumbled. The Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) was attacked and then taken over by xenophobic localists, only to be dismantled later. And then the government started to take revenge and began putting a lot of activists in jail, which further exacerbated the demoralization.
Thanks to the Hong Kong government, a new round of resistance has been reignited, this time by an even younger generation. For a week, even middle school students mobilized in the hundreds to oppose the extradition bill.
The Umbrella generation represents a rupture with the older generation in terms of cultural identity: they are now more likely to identify themselves as Hong Kongers than Chinese, and behind this is the emotional link to Hong Kong which the older generation lacks. What makes the Umbrella generation special is that they began to develop such commitments and were politicized when their demand for universal suffrage was refused by the government. This year the China extradition bill further politicized an even younger generation.
I remember on the last day of the Umbrella Movement, people hung out a huge banner which read: “We will be back.” This prophecy came true.
KL:
As Au Loong Yu notes, since the Umbrella Movement, Hong Kong has seen a new generation of young activists and leaders emerge. Who is in this new generation of young leaders, and what are their political demands and strategies?
ALY:
The pan-democrat parties were discredited for their timid attitude during the Umbrella Movement. The political vacuum was soon filled by two new forces, namely those who are for self-determination and those for independence. They mostly consist of young people.
The 2016 legislative election saw the electoral victory of five new hands in politics from the above two currents, at the expense of the pan-democrat camp, including Lee Cheuk Yan, the leader of both the Labour Party and Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. The success of the latter two currents shows that many voters, especially the new generation, no longer accept the excessively moderate policy of the pan-democrats in their dealing with Beijing.
While Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration and Cheng Chung-tai from Civil Passion are either right wing or far-right localists, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu Lai, and Nathan Law Kwun-chung (representing Demosisto) are slightly left leaning. The former wing uses a lot of racist and xenophobic language, not just against the CCP but against all Chinese people. Youngspiration’s program explicitly demands those who cannot speak either Cantonese or English be excluded from citizenship. (This is especially ridiculous, as many senior Hong Kong residents cannot speak either of the two languages but rather speak Hakka or Chaochou dialects.) They also aim at excluding mainland Chinese immigrants from enjoying basic benefits in Hong Kong. Civic Passion is well known for inciting violence against Chinese people. It is no accident that they have little interest in promoting labor rights and social security for marginalized groups and minorities. If these people are radical, they are radically conservative.
The latter wing’s call for self-determination has not been linked to any anti-Chinese sentiment. Eddie Chu claims that he is for democratic self-determination, which includes rather than excludes Chinese people and other marginalized groups. Their political vision is wedded to a social platform which includes labor rights, gender rights, and the rights of minorities. The politics of these self-determination advocates are not always so clear cut, however, and may bend towards the localists when pressed hard by the latter. One must also add the League of Social Democrats to this camp of center-left self-determination advocates. Together the center-left camp garnered 15.2 percent of the vote in 2016.
LCL:
Since the Umbrella Movement, the laissez-faire capitalism of Hong Kong has further increased poverty and economic inequality. One in five Hong Kong citizens, or 1.38 million, live under the poverty line. Its Gini coefficient of 0.539 is higher than that of the US and Singapore.
Hong Kong desperately needs a socialist force that opposes both authoritarianism and capitalism. But individuals and networks in Hong Kong who hold socialist views, such as Left21 and a few revolutionary socialist networks, are very weak, and have become more marginalized against the wave of localist sentiments.
KL:
Social movement activists in Hong Kong have played a crucial role in supporting mainland Chinese activists in recent decades, at least partially motivated by the idea that Hong Kong’s democratic future will depend on the democratic development of mainland China. Can you talk about the ways in which Hong Kong activists have supported activists in China, and whether the political developments in Hong Kong will undermine this support?
LCL:
Since the 1990s, Hong Kong activists have consistently supported labor, human rights, gender rights, LGBT rights, and environmental activists in China and contributed to the development of Chinese social movements and civil society.
The civil freedom of Hong Kong enables it to spread knowledge and literature of social movements to China, promote intellectual exchanges among mainland Chinese and Hong Kong activists, and organize solidarity for social resistance in mainland China. Many books that could only be published in Hong Kong have been brought to mainland China, including writings by mainland Chinese authors, while discussions about social movements have also been carried out in Hong Kong.
With the Chinese government’s growing political control over Hong Kong, this role is likely to be diminished. As China’s social contradictions intensify, the Chinese government will be even more on guard about Hong Kong’s influence on Chinese social movements.
CWL:
One of the problems brought about by the rise of localism is that among the young activists in Hong Kong, supporting activism in mainland China may no longer be seen as necessary. The extreme faction of the localist camp even argues that offering support to the democratic movement in mainland China is a waste of time since “Hongkongers” should care about the problems in Hong Kong first.
Another worrying development is that, in mainland China, the official media portray a picture that most, if not all, activists in Hong Kong favor Hong Kong’s independence or look down on the mainland Chinese. Although it is impossible to know what the public genuinely thinks in mainland China, what we have been seeing on social media nowadays is that struggles in Hong Kong are winning little sympathy among the netzines in mainland China. Since the suppression in mainland China has become more severe, communications and discussions between Hong Kong–based and mainland-based activities are becoming more difficult.
The Future
KL:
What do you make of Hong Kong’s chief executive shelving the extradition bill? To what extent is it a victory?
ALY:
Carrie Lam only suspended the bill — she didn’t withdraw the bill, as demanded by the protestors. It is not a full victory, but is still a partial victory. Temporarily suspending the bill is already a big defeat for Carrie Lam, and this also gives the opposition more time to build up the movement. And since she added that there is no timetable to reintroduce the bill, the length of the suspension will not be short.
What is more, this year and next year are both election years, so it is improbable that she will allow the pro-Beijing parties to risk losing election by reintroducing the bill during these two years. And the third year is also not ideal because it is the last year of her term. The task of reintroducing the bill, if it happens, will likely be that of the next chief executive.
KL:
What, then, is the future of Hong Kong and movements for democracy and economic justice?
CC:
From the Umbrella Movement to the Anti-Extradition protests, people increasingly accept militant actions because they recognize that demonstrations and occupations cannot disrupt capitalist production. One outcome is important to the Left: after these two movements, people see the importance of strikes and the role of trade unions in political struggles.
During the Umbrella Movement, only some student leaders called on trade unions to strike. But during the anti-Extradition movement, thousands of workers asked their unions to organize strikes. The political struggles will continue in Hong Kong. If the young generation could engage in workplace actions, it would be very significant for the Left.
ALY:
The rise of the above-mentioned, two new currents of young people, plus the not-so-young League of Social Democrats, were dealt a big blow when government disqualified their lawmakers [in 2017]. Luckily, another new generation is now rising, and it is taking matters into its own hands. The street mobilization against the China extradition bill is chiefly their work. However if they cannot develop their politics in a democratic left direction, and overcome their fragmentation, they may not be able to consolidate into a strong progressive force.
Secondly, the emphasis on media-oriented actions, a legacy of the pan-democrats, still largely dominates among the young activists, to the extent that not only are long-term organizational efforts often neglected, but also there is an indifference toward the dire situation of working people. Many people are now calling for workers to go on strike, but this has not been successful. They simply treat workers as a kind of instant noodle — all you need is to make an order for it and the waiter will deliver it right away.
Hong Kong’s historical trajectory makes it a city hostile toward leftist values of solidarity, fraternity, and equality. A Social Darwinian culture, the result of being a free port for over 150 years, has penetrated the population so much so that it is hard for left forces to grow. To make that happen, young activists will have to begin to address the class issue.
LCL:
Looking ahead, the political environment in Hong Kong will become more challenging. The relatively liberal period between 1997 and 2008 has come to an end. The Hong Kong government will handle democratic and social movements more harshly, especially those that insist on direct actions outside of the Legislative Council.
The Hong Kong government sides with the capitalist class and conservative forces, who are always hostile to labor rights, the rights of women, and LGBT rights as well as equitable wealth distribution. The Hong Kong public is under the duel oppression of Chinese bureaucratic capital and Hong Kong’s monopoly capital. Any social and economic reform has to confront the reality of authoritarian capitalism.
However, after the anti-WTO protest in 2005, the construction workers’ strike in 2007, and dock workers’ strike in 2013, more activists have moved away from the fragmented models of struggle popular in the 1990s, and recognized the class politics necessary for challenging neoliberalism. To develop this left politics, we need to deepen the discussion around questions like “what is left politics” and “what is to done,” clarifying the differences between the socialist left and far-right localism and nationalism.
We also need a broad China perspective and to increase exchanges with social movements and left activists in mainland China. Only through more collaboration with Chinese civil society and social movements that confront China’s authoritarian capitalism can the Hong Kong public secure true democracy and social equality."
Source: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/hong-kong-extradition-bill-protest-movement
Don't worry there isn't any sectarianism here it's just a simple discussion on the China we have (though regrettebly so) today. As I know the China of today is nothing like that which we as communists fought for and those of us that worked for it's establishment throughout the 1940s and any critique of it and literally anything else is warranted and very much supported by me, the issue is just arguments based out of knowledge that isn't really accepted as fact especially if not so by others in the red/black left for instance a critique on North Korea considering that there is very limited knowledge of the territory and almost everything known of them is from defectors who always say what they think wants to be heard in the West for their own benefit. Comrade Kaltionis has a different belief to mine which he made clear in his post on how and why he can't support Beijing which aside from his imperialism accusations is warranted given his more individualistic ideas and his anti statism in contrast to my ideals and those that China was founded on of emphasis on the community and society as a whole and a state as an unseparatable part of the movement. I respect his ideas and only discuss in a mannered nature in order to avoid any emotional or personal attacks and apologise if i did so.
I as most people would strongly agree on the pseudo socialism of today's China and disagree with its Political organisation (administrative), some social policies and most importantly it's economic system since deng Xiaoping screwing it up.
China is powered by socialist nostalgia and not patriotism, patriotism is a chauvinistic poison that will do nothing but bog us down to that state which we ultimately want to destroy.
You guys do know that Chinese isn't an ethnic group and is an umbrella term for all the regions of China, so an oppression of a people over a people would be impossible if there is no ethnic group that had preference over another and the fact that the ethnic Han people are bieng separated by the elites who are fuelled not by their people's culture or will but by their own directive and colonial sympathies.
«12. . .16,35016,35116,35216,35316,35416,35516,356. . .20,56120,562»
Advertisement
