Hong Kong
- This topic has 637 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
is this your view also?
I think the real point is that many social revolutions have been relatively peaceful. The fall of the Shah in Iran and Marcos in the Philippines, for instance, and in most cases, they were spontaneous acts of the masses and not instigated by the political parties and in this sense, they were leader free although they were quickly co-opted and the people power usurped. The Arab Spring is another example of when having disposed of dictators, people were misled into supporting other despots.
And yes this can be seen as counter-revolutionary. I happen to view October 1917 as a counter-revolution against the February revolution and the creation of the soviets which once in power, the Bolsheviks proceeded to dismantle.
You are correct about the manner Yeltsin resorted to tanks shelling the Russian Parliament and we can add how in Romania the dictator Ceausescu tried to use his special police to stop his removal but if we look at Eastern Europe as a whole, the fall of the Soviet satellite states was accomplished without bloodshed, compared with previous attempts in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. .
Wez’s point is I believe (and he can correct me if I am wrong) that a dictatorship depends upon the passive acquiescence of the majority and when that is withdrawn, the legitimacy of the government disappears and a regime can fall. And the more involved and participate in the social unrest, the less violence occurs.
You may not accept it but in 1989 the situation existed where a substantial part of the Chinese army and a number of prominent CCP politicians plus elements within the media were perceived as being disaffected and they had the popular support of the local people. That was the trigger for such a brutal crackdown. Fear.
The Hong Kong pro-democracy protests did not spread to the mainland and could be isolated because as you say, Xi Jinping, holds the support of most of the Chinese people because of the economic prosperity that has arisen over recent years. A full belly is rarely the cause of rebellion. If in the future economic conditions change for the detriment, he will lose that sympathy.
“I think the real point is that many social
revolutions have been relatively peaceful.”I wasn’t arguing about the revolution, I was arguing about the counter-revolution. Those are never “relatively peaceful”.
“The fall of the Shah in Iran”
What followed? Sanctions and the bloodletting of the Iran-Iraq war sponsored by the US of A. Millions upon millions dead. As we speak the US is still sanctioning Iran and just a couple years back Trump was threatening to nuke them. If not for their fearsome military capabilities the Islamic Republic would be no more.
“and Marcos in the Philippines”
That was a political revolution not a social revolution. Capitalism was maintained. Therefore there was no need for a reactionary counter-revolution.
“for instance, and in most cases, they were spontaneous acts of the masses and not instigated by the political parties and in this sense, they were leader free although they were quickly co-opted and the people power usurped.”
Not what I asked. Who is going to protect the gains of the revolution against counter-reaction? You’ll need a disciplined military for that will you not? Leaders to lead them both military and civilian, no?
“The Arab Spring is another example of when having
disposed of dictators, people were misled into
supporting other despots.”The Arab Spring? Libya? A CIA dirty war. Syria? Another CIA dirty war. Egypt? Muslim brotherhood.
“I happen to view October 1917 as a counter-revolution against the February revolution and the creation of the soviets which once in power, the Bolsheviks proceeded to dismantle.”
The country faced a massive counter-revolution from tsarist reactionaries and was invaded by 17 foreign countries! The Bolsheviks had to create the Red Army to survive. How do you imagine you’d have defeated the counter-revolution? Serious question.
“Wez’s point is I believe (and he can correct me if
I am wrong) that a dictatorship depends upon the
passive acquiescence of the majority and when that
is withdrawn, the legitimacy of the government
disappears and a regime can fall. And the more
involved and participate in the social unrest, the
less violence occurs.”The…counter…revolution…how…do…you…organise…a…defence…against…it?
“You may not accept it but in 1989 the situation
existed where a substantial part of the Chinese
army and a number of prominent CCP politicians
plus elements within the media were perceived as
being disaffected and they had the popular support
of the local people. That was the trigger for such
a brutal crackdown. Fear.”The Communist Party defeated a colour counter-revolution. They acted properly.
“The Hong Kong pro-democracy protests did not
spread to the mainland and could be isolated
because as you say, Xi Jinping, holds the support
of most of the Chinese people because of the
economic prosperity that has arisen over recent
years. A full belly is rarely the cause of
rebellion. If in the future economic conditions
change for the detriment, he will lose that
sympathy.”More than that. People want equity, justice and sovereignty also. Which is why big capital is being chastened, corruption is being throttled and the military invested in to guard against imperialist aggression.
‘Soldiers are some of the most reactionary people on the planet.’
_________________________________________________
Don’t you know that soldiers and policemen are also members of the working class ? Probably, you are the reactionary one.I have seen situation when the armed forces have given up and have passed to the sides of the workers.
There were many USA soldiers in Vietnam who refused to shoot against the Vietnamese’s peasants and there were many US soldiers who refused to go to Iraq and they were seating on the pavement of the military airports because he were not willing to kill innocent peoples
The so called red army which was the army of the peoples and the workers also killed many Bolsheviks and Anarchists who protested against the economic measures of the commissars, those are reactionary too
In many countries around the world peoples have overthrown government without any type of weapons, even more Lenin contradicted himself when he said that when government and rulers lose the support of the workers they collapse.
The Castro guerrillas won the battle because certain groups of the ruling class, the church and the army took sides with them otherwise they would not have overthrown Batista regime and the guerrillas would have been wiped out, like the Tupamaros, FARC and 1j4
Most guerrillas groups have been wiped out because they did not have the support of the majority of the peoples which show that a minority of armed rebels can not make a revolution, on the contrary, the guerrillas are the ones who have given up and have been forced to surrender their weapons, the best example is Guevara in Bolivia and Caamaño
The dictatorship of Rafael L Trujillo and his family were overthrown and force to leave without any armed insurrection, the majority of the peoples opposed the regime.
During the peoples uprising in 1965 in the Dominican Republic some sectors of the army took side with the peoples and the USA had to send Marines because the whole government apparatus had collapsed
There are hundred of examples and cases where the ruling class has given up
In other to have a counter revolution you need a revolution, and revolutions are made by the vast majority of the peoples, therefore the reactionary ones are the ones who oppose the revolutions. You are also contradicting Lenin who also said that revolution are made by the workers.
You are a real ideological mess of contradictions on top of others contradictions and negating concept of leaders that you support
Another flaw of Leninism is the return to caoitalism, if the vast majority of the peoples support socialism, they would not be any return to capitalism because workers will not allow that, and in order to have capitalism you need a capitalist class, in reality they were scared of being overthrown by the peoples which were the majority which did not support them
Over the years I have met many of these pseudo revolutionaries like TS, full of blood curdling slogans about violent revolutionary actions, but when it all kicks off they are nowhere to be be seen. One whiff of any real trouble TS and their ilk fill their pants and are off hiding under the bed.
Like the pretend revolutionaries of the left who bleated on about offering full support to the Provisional IRA, Happy enough to sing rebels songs in the pub on a Friday night, but somehow they never manage to show their solidarity by getting themselves over to the Falls Road or the Creggan and get themselves an armalite.
Same with the miners strike, full of support to the miners, didn’t see many of them at the Battle of Orgreave!
The most radical action that TS has ever undertaken was quoting Monty Python sketches to his mates in his frat house.
Another example of the Chinese State’s great concern for the toiling masses is shown by CNTC.
The Chinese tobacco industry is a powerful state-owned enterprise. The commercial arm called the China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) is managed by the government arm, the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration. CNTC is the largest tobacco company in the world, producing 40 per cent of the global cigarette supply. The company has a monopoly in China to supply more than 300 million Chinese smokers and makes vast profits for the Chinese state.
Rather attempt to develop programmes to stop smoking, CNTC has a long history of sponsorship of schools and educational programmes, the programmes used are advertised with slogans “genius is from hard work, tobacco helps you excel”.
The profit motive at work again.
While we are putting the boot into to the Chinese regime, there’s this. A bit unfair, I admit, like kicking a man when he’s down or taking a candy from a baby.
“President Xi was facing the most serious test of his approach to Chinese capitalism last night as Beijing decided whether it could allow a corporate giant burdened with hundreds of millions of debt to go bankrupt” (Times, 21 September).
The Chinese government still occasionally calls itself socialist, though this is more common amongst its fellow travellers and useful idiots abroad. Everybody can see it isn’t, even the Western media as in the news item above. Its economy is ‘state capitalist’ even in the Leninist sense of the development of private capitalism under the aegis of a supposedly ‘socialist’ state. Lenin, however, envisaged only small-scale capitalist enterprises. The Chinese government has allowed and encouraged big corporations to develop and so finds itself in the position of having to cope with problems caused by the workings of a market economy involving big capitalist corporations.
The ‘corporate giant’ that risked going bankrupt is a property company with the wonderful name of Evergrande that epitomises what every capitalist enterprise has to aim at – growing bigger and bigger through the re-investment of most of its profits as new capital.
Founded in 1996, it expanded rapidly in response to a housing boom, borrowing heavily to meet the demand for new apartment blocks. Then, as always happens sooner or later, the boom turned to bust.
The anarchic expansion of the market led to an oversupply of residential property:‘Supply of apartments exceeds demand and many new apartment blocks stand empty or unfinished’ (Times, 21 September).
‘By some estimates, China now has 90 million units of empty houses’ (Simon Nixon, Times, 23 September).
The oversupply is in relation to paying demand not need:
‘ … there are the very high vacancy rates in China with high prices. In cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen property values are “very extreme” relative to average incomes’ (Patrick Hoskings, Times, 21 September).
Evergrande has been left with huge debts that it cannot meet. The fear amongst stock exchange speculators is that its collapse would be China’s ‘Lehman moment’, as in the US in 2007-8 that provoked the Great Recession from which the world has still not fully recovered. They are afraid that the failure of Evergrande would spread from it to its suppliers and from them to their suppliers and so on, and of the impact of the resulting generalised economic crisis in China on the rest of the world capitalist economy.
It might not come to this, but the point is that it could. This shows that the Chinese government, despite being a one-party dictatorship, is as much at the mercy of unpredictable, anarchic market forces as any elected reformist government in the West.
Chairman Xi is finding that capitalism is not a paper tiger.
Besides making poops in their own pants and hiding themselves under a bed when the reality showed up, I have seen most of these seudo revolutionary, seudo socialists/communists and seudo Marxists collaborating with the ruling class and the state apparatus, the security agency of the state, and becoming part of their own world, and they became more reactionary, or equal like the rulers, state officials and the ruling class.
They were ready to eat bullets at a bar or pub , in the hallways of the universities, or in the corners preaching like evangelicals, but when the reality hit their faces there was a big stampede, like when the Soviet Collapsed, and China openly became capitalists they became disoriented, frustrated and burn out because they were not guiding themselves by principles but by leaders and the standing of one powerful state capitalist country and most abandoned the so called proletarian struggles and all the organizations vanished from the face of the earth
I have seen them getting involved in the drugs traffics and in the world of organized crimes, their families completed destroyed and abandoned, and their children rejecting them because they were irresponsible with their family, impregnating women and leaving them with the child, the popular term used by them on everyday calling them lumpen, can also be applied to them
Some has became business peoples and they forgot about everything that they used to preach when they were young, I encountered one who was like a dragon throwing flames when he was young and he told me that those were ideas for young peoples, for students, poor and uneducated peoples, he is only one example of many like him, some peoples said that they were revolutionary until they reached the fourth year of Medicine or the fourth year of a law degree, or when they were not drinking at a bar, or a pub.
They were experts in armaments but when the time came they did not even use a bow an arrow, or a water pistol. Tell me about it , or ask about it and it will tell you about so many epics that I have seen in my life , like empty aluminum cans making too many noises but you will not find any substances inside, the blind was guiding the blinds and it became an assembly line of seudo socialists
Pretty soon we are going to see another Lehman brothers falling apart in China and another part 2 of George Bush and Barrack Obama bailing out the collapse of capitalist corporations in China. Marx hit the nail on the head when he discovered that capitalist crisis are produced by overproduction, and the seudo socialists and seudo marxists like the bully that we have in this forum looking for the cause crisis on Neo liberalism and the banking system, the answer would be: Stupid, it is capitalism the one to be blamed
https://qz.com/2061633/chinas-evergrande-dilemma-to-bail-out-or-not-to-bail-out/
To bail out or not to bail out Evergrande is not the question, it is the dilemma in China. Socialism with capitalist crisis ( like they say in this forum: Mixed economy ) I do not want to laugh because I have toothache
So not one off you clowns is capable of answering my very simple question? I’ll ask it again then. How does the revolution defend itself against the inevitable counter-revolution?
You’ll need leaders for that. You despise leaders therefore you will not be able to defend your revolution. Have I got that right?
TrueScotsman
Participant
So not one off you clowns is capable of answering my very simple question? I’ll ask it again then. How does the revolution defend itself against the inevitable counter-revolution?You’ll need leaders for that. You despise leaders therefore you will not be able to defend your revolution. Have I got that right?
———————————————————————————No, you are completely wrong Without a revolution you can not have a counter revolution, and a majority of peoples is not going to overthrow themselves. You are doing a job worst than Lenin, the majority of the peoples is the one who can stop the counter revolution of the reactionary. Continue in your rocking chair, you have not seen the reality yet. The only ones who need leaders are the sheeps, and sometimes the shepherd walk behind the sheets
All the adults are in the room but we have a nasty child playing in the backyard
the Chinese government still occasionally calls itself socialist, though this is more common amongst its fellow travellers and useful idiots abroad.
____________________________________________________________________
This is really true, most Maoists and Maoist group do not believe that China is a socialist country, and some Maoist and Hoxhaist groups are getting together again to denounce China as a counter revolutionary country presided by a counter-evolutionary president and a counterrevolutionary party. Probably, they are going to hang some dogs in the lamps posts like the followers of Shining Path did in Peru
- The topic ‘Hong Kong’ is closed to new replies.