Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

And it still is, given the sheer scale of the pro-democratic camp (Which wholeheartedly supported the protest movement and their demands)'s victory in the recent elections, and that combined with the increased turnout in the December protests shows that it isn't at risk of dying out anytime soon, even after the Polytechnic University uprisings. No matter how hard you try to spin it, there is no "silent majority" that supports the pro-Beijing xamp and wants to "crack down on them rioters" like you've claimed.

The December protests have a markedly decreased turnout.

Compare the three months:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... g_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... g_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... g_protests

It is clear to me after analysing all three that December is a relatively quiet month with decreased incidence of protest and protestor attendance. This is consistent with my observations (I've been following the news online) that the weekdays now are silent (compared to before) and the weekends are nowhere near as disrupted.

As I've said before, the pro Dem electoral win result must be treated with a degree of caution given the unusual HK political system (where elections are symbolic and it is cost-less to send a vote of disapproval since the opposition cannot take power).

Asides from the fact that you have completely omitted the December 8th protest organized by the CHRF in which more than 800,000 HKers have participated in, the counter-demonstrations for December howewer, are even smaller, and none of them cracked the 1000 threshold:

Counter-demonstrations
"On 3 December several dozen people protested in a pro-Beijing rally in Central gathering in Chater Garden; they sang the Chinese national anthem and then marched to the US Consulate. They trampled on an American flag as they vented their anger at President Donald Trump for signing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law. They waved Chinese flags and accused Washington of interfering in China's internal affairs.[31]

On 7 December hundreds of pro-government supporters held a rally in Wan Chai accusing the pan-democrats of using "unscrupulous means to become district councillors". They sang the national anthem and chanted slogans at pro-democracy protesters as "cockroaches" and "trash".[32]

On 15 December hundreds of protesters staged a rally at Tamar Park expressing support for the police. Waving national and SAR flags, the crowd sang songs to try to raise the morale of front line officers. They also held placards calling on the "US to stop destroying Hong Kong's democracy and human rights".[33]"

And there is no catch in the HK election results. The pro-democratic camp has clearly and definitively achieved a landslide victory, so much so that Starry Lee submitted her resignation in light of the election results, and only the DAB's central committee has stopped her from finalizing it, and once again, candidates who were the loudest supporters of the protests won overwhelming victories in their respective constituencies, ruling out the possibility that the pro-democrats only won because the public "was disappointed by the government's inability to crackdown on the protesters". To conclude, the elections were widely viewed as a referendum on the protest movement and its demands, and the silent majority has made its choice. And said choice was to support the 5 demands by the protest movement by galvanizing the pro-democratic camp and voting for them in droves, with a record turnout of over 71% of registered voters.

[Saturna1ia]

Hong Kong and its people are part of a greater whole (the Chinese state)

Hong Kong is, but the people by and large are not according to them themselves. In the end they may not have a choice in the matter, and to be sure those like you will have it easier when everything comes to a head, but there will be further confrontation and bloodshed until all is lost. Hopefully then Taiwan and/or America will accept your fellow countrymen and women who will be able to say they actually stood for the Hong Kong they too loved.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

The December protests have a markedly decreased turnout.

Compare the three months:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... g_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... g_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... g_protests

It is clear to me after analysing all three that December is a relatively quiet month with decreased incidence of protest and protestor attendance. This is consistent with my observations (I've been following the news online) that the weekdays now are silent (compared to before) and the weekends are nowhere near as disrupted.

As I've said before, the pro Dem electoral win result must be treated with a degree of caution given the unusual HK political system (where elections are symbolic and it is cost-less to send a vote of disapproval since the opposition cannot take power).

You know this lie of a silent majority who don't support the protests is getting really fucking old.

This debunked myth was dealt its final nail in the coffin when all of the ballots were counted and the election results came in. Had the protesters truly been marginalized, the pro-Beijing camp would win yet another solid victory, just like they have over the last decade.

[Novus America]

Hong Kong and its people are part of a greater whole (the Chinese state)

Hong Kong is, but the people by and large are not according to them themselves. In the end they may not have a choice in the matter, and to be sure those like you will have it easier when everything comes to a head, but there will be further confrontation and bloodshed until all is lost. Hopefully then Taiwan and/or America will accept your fellow countrymen and women who will be able to say they actually stood for the Hong Kong they too loved.

Also the state is not the people. Only a representative government that rules with the consent of the people can validly claim to actually represent the people.

A one party state imposed on a people by forces rules a people but does not represent them.

[Beire]

I'm sorry my different opinions offend you.



I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

China follows a market socialist model. This ideology of China stipulates that China is currently in the primary stage of socialism, and the main focus of this stage is building up its productive forces. Instead of relying upon the flawed analyses of centre and right-wing sources as your Wikipedia copy-paste does (which is why the 'consensus' is that China is state capitalist), let's have a look at the intent behind China's ideology. Deng Xiapoing, the architect behind Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, argued that 'This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces', as China suffered from low material wealth during the time he came to the fore.' China has focused on eliminating poverty during this transitional stage; it is simply idealist and foolish to jump straight into socialism, especially when one considers the fate that befell the Soviet Union. In addition, other prominent communists such as Fidel Castro and socialist states such as the DPRK maintain(ed) good relations with China, commending China's progress in constructing a socialist society.

In China, it isn't slipping money into a bureaucrat's pocket that gets you far as it is in practically every capitalist state. It is the only country that regularly executes or imprisons billionaires for stepping too far out of line. Although there is a wealth disparity that 1) already existed and 2) continued to exist under the reforms, the quality of life for the impoverished has been improving drastically. We are talking about a country that, by the time the PRC was established, consisted mostly of peasants and possessed a meagre amount of material wealth.

China's labour conditions have been improving drastically as well. http://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workp ... australia/ This Trotskyist source claims that the workplace conditions in China are better than those in Australia.

Intent is one thing. Actual actions and policy is another, and the fact remains that China cannot be classified as a "socialist" economy by any reasonable metric. If the workers do not own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange, then it by definition isn't socialist, no matter how hard you try to spin it. China's current economic policy can be best summed up as "Sure, you can go conduct capitalist business here, as long as it serves the interests of our nation", which bears a striking resemblance to fascist corporatism. And comparing China's reforms to Lenin's NEP is a hot take given that the NEP was quickly abandoned within several years after being passed, while China has shown no signs of abandoning state capitalism anytime soon, and considering its close relationship with a coalition that is entirely composed of rightwing capitalists and oligarchs in Hong Kong, I wouldn't hold my breath.
And working conditions still remain poor in China, as this report shows:
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/report/138

Of course actual actions and policy is another, which is why you need to study the intent and compare it with the effects of the policies, instead of reading what a third party soi-disant political analyst claims, or a right-wing source whose credibility is questionable. China has, according to the World Bank, lifted more than 850 million Chinese people out of poverty; the poverty rate according to this source fell from 88 per cent to 0.7 per cent. I would agree that this fits with serving the interests of the nation, in that the interests of the nation involve bringing people out of poverty and building up its productive forces, which is the intent as described by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. To compare China's economic policy to fascist corporatism is a hot take, due to the fact that the nature of fascism is to be a last ditch resort in order to protect capitalism, whereas in China, state-owned enterprises dominate (that alone doesn't make it socialist, but it certainly isn't unabashedly capitalist as fascist states were) and economic foul play is punished to the highest degree. The NEP was quickly abandoned, but Socialism with Chinese Characteristics does not intend to emulate the NEP; it was directly inspired by it. To emulate the NEP would be emulating a policy that was enacted in the conditions of post-civil war, 1920s Russia, which China does not proclaim to do as it follows Socialism with Chinese Characteristics -- that is to say, socialism that befits the conditions that China is currently facing. It is interesting that the NEP, though it lasted for a much shorter time, resulted in the rich peasants exerting more power (which led to their suppression); whereas in China, capitalist roaders possess very little power, if any.

The report you have provided comes from a New York-based organisation and its overall credibility does not convince me. I don't see the point of the pictures of the workshop and cafeteria; they both just seem like workplaces to me. The picture of people sleeping can probably be found anywhere and the picture of the toilets could have been somewhere random. I would be more convinced if they had recorded evidence or a hidden camera.

I'm imagining you won't be dissatisfied with me dismissing your source as non-credible, but at least I engaged with it. You didn't even acknowledge mine; you just posted a report from a New York-based company. Do you think that's going to be credible enough?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Hong Kong is, but the people by and large are not according to them themselves. In the end they may not have a choice in the matter, and to be sure those like you will have it easier when everything comes to a head, but there will be further confrontation and bloodshed until all is lost. Hopefully then Taiwan and/or America will accept your fellow countrymen and women who will be able to say they actually stood for the Hong Kong they too loved.

Also the state is not the people. Only a representative government that rules with the consent of the people can validly claim to actually represent the people.

A one party state imposed on a people by forces rules a people but does not represent them.

^^^^
This.

[Propheticum]

Here's a thought:

The people who don't support Hong Kong freedom are,

A: People who have economic ties to the city or Mainland China in General.

B: Make it increasingly clear they don't want to listen to the Pro-HKers

[Novus America]

You know this lie of a silent majority who don't support the protests is getting really fucking old.

This debunked myth was dealt its final nail in the coffin when all of the ballots were counted and the election results came in. Had the protesters truly been marginalized, the pro-Beijing camp would win yet another solid victory, just like they have over the last decade.

It is true that in the past the people showed little interest in the elections, because they knew they were rigged, turnout was always low until now. Allowing the Beijing camp to win.

However this time around voting was used as a form of PROTEST, despite them knowing it would not produce much much immediate change. The people finally getting out and voting was a form of protest.
Voting against the party in power is a form of protest.

So the fact that there was a massive turnout of protest votes, who won an overwhelmingly majority, indicates widespread support for protest.

[Beire]

Please provide a citation of where I did this.

You're not Infected Mushroom.

Then I made a mistake and I apologise.

Please provide a citation of where I did this.

Heloin never said you did. Pay attention.

I made a mistake and I am replying to several posts at a time. I am paying attention, thank you very much.

[Infected Mushroom]

This debunked myth was dealt its final nail in the coffin when all of the ballots were counted and the election results came in. Had the protesters truly been marginalized, the pro-Beijing camp would win yet another solid victory, just like they have over the last decade.

It is true that in the past the people showed little interest in the elections, because they knew they were rigged, turnout was always low until now. Allowing the Beijing camp to win.

However this time around voting was used as a form of PROTEST, despite them knowing it would not produce much much immediate change. The people finally getting out and voting was a form of protest.
Voting against the party in power is a form of protest.

So the fact that there was a massive turnout of protest votes, who won an overwhelmingly majority, indicates widespread support for protest.

it indicates a degree of discontent with how the government has been handling the protests, the exact degree, nature, direction, and qualified degree of that discontent varies from individual voters to individual voters

the election was framed as "do you support the protests" while really it is more aptly framed as "are you satisfied with the current government's handling of the problem? Yes or No?"

The problem with that is that many pro government citizens would still have said No because they feel that more needs to be done.

[Infected Mushroom]

The December protests have a markedly decreased turnout.

Compare the three months:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... g_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... g_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... g_protests

It is clear to me after analysing all three that December is a relatively quiet month with decreased incidence of protest and protestor attendance. This is consistent with my observations (I've been following the news online) that the weekdays now are silent (compared to before) and the weekends are nowhere near as disrupted.

As I've said before, the pro Dem electoral win result must be treated with a degree of caution given the unusual HK political system (where elections are symbolic and it is cost-less to send a vote of disapproval since the opposition cannot take power).

Asides from the fact that you have completely omitted the December 8th protest organized by the CHRF in which more than 800,000 HKers have participated in, the counter-demonstrations for December howewer, are even smaller, and none of them cracked the 1000 threshold:

Counter-demonstrations
"On 3 December several dozen people protested in a pro-Beijing rally in Central gathering in Chater Garden; they sang the Chinese national anthem and then marched to the US Consulate. They trampled on an American flag as they vented their anger at President Donald Trump for signing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law. They waved Chinese flags and accused Washington of interfering in China's internal affairs.[31]

On 7 December hundreds of pro-government supporters held a rally in Wan Chai accusing the pan-democrats of using "unscrupulous means to become district councillors". They sang the national anthem and chanted slogans at pro-democracy protesters as "cockroaches" and "trash".[32]

On 15 December hundreds of protesters staged a rally at Tamar Park expressing support for the police. Waving national and SAR flags, the crowd sang songs to try to raise the morale of front line officers. They also held placards calling on the "US to stop destroying Hong Kong's democracy and human rights".[33]"

And there is no catch in the HK election results. The pro-democratic camp has clearly and definitively achieved a landslide victory, so much so that Starry Lee submitted her resignation in light of the election results, and only the DAB's central committee has stopped her from finalizing it, and once again, candidates who were the loudest supporters of the protests won overwhelming victories in their respective constituencies, ruling out the possibility that the pro-democrats only won because the public "was disappointed by the government's inability to crackdown on the protesters". To conclude, the elections were widely viewed as a referendum on the protest movement and its demands, and the silent majority has made its choice. And said choice was to support the 5 demands by the protest movement by galvanizing the pro-democratic camp and voting for them in droves, with a record turnout of over 71% of registered voters.

it isn't necessary to participate in a counter demonstration to support the government, that is (in the absence of you showing up for an anti-government protest), the default assumed state

and over 6 million people out of the 7.5 million total are part of that

[Novus America]

It is true that in the past the people showed little interest in the elections, because they knew they were rigged, turnout was always low until now. Allowing the Beijing camp to win.

However this time around voting was used as a form of PROTEST, despite them knowing it would not produce much much immediate change. The people finally getting out and voting was a form of protest.
Voting against the party in power is a form of protest.

So the fact that there was a massive turnout of protest votes, who won an overwhelmingly majority, indicates widespread support for protest.

it indicates a degree of discontent with how the government has been handling the protests, the exact degree, nature, direction, and qualified degree of that discontent varies from individual voters to individual voters

the election was framed as "do you support the protests" while really it is more aptly framed as "are you satisfied with the current government's handling of the problem? Yes or No?"

The problem with that is that many pro government citizens would still have said No because they feel that more needs to be done.

Just repeating yourself and ignoring counter points is not engaging in debate.
If they actually wanted more extreme action, they would have voted for extremely authoritarian types who have criticized the government, NOT pro democracy types.

And do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims? All you have offered is anecdotes and your own opinion, nothing more.

[Infected Mushroom]

it indicates a degree of discontent with how the government has been handling the protests, the exact degree, nature, direction, and qualified degree of that discontent varies from individual voters to individual voters

the election was framed as "do you support the protests" while really it is more aptly framed as "are you satisfied with the current government's handling of the problem? Yes or No?"

The problem with that is that many pro government citizens would still have said No because they feel that more needs to be done.

Just repeating yourself and ignoring counter points is not engaging in debate.
If they actually wanted more extreme action, they would have voted for extremely authoritarian types who have criticized the government, NOT pro democracy types.

And do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims? All you have offered is anecdotes and your own opinion, nothing more.

the evidence is that the number and incidence of the protests have been going down

and this is one of the only ways to square an apparent contradiction (if the people are "increasingly and overwhelmingly supporting the protests" then why are the number of protests and protestors going down, if the people are "overwhelmingly in support of" the protest than how come less than 1 million people have marched even at the movement's peak strength?)

[Novus America]

Asides from the fact that you have completely omitted the December 8th protest organized by the CHRF in which more than 800,000 HKers have participated in, the counter-demonstrations for December howewer, are even smaller, and none of them cracked the 1000 threshold:

Counter-demonstrations
"On 3 December several dozen people protested in a pro-Beijing rally in Central gathering in Chater Garden; they sang the Chinese national anthem and then marched to the US Consulate. They trampled on an American flag as they vented their anger at President Donald Trump for signing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law. They waved Chinese flags and accused Washington of interfering in China's internal affairs.[31]

On 7 December hundreds of pro-government supporters held a rally in Wan Chai accusing the pan-democrats of using "unscrupulous means to become district councillors". They sang the national anthem and chanted slogans at pro-democracy protesters as "cockroaches" and "trash".[32]

On 15 December hundreds of protesters staged a rally at Tamar Park expressing support for the police. Waving national and SAR flags, the crowd sang songs to try to raise the morale of front line officers. They also held placards calling on the "US to stop destroying Hong Kong's democracy and human rights".[33]"

And there is no catch in the HK election results. The pro-democratic camp has clearly and definitively achieved a landslide victory, so much so that Starry Lee submitted her resignation in light of the election results, and only the DAB's central committee has stopped her from finalizing it, and once again, candidates who were the loudest supporters of the protests won overwhelming victories in their respective constituencies, ruling out the possibility that the pro-democrats only won because the public "was disappointed by the government's inability to crackdown on the protesters". To conclude, the elections were widely viewed as a referendum on the protest movement and its demands, and the silent majority has made its choice. And said choice was to support the 5 demands by the protest movement by galvanizing the pro-democratic camp and voting for them in droves, with a record turnout of over 71% of registered voters.

it isn't necessary to participate in a counter demonstration to support the government, that is (in the absence of you showing up for an anti-government protest), the default assumed state

and over 6 million people out of the 7.5 million total are part of that

This is patently absurd. Not being out MARCHING with signs in the street does not in any way show support for the government or party in power. By your “logic” Trump has 99% support.

Actually marching is not the only form of protest. Not the only way of showing you oppose the ruling party.

[Novus America]

Just repeating yourself and ignoring counter points is not engaging in debate.
If they actually wanted more extreme action, they would have voted for extremely authoritarian types who have criticized the government, NOT pro democracy types.

And do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims? All you have offered is anecdotes and your own opinion, nothing more.

the evidence is that the number and incidence of the protests have been going down

and this is one of the only ways to square an apparent contradiction (if the people are "increasingly and overwhelmingly supporting the protests" then why are the number of protests and protestors going down, if the people are "overwhelmingly in support of" the protest than how come less than 1 million people have marched even at the movement's peak strength?)

The numbers at MARCHES may be few, that says nothing. It only makes sense based on your absurd assumption that marching is the only way to protest, and that those who do not match oppose the marchers.

Both of which are simply ridiculous.

[Infected Mushroom]

it isn't necessary to participate in a counter demonstration to support the government, that is (in the absence of you showing up for an anti-government protest), the default assumed state

and over 6 million people out of the 7.5 million total are part of that

This is patently absurd. Not being out MARCHING with signs in the street does not in any way show support for the government or party in power. By your “logic” Trump has 99% support.

Actually marching is not the only form of protest. Not the only way of showing you oppose the ruling party.

No because American elections send more clear, messages about the policy preferences of the voters (since whoever is elected WILL actually have real power). There is no "free of cost" protest vote option where the voter doesn't run into the danger of electing a party into power whose policy they actually don't support just to communicate qualified disapproval of the existing government.

If I don't approve of the way Republicans have been running things (and they are in power) but I also don't like the Democrats, then I'd hesitate about voting Democrat because if the Democrats win, I'd have to deal with the Democrats in power.

In the HK elections, there is a different calculation. The "Republicans" and the "Democrats" hold no real power, the real power lies elsewhere. That power likes the "Republicans" being in power and voting "Democrat" is a way of saying "hey buddy, you need to do better." There's no risk however, of the Democrats taking power and running things in a way I disapprove.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Intent is one thing. Actual actions and policy is another, and the fact remains that China cannot be classified as a "socialist" economy by any reasonable metric. If the workers do not own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange, then it by definition isn't socialist, no matter how hard you try to spin it. China's current economic policy can be best summed up as "Sure, you can go conduct capitalist business here, as long as it serves the interests of our nation", which bears a striking resemblance to fascist corporatism. And comparing China's reforms to Lenin's NEP is a hot take given that the NEP was quickly abandoned within several years after being passed, while China has shown no signs of abandoning state capitalism anytime soon, and considering its close relationship with a coalition that is entirely composed of rightwing capitalists and oligarchs in Hong Kong, I wouldn't hold my breath.
And working conditions still remain poor in China, as this report shows:
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/report/138

Of course actual actions and policy is another, which is why you need to study the intent and compare it with the effects of the policies, instead of reading what a third party soi-disant political analyst claims, or a right-wing source whose credibility is questionable. China has, according to the World Bank, lifted more than 850 million Chinese people out of poverty; the poverty rate according to this source fell from 88 per cent to 0.7 per cent. I would agree that this fits with serving the interests of the nation, in that the interests of the nation involve bringing people out of poverty and building up its productive forces, which is the intent as described by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. To compare China's economic policy to fascist corporatism is a hot take, due to the fact that the nature of fascism is to be a last ditch resort in order to protect capitalism, whereas in China, state-owned enterprises dominate (that alone doesn't make it socialist, but it certainly isn't unabashedly capitalist as fascist states were) and economic foul play is punished to the highest degree. The NEP was quickly abandoned, but Socialism with Chinese Characteristics does not intend to emulate the NEP; it was directly inspired by it. To emulate the NEP would be emulating a policy that was enacted in the conditions of post-civil war, 1920s Russia, which China does not proclaim to do as it follows Socialism with Chinese Characteristics -- that is to say, socialism that befits the conditions that China is currently facing. It is interesting that the NEP, though it lasted for a much shorter time, resulted in the rich peasants exerting more power (which led to their suppression); whereas in China, capitalist roaders possess very little power, if any.

The report you have provided comes from a New York-based organisation and its overall credibility does not convince me. I don't see the point of the pictures of the workshop and cafeteria; they both just seem like workplaces to me. The picture of people sleeping can probably be found anywhere and the picture of the toilets could have been somewhere random. I would be more convinced if they had recorded evidence or a hidden camera.

I'm imagining you won't be dissatisfied with me dismissing your source as non-credible, but at least I engaged with it. You didn't even acknowledge mine; you just posted a report from a New York-based company. Do you think that's going to be credible enough?

Except that the dominance of state-owned for-profit enterprises is a key cornerstone of state capitalism, and state capitalism itself was described by Friedrich Engels as the final stage of organized capitalism, just like fascist corporatism is a sign that capitalism has entered its last stage. China so far, has not showed any signs of ending organized capitalism within their country, and as a matter of fact, it seeks to perpetuate it in order to expand their clout abroad and establish a worldwide hegemony. And merely "reducing poverty" does not a socialist make, given that social democracies (Such as the Nordic states, and funnily enough, Norway has described its economic system as: "We invented the Chinese way of doing things before the Chinese.") also have a record of reducing poverty in their respective countries through their welfare capitalism, but their economies are obviously nowhere near socialist, nor are other Western nations that reluctantly adopted some compromises to temporarily appease the proletariat.

As for your argument over my source, we could simply dismiss your claims because they are not factual. You have never actually debunked the material present within that report, and instead, you've attacked it because it is "based in New York", and made unfounded claims of the photos being "taken somewhere else". The point is howewer that even if it was indeed based in New York, it doesn't actually invalidate anything it reports, unless the evidence suggests otherwise, and attacking a source based solely on its origin or history is a prime example of the genetic fallacy.

Now, in case there is any further doubt about what state capitalism actually is:

"State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.[1]

Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state (even if the state is nominally socialist)[3], and some people argue that the modern People's Republic of China constitutes a form of state capitalism[4][5][6][7] and/or that the Soviet Union failed in its goal to establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism.[3][8][9]

The term "state capitalism" is also used by some in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state; that is, a private economy that is subject to statist economic planning. This term has been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers in the First World War.[10] Alternatively, state capitalism may be used to refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment, as in the case of France during the period of dirigisme after the Second World War.[11][12]

State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses; Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15] This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[16]

There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which existed before the 1917 October Revolution. The common themes among them identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that capitalist social relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism.[17]"

[Novus America]

This is patently absurd. Not being out MARCHING with signs in the street does not in any way show support for the government or party in power. By your “logic” Trump has 99% support.

Actually marching is not the only form of protest. Not the only way of showing you oppose the ruling party.

No because American elections send more clear, messages about the policy preferences of the voters (since whoever is elected WILL actually have real power). There is no "free of cost" protest vote option where the voter doesn't run into the danger of electing a party into power whose policy they actually don't support just to communicate qualified disapproval of the existing government.

If I don't approve of the way Republicans have been running things (and they are in power) but I also don't like the Democrats, then I'd hesitate about voting Democrat because if the Democrats win, I'd have to deal with the Democrats in power.

In the HK elections, there is a different calculation. The "Republicans" and the "Democrats" hold no real power, the real power lies elsewhere. That power likes the "Republicans" being in power and voting "Democrat" is a way of saying "hey buddy, you need to do better." There's no risk however, of the Democrats taking power and running things in a way I disapprove.

So ironically you are admitting that government does not represent what the people vote for. So how can you claim it represents the people? That most people support it?

Besides even by your logic then they could just vote for the most extreme pro Beijing parties and candidates (there are those on the pro Beijing side that oppose the actions of the government).

So why did they not?

Also your baseless speculation based on your inability to understand what protest means never has been and never will be evidence.

To claim that everyone not actually marching 24/7 supports the government is just absurd.

[Beire]

Of course actual actions and policy is another, which is why you need to study the intent and compare it with the effects of the policies, instead of reading what a third party soi-disant political analyst claims, or a right-wing source whose credibility is questionable. China has, according to the World Bank, lifted more than 850 million Chinese people out of poverty; the poverty rate according to this source fell from 88 per cent to 0.7 per cent. I would agree that this fits with serving the interests of the nation, in that the interests of the nation involve bringing people out of poverty and building up its productive forces, which is the intent as described by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. To compare China's economic policy to fascist corporatism is a hot take, due to the fact that the nature of fascism is to be a last ditch resort in order to protect capitalism, whereas in China, state-owned enterprises dominate (that alone doesn't make it socialist, but it certainly isn't unabashedly capitalist as fascist states were) and economic foul play is punished to the highest degree. The NEP was quickly abandoned, but Socialism with Chinese Characteristics does not intend to emulate the NEP; it was directly inspired by it. To emulate the NEP would be emulating a policy that was enacted in the conditions of post-civil war, 1920s Russia, which China does not proclaim to do as it follows Socialism with Chinese Characteristics -- that is to say, socialism that befits the conditions that China is currently facing. It is interesting that the NEP, though it lasted for a much shorter time, resulted in the rich peasants exerting more power (which led to their suppression); whereas in China, capitalist roaders possess very little power, if any.

The report you have provided comes from a New York-based organisation and its overall credibility does not convince me. I don't see the point of the pictures of the workshop and cafeteria; they both just seem like workplaces to me. The picture of people sleeping can probably be found anywhere and the picture of the toilets could have been somewhere random. I would be more convinced if they had recorded evidence or a hidden camera.

I'm imagining you won't be dissatisfied with me dismissing your source as non-credible, but at least I engaged with it. You didn't even acknowledge mine; you just posted a report from a New York-based company. Do you think that's going to be credible enough?

Except that the dominance of state-owned for-profit enterprises is a key cornerstone of state capitalism, and state capitalism itself was described by Friedrich Engels as the final stage of organized capitalism, just like fascist corporatism is a sign that capitalism has entered its last stage. China so far, has not showed any signs of ending organized capitalism within their country, and as a matter of fact, it seeks to perpetuate it in order to expand their clout abroad and establish a worldwide hegemony. And merely "reducing poverty" does not a socialist make, given that social democracies (Such as the Nordic states, and funnily enough, Norway has described its economic system as: "We invented the Chinese way of doing things before the Chinese.") also have a record of reducing poverty in their respective countries through their welfare capitalism, but their economies are obviously nowhere near socialist, nor are other Western nations that reluctantly adopted some compromises to temporarily appease the proletariat.

As for your argument over my source, we could simply dismiss your claims because they are not factual. You have never actually debunked the material present within that report, and instead, you've attacked it because it is "based in New York" and stuff like that. The point is howewer that even if it was indeed based in New York, it doesn't actually invalidate anything it reports, unless the evidence suggests otherwise, and attacking a source based solely on its origin or history is a prime example of the genetic fallacy.

Now, in case there is any further doubt about what state capitalism actually is:

"State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.[1]

Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state (even if the state is nominally socialist)[3], and some people argue that the modern People's Republic of China constitutes a form of state capitalism[4][5][6][7] and/or that the Soviet Union failed in its goal to establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism.[3][8][9]

The term "state capitalism" is also used by some in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state; that is, a private economy that is subject to statist economic planning. This term has been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers in the First World War.[10] Alternatively, state capitalism may be used to refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment, as in the case of France during the period of dirigisme after the Second World War.[11][12]

State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses; Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15] This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[16]

There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which existed before the 1917 October Revolution. The common themes among them identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that capitalist social relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism.[17]"

I didn't need to debunk the material actually in your report as you didn't even address the ones in mine. Why should I put more effort in when you copy paste Wikipedia and sources with a vested interest to paint China as an anti-democratic state, when I specifically went out of my way to choose a source by people who aren't even pro-China to back up my claims?

I have things to be doing and I don't have the time to address the material or a wall of Wikipedia if I'm under the impression that the information I provide will not be acknowledged.

And merely "reducing poverty" does not a socialist make,

I never claimed that reducing poverty makes a country socialist. I said that this is one of China's primary goals.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

No because American elections send more clear, messages about the policy preferences of the voters (since whoever is elected WILL actually have real power). There is no "free of cost" protest vote option where the voter doesn't run into the danger of electing a party into power whose policy they actually don't support just to communicate qualified disapproval of the existing government.

If I don't approve of the way Republicans have been running things (and they are in power) but I also don't like the Democrats, then I'd hesitate about voting Democrat because if the Democrats win, I'd have to deal with the Democrats in power.

In the HK elections, there is a different calculation. The "Republicans" and the "Democrats" hold no real power, the real power lies elsewhere. That power likes the "Republicans" being in power and voting "Democrat" is a way of saying "hey buddy, you need to do better." There's no risk however, of the Democrats taking power and running things in a way I disapprove.

So ironically you are admitting that government does not represent what the people vote for. So how can you claim it represents the people? That most people support it?

Besides even by your logic then they could just vote for the most extreme pro Beijing parties and candidates (there are those on the pro Beijing side that oppose the actions of the government).

So why did they not?

Also your baseless speculation based on your inability to understand what protest means never has been and never will be evidence.

To claim that everyone not actually marching 24/7 supports the government is just absurd.

The most ironic fact out of this all is that the candidates who were the loudest about expressing support for the Hong Kong protest movement and their demands won the biggest victories in their respective constituencies, while pro-Beijing hardliners such as Junius Ho and Regina Ip were completely wiped out in their constituencies.

[Infected Mushroom]

No because American elections send more clear, messages about the policy preferences of the voters (since whoever is elected WILL actually have real power). There is no "free of cost" protest vote option where the voter doesn't run into the danger of electing a party into power whose policy they actually don't support just to communicate qualified disapproval of the existing government.

If I don't approve of the way Republicans have been running things (and they are in power) but I also don't like the Democrats, then I'd hesitate about voting Democrat because if the Democrats win, I'd have to deal with the Democrats in power.

In the HK elections, there is a different calculation. The "Republicans" and the "Democrats" hold no real power, the real power lies elsewhere. That power likes the "Republicans" being in power and voting "Democrat" is a way of saying "hey buddy, you need to do better." There's no risk however, of the Democrats taking power and running things in a way I disapprove.

So ironically you are admitting that government does not represent what the people vote for. So how can you claim it represents the people? That most people support it?

Besides even by your logic then they could just vote for the most extreme pro Beijing parties and candidates (there are those on the pro Beijing side that oppose the actions of the government).

So why did they not?

Also your baseless speculation based on your inability to understand what protest means never has been and never will be evidence.

To claim that everyone not actually marching 24/7 supports the government is just absurd.

The government represents the people because it is appointed by the rightful government of the Hong Kong SAR, the People's Republic of China (with over a billion citizens). The only thing that concerns me is that the vast majority of HK's people continue to follow the law and have not shown an inclination to join the marches.

Voting for the more extreme members at the election would not have sent the government a message of disapproval but one of approval.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Except that the dominance of state-owned for-profit enterprises is a key cornerstone of state capitalism, and state capitalism itself was described by Friedrich Engels as the final stage of organized capitalism, just like fascist corporatism is a sign that capitalism has entered its last stage. China so far, has not showed any signs of ending organized capitalism within their country, and as a matter of fact, it seeks to perpetuate it in order to expand their clout abroad and establish a worldwide hegemony. And merely "reducing poverty" does not a socialist make, given that social democracies (Such as the Nordic states, and funnily enough, Norway has described its economic system as: "We invented the Chinese way of doing things before the Chinese.") also have a record of reducing poverty in their respective countries through their welfare capitalism, but their economies are obviously nowhere near socialist, nor are other Western nations that reluctantly adopted some compromises to temporarily appease the proletariat.

As for your argument over my source, we could simply dismiss your claims because they are not factual. You have never actually debunked the material present within that report, and instead, you've attacked it because it is "based in New York" and stuff like that. The point is howewer that even if it was indeed based in New York, it doesn't actually invalidate anything it reports, unless the evidence suggests otherwise, and attacking a source based solely on its origin or history is a prime example of the genetic fallacy.

Now, in case there is any further doubt about what state capitalism actually is:

"State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.[1]

Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state (even if the state is nominally socialist)[3], and some people argue that the modern People's Republic of China constitutes a form of state capitalism[4][5][6][7] and/or that the Soviet Union failed in its goal to establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism.[3][8][9]

The term "state capitalism" is also used by some in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state; that is, a private economy that is subject to statist economic planning. This term has been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers in the First World War.[10] Alternatively, state capitalism may be used to refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment, as in the case of France during the period of dirigisme after the Second World War.[11][12]

State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses; Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15] This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[16]

There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which existed before the 1917 October Revolution. The common themes among them identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that capitalist social relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism.[17]"

I didn't need to debunk the material actually in your report as you didn't even address the ones in mine. Why should I put more effort in when you copy paste Wikipedia and sources with a vested interest to paint China as an anti-democratic state, when I specifically went out of my way to choose a source by people who aren't even pro-China to back up my claims?

That's because China is an anti-democratic state, and it manifests so in their total lack of any freely contested elections above the village level, their one-party system in which virtually everything is controlled by the CCP (Even the token "opposition", which ultimately serve as puppet parties with no independent will or authority of their own), their egregious violations of press freedom, their pervasive censorship of the Internet (Including a total ban on Wikipedia in all languages and other outlets who criticize the government), their violent crackdowns on opposition activists, their judiciary being under direct political control of the CCP, their concentration camps in Uyghuristan, their wanton application of the death penalty and mass surveillance (Ironically setting them on the same page as the United States, their seeming enemy), and innumerable other violations which would take up the entire page if I was to list them all.

[Novus America]

So ironically you are admitting that government does not represent what the people vote for. So how can you claim it represents the people? That most people support it?

Besides even by your logic then they could just vote for the most extreme pro Beijing parties and candidates (there are those on the pro Beijing side that oppose the actions of the government).

So why did they not?

Also your baseless speculation based on your inability to understand what protest means never has been and never will be evidence.

To claim that everyone not actually marching 24/7 supports the government is just absurd.

The government represents the people because it is appointed by the rightful government of the Hong Kong SAR, the People's Republic of China (with over a billion citizens). The only thing that concerns me is that the vast majority of HK's people continue to follow the law and have not shown an inclination to join the marches.

Voting for the more extreme members at the election would not have sent the government a message of disapproval but one of approval.

A government that is imposed on people without their consent might rule them, it does not represent them. Might makes right is different than representation.

But so you admit then the majority of people disapprove of the government. And yet you have zero evidence to support that they disapprove of the government because it was not hardline enough (considering how badly the hardliners did).

This is some real interesting “logic” here, “because the elections are rigged people voting against the government actually support the government”.

It makes no sense whatsoever and you have provided nothing to prove it is the case.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

So ironically you are admitting that government does not represent what the people vote for. So how can you claim it represents the people? That most people support it?

Besides even by your logic then they could just vote for the most extreme pro Beijing parties and candidates (there are those on the pro Beijing side that oppose the actions of the government).

So why did they not?

Also your baseless speculation based on your inability to understand what protest means never has been and never will be evidence.

To claim that everyone not actually marching 24/7 supports the government is just absurd.

The government represents the people because it is appointed by the rightful government of the Hong Kong SAR, the People's Republic of China (with over a billion citizens). The only thing that concerns me is that the vast majority of HK's people continue to follow the law and have not shown an inclination to join the marches.

Voting for the more extreme members at the election would not have sent the government a message of disapproval but one of approval.

Considering that the Chief Executive is not even directly elected by the citizens of HK and the fact that China itself has a complete lack of electoral democracy (The CCP was never actually voted into power, but it rose due to a violent revolution against a prior regime and established itself through brute force), the fact that 30 of the 70 seats on the LegCo are allocated for corporate interests of the island's economy, and the fact that the Chief Executive is approved by an unelected committee handpicked by Xi Jinping, under no reasonable metric could HK's government possess the consent of the governed, let alone claim itself to be the "rightful" government.

[Infected Mushroom]

The government represents the people because it is appointed by the rightful government of the Hong Kong SAR, the People's Republic of China (with over a billion citizens). The only thing that concerns me is that the vast majority of HK's people continue to follow the law and have not shown an inclination to join the marches.

Voting for the more extreme members at the election would not have sent the government a message of disapproval but one of approval.

A government that is imposed on people without their consent might rule them, it does not represent them. Might makes right is different than representation.

But so you admit then the majority of people disapprove of the government. And yet you have zero evidence to support that they disapprove of the government because it was not hardline enough (considering how badly the hardliners did).

This is some real interesting “logic” here, “because the elections are rigged people voting against the government actually support the government”.

It makes no sense whatsoever and you have provided nothing to prove it is the case.

they don't necessarily disapprove, they just don't think the conflict was handled, as well as it could have been handled

they don't feel the government handled the situation, optimally is how I would put it

I don't think it necessarily rises to that level (actual disapproval), and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of actual support for the protestors (since the protest numbers and protestor turnout has been lowered since)

...

It's a simple "hey guys, you can do better" to the Lam government.

How? Well it varies from voter to voter.