Myanmar: Military deploys armored vehicles in major cities - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15159549
Please no, Wikipedia quotes.

Sure wiki is handy for a quick review, or mostly as an aglominator of statistics.

But I really didn't see your point. Having the last word?

My point was I think important and I'll repeat it. The military is an appendage of the State, which contains the power to overtake the State.

That is a fact of life, in a world with militaries. It is an important point.

I am not defending the Myanmar coup. I am giving a big hearty fuck you to the Myanmar generals.

But, the view that the military is an appendage of the State is, in my view, accurate.
#15159552
Crantag wrote:
I would call you a Stalinist, based on this quip here.



ckaihatsu wrote:
It wasn't a quip, and you're not providing any reasoning or explanation for your characterization of me.



Crantag wrote:



(See the following excerpt for *counter* evidence, that shows I'm for the working class of the world, and *not* for any kind of necessarily-nationalist type of Stalinism.)


---


Crantag wrote:
Please no, Wikipedia quotes.

Sure wiki is handy for a quick review, or mostly as an aglominator of statistics.



Okay, if Wikipedia is handy for a quick review then please don't object to my using it -- that's exactly how I used it just now.


Crantag wrote:
But I really didn't see your point. Having the last word?

My point was I think important and I'll repeat it. The military is an appendage of the State, which contains the power to overtake the State.

That is a fact of life, in a world with militaries. It is an important point.

I am not defending the Myanmar coup. I am giving a big hearty fuck you to the Myanmar generals.

But, the view that the military is an appendage of the State is, in my view, accurate.



If the state becomes *dependent* on its military for its continued existence then that's called 'Bonapartism':



Marxism

Based on the career of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, Marxism and Leninism defined Bonapartism as a political expression.[9] Karl Marx was a student of Jacobinism and the French Revolution, as well as a contemporary critic of the Second Republic and Second Empire. He used the term Bonapartism to refer to a situation in which counterrevolutionary military officers seize power from revolutionaries, and use selective reformism to co-opt the radicalism of the masses. In the process, Marx argued, Bonapartists preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class. He believed that both Napoleon I and Napoleon III had corrupted revolutions in France in this way. Marx offered this definition of and analysis of Bonapartism in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, written in 1852. In this document, he drew attention to what he calls the phenomenon's repetitive history with one of his most quoted lines, typically condensed aphoristically as: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."[10][11]

Marx believed that a Bonapartist regime could exert great power, because there was no class with enough confidence or power to firmly establish its authority in its own name. A leader who appeared to stand above the class struggle could take the mantle of power. He believed that this was an inherently unstable situation, as the apparently all-powerful leader would be swept aside when the class struggle in society was resolved.

Leon Trotsky described Joseph Stalin's regime as Bonapartist, as he believed it was balanced between the proletariat, victorious but shattered by war, and the bourgeoisie, broken by the revolution but struggling to re-emerge. The failure of Stalin's regime to disintegrate under the shock and disruption of the losses of the Second World War, and the success of its expansion into Eastern Europe, challenged this analysis. Many Trotskyists rejected the idea that Stalin's regime was Bonapartist. Tony Cliff described such regimes as state capitalist in type and not as deformed workers' states at all. In the last year of his life, Trotsky argued the example of Napoleon's expanding empire. He had achieved the abolition of serfdom in Poland and other French holdings, but his empire was still "Bonapartist."

Bonapartism may be used generally to describe the replacement of civilian leadership by military leadership within revolutionary movements or governments. Some modern-day Trotskyists and others on the left use the phrase left Bonapartist to describe leaders such as Stalin and Mao Zedong, who controlled left-wing or populist totalitarian regimes. Bonapartism was an example of the Marxist idea of false consciousness: the masses could be manipulated by a few determined leaders in the pursuit of ends.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapartism#Marxism
#15159556
ckaihatsu wrote:Then you weren't really responding to the words of mine that you quoted -- instead of following-up, you interjected a different idea that had nothing to do with the preceding exchanges up to that point, effectively a non-sequitur.

The detachment of meaning from the preceding makes your meaning *ambiguous*, by being tangential.


ok bro.

So what magical point do you want to make about the fact that there isn't much anyone an do about what's happening there?
#15159565
Rancid wrote:
ok bro.

So what magical point do you want to make about the fact that there isn't much anyone an do about what's happening there?



Well first let's address your runaway fatalistic opinionating:


Rancid wrote:
[T]here isn't much anyone an do about what's happening there?



Rancid wrote:
Ultimately, there is nothing anyone can do.



Why do you think that the anti-militaristic movement for democracy in Myanmar is particularly 'doomed' -- ?

Why not have a more positive attitude and compare it to the American Revolution, for example -- ?
#15159584
ckaihatsu wrote:Why do you think that the anti-militaristic movement for democracy in Myanmar is particularly 'doomed' -- ?


The military has the guns. Foreign intervention is unlikely.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why not have a more positive attitude and compare it to the American Revolution, for example -- ?


Is there a continental army the citizens have formed? This looks like the opposite of a revolution.
#15159589
Rancid wrote:
The military has the guns. Foreign intervention is unlikely.



Opinionating is obviously a bad habit of yours. Consider rejoining the real world:



International

Governmental responses

Many countries, including Bangladesh,[137] China,[138] India,[139] Indonesia,[140] Malaysia,[141] Pakistan,[142] the Philippines,[143] South Korea,[144] and Singapore,[145] expressed concern in response to the coup, many of which encouraged dialogue between the government and the military in order to resolve the issue. Australia,[146][147] Canada,[148] France,[149] Germany,[150] Japan,[151] New Zealand,[152] Spain,[153] Sweden,[154] Turkey,[155] the United Kingdom,[156] and the United States[157] on their part condemned the coup and called for the release of detained officials; the White House also threatened to impose sanctions on coup perpetrators.[158][159][160] Subsequently, President Biden approved an Executive Order for new sanctions on the coup perpetrators which would enable his administration to affect the perpetrator's business interests and close family members.”[161] President Biden also stated that he would freeze $1 billion US assets belonged to the Myanmar's government while maintaining support for health care, civil society groups, and other areas that benefit the people of Burma directly.” [162]

In response of the coup, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that the country has suspended its diplomatic ties with Myanmar a week after the coup; the New Zealand government also banned some high ranking elites in military government.[163] Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam explicitly refused to support a side, characterising the coup as an internal matter.[164][165][166] On 9 February 2021, New Zealand suspended all high-level contact with Myanmar and imposed a travel ban on its military leaders because of the coup.[167]

Intergovernmental organisations, including the United Nations,[168] ASEAN,[169][170] and the European Union expressed concern and called for dialogue from both sides. In addition to concern, the European Union also condemned the coup and urged the release of detainees.[171]

In response to the coup, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting, where a British-drafted resolution urging the "restoration of democracy" in Myanmar, condemning the Myanmar military's action, and calling for the release of detainees was proposed. The statement was not issued because of failure to garner support from all 15 council members; the diplomats of China and Russia reportedly have to relay the draft to their respective governments for review.[172][173][174][175] China and Russia, as permanent members of the council and therefore having the power of veto, refused to back the statement.[176] India and Vietnam, two non-permanent members, also "voiced reservations" about the resolution.[177]

On 26 February 2021, the South Korean National Assembly passed a resolution condemning the coup.[178] On 5 March 2021, Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato has warned the SAC-led government to stop using lethal force to disperse protests.[179]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Myan ... ernational



---


Rancid wrote:
Is there a continental army the citizens have formed? This looks like the opposite of a revolution.



Correct -- it was the kind of coup that Trump wanted to do:



2021 Myanmar coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2021 Myanmar coup d'état began on the morning of 1 February 2021 when democratically elected members of Myanmar's ruling party, the National League for Democracy, were deposed by the Tatmadaw—Myanmar's military—which vested power in a stratocracy. The Tatmadaw proclaimed a year-long state of emergency and declared power had been vested in Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services Min Aung Hlaing. It declared the results of the November 2020 general election invalid and stated its intent to hold a new election at the end of the state of emergency.[2][3] The coup d'état occurred the day before the Parliament of Myanmar was due to swear in the members elected at the 2020 election, thereby preventing this coup from occurring.[4][5][6] President Win Myint and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi were detained, along with ministers, their deputies and members of Parliament.[7][8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Myan ... 7%C3%A9tat



That said, I'll refine my characterization to say that perhaps the ongoing protests in Myanmar more resemble the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, and counterculture, than anything else:



Protests

Main article: 2021 Myanmar protests

Image
Thousands of protesters participate in an anti-military rally in Yangon.

Civil resistance efforts have emerged within the country, in opposition to the coup, in numerous forms, including acts of civil disobedience, labour strikes, a military boycott campaign, a pot-banging movement, a red ribbon campaign, public protests, and formal recognition of the election results by elected representatives. The three-finger salute has been widely adopted as a protest symbol,[83] while netizens joined the Milk Tea Alliance, an online democratic solidarity movement in Asia.[84] "Kabar Makyay Bu" (ကမ္ဘာမကျေဘူး), a song that was first popularised as the anthem of the 8888 Uprising, has been revitalised by the civil disobedience movement as a protest song.[85]

Since the onset of the coup, residents in urban centres such as Yangon staged cacerolazos, striking pots and pans in unison every evening as a symbolic act to drive away evil, as a method of expressing their opposition to the coup.[86][87][88]

On 2 February, healthcare workers and civil servants across the country launched a national civil disobedience campaign, in opposition to the coup, with workers from from dozens of state-run hospitals and institutions initiating a labour strike.[77][89][90][91] A Facebook campaign group dubbed the "Civil Disobedience Movement" has attracted 170,000 followers, since its initial launch on 2 February.[92][77][verification needed] As of 3 February, healthcare workers in over 110 government hospitals and healthcare agencies[93] have participated in the movement.[92] The labour strikes have spread to other parts of the civil service, including union-level ministries and universities, as well as to private firms, such as factories and copper mines, students, and youth groups.[94]

On 3 February, healthcare workers launched the red ribbon campaign (ဖဲကြိုးနီလှုပ်ရှားမှု), the colour red being associated with the NLD.[95][96] The red ribbon has been adopted by civil servants and workers across Myanmar as a symbol of opposition to the military regime.[97]

Image
Teachers are protesting in Hpa-An, capital city of Kayin State (9 February 2021)

On 3 February, a domestic boycott movement called the "Stop Buying Junta Business" campaign also emerged, calling for the boycott of products and services linked to the Myanmar military.[98] Among the targeted goods and services in the Burmese military's significant business portfolio include Mytel, a national telecoms carrier, Myanmar, Mandalay, and Dagon Beer, several coffee and tea brands, 7th Sense Creation, which was co-founded by Min Aung Hlaing's daughter,[99] and bus lines.[98]

Public protests have also emerged in the wake of the coup. On 2 February, some Yangonites staged a brief 15-minute protest rally at 8 pm, calling for the overthrow of the dictatorship and Suu Kyi's release.[100] On 4 February 30 citizens protested against the coup, in front of the University of Medicine in Mandalay, an act that led to four arrests.[101][102] On 6 February, 20,000 protestors took part in a street protest in Yangon against the coup, calling for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released.[103] Workers from 14 trade unions participated in the protests. Protests spread to Mandalay and to the Pyinmana township of Naypyidaw on the afternoon of 6 February. The Mandalay marches started at 1 pm. Protestors continued on motorbikes at 4:00 pm in reaction to police restrictions. Police were in control by 6 pm.[104] On 9 February 2021, the military used violence to crackdown on peaceful protests, injuring six protestors, including a 20-year old woman who was shot in the head.[105] About 100 demonstrators were arrested in Mandalay.[106] On 10 February 2021, most of the arrested demonstrators from Mandalay were released.[107]

Youth groups protested on the roads by wearing cosplay costumes, skirts, wedding dresses, and other unusual clothing for daily life while holding signboards and vinyl banners that break with the country's more traditional protest messages for the purpose of grabbing attention from both domestic and international press media.[108][109]

On 12 February, the Union Day in Myanmar, junta's crackdown in Mawlamyine became more intense as shots were fired.[110] Gunfire was heard in Myitkyina, Kachin State, when security forces clashed with protesters on 14 February. Five journalists were arrested afterwards.[111] Troops joined police in forcefully dispersing marchers using rubber bullets and slingshots in the city of Mandalay.[112]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Myan ... t#Protests
#15159771
ckaihatsu wrote:Correct -- it was the kind of coup that Trump wanted to do:


Not even I will blame China for deliberating kicking it into action. (At worst, they let dictators be braver because they showed to the world that repression like in Hong Kong won't be effectively punished)

And you blame it on Trump (who does get punished by being voted out of office)? You are getting really low / cheap here.
#15159786
Patrickov wrote:
Not even I will blame China for deliberating kicking it into action.



You're implying that China orchestrated the coup in Myanmar?

Here's a reality check:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... na/618101/


Patrickov wrote:
(At worst, they let dictators be braver because they showed to the world that repression like in Hong Kong won't be effectively punished)



I'm not pro-China, but the Hong Kong separatist movement has no forward / progressive direction, and neither do the Uighurs either. Sure, everyone should have better civil rights, but there's no 'trans-China' politics out there from either camp, to be championed.


Patrickov wrote:
And you blame it on Trump (who does get punished by being voted out of office)? You are getting really low / cheap here.



I never said that I blamed Trump for the Myanmar coup -- you're conflating vastly different things.
#15159799
We should sanction Myanmar and cut them from our financial systems, markets and banks. This would be ideal but nobody will really do it because Russia and China will just finance them and turn Myanmar in their de facto puppet.
#15159802
JohnRawls wrote:
We should sanction Myanmar and cut them from our financial systems, markets and banks. This would be ideal but nobody will really do it because Russia and China will just finance them and turn Myanmar in their de facto puppet.



As you're pointing out, the international bourgeoisie is a *mess* regarding societal order and politics, and, unfortunately, the grassroots populist movement there (along with that of Hong Kong and the Uighurs) has no vision aside from wanting to usurp military rule.

Here's from earlier in the thread:



The working class can place no faith in Suu Kyi and the NLD to defend democratic rights. They represent a faction of the bourgeoisie in Myanmar whose political ambitions and economic interests have been trampled on by the military, which controls substantial sections of the economy. While the NLD wants to end or at least limit the military’s power, it is just as fearful as the generals of a mass movement of the working class that threatens the very basis of capitalist rule.

[...]

Suu Kyi’s intervention provided the junta with the critical breathing space that it desperately needed. She urged the protesters to place their faith in the junta’s promise of elections and right up to a military crackdown on September 18 [1988], called for them to be “patient.” Instead, the military declared martial law and ordered troops to crush the demonstrations. Thousands were killed and many more were detained or fled.

Elections were held in 1990, which the NLD won in a landslide, but having stabilized its rule, the military dismissed the result and placed Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders under arrest.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... n-f23.html



viewtopic.php?p=15159518#p15159518
#15159804
Here's *another* Trump-wet-dream dictatorship, and coup, ongoing:



HAITI: Facing Ever-Larger Demonstrations, De-Facto President Jovenel Moïse Tries to Hang on to Power

(excerpts)

by Marc-Arthur Fils-Aimé

(reprinted from March 3-9, 2021 issue of the weekly Haiti Liberté newspaper)

February 7, 2021 marked the constitutional end of Jovenel Moïse's presidential mandate. His regime had survived until that date thanks to the support of the so-called “international community,” whose influence is derived from the U.S. government’s imperial “big stick.” The empire’s racism-soaked blindness has finally become indecent, in favor of a regime which will do anything to protect itself.

Moïse has awarded himself the right to rise above the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic because he does not feel he is affected by this same article. Thus, the country has at its head, for over a year, only 11 elected officials, including former President Jovenel Moïse himself and the ten remaining senators. In the meantime, he has issued more than 40 decrees, some more incredible and illegal than others. There is even one that goes beyond any principle of international law, allowing anyone who has been sentenced to a felony but pardoned by the Head of State to run for office. It is clear that, by this decree, he protects himself by protecting his peers.

[...]

Jovenel Moïse seeks to maintain power through repression carried out by the National Police of Haiti (PNH), whose director general was appointed without Senate approval, as the Constitution requires. He unilaterally plans to organize elections with a Provisional Electoral Council which the Supreme Court has refused to swear in (because of the illegal way its members were chosen) — and the Superior Court of Accounts and Administrative Disputes (CSCCA) has refused to approve its expenses. The de-facto president is also seeking to organize a referendum to adjust the Constitution to his tastes.

Moïse has increased his repressive forces with an unconstitutionally assembled so-called military corps that he calls the Protected Areas Security Brigade (BSAP). The force has already revealed its true nature through its brutal actions against the demonstrators who swear to continue the fight until Jovenel Moïse steps down.



theorganizernewspaper.org
#15159805
ckaihatsu wrote:As you're pointing out, the international bourgeoisie is a *mess* regarding societal order and politics, and, unfortunately, the grassroots populist movement there (along with that of Hong Kong and the Uighurs) has no vision aside from wanting to usurp military rule.

Here's from earlier in the thread:


Huh? Hong Kong want self-rule and don't particularly care if its within or outside China. Well at least it was the case before China cracked down on them. Basically HK people want the system that they created to stay and they legitely consider the Chinese version of the common law system that they have created to be superior what mainland China has. Ugyurs is a bit more complicated but I would assume they want cultural and religious freedoms. At least in HK there is no need for military or dictatorial rules and is not what the people want.

All sides think of Myanmar as a an object of some sort it seems. While Europe and US seem to care at least a bit about the murders, they still don't care enough to do anything about it while places like China or Russia are literally okay with the murders since it is nothing special in their mind. This is wrong from all sides.
#15159806
JohnRawls wrote:
Huh? Hong Kong want self-rule and don't particularly care if its within or outside China.



Yeah, but this so-called 'self rule' is basically just localist separatism, in political vision -- they're not currently having resources and finances *extracted* out of the country by China (to the best of my knowledge), as happened to colonies that were colonized by the European powers in previous centuries.


JohnRawls wrote:
Well at least it was the case before China cracked down on them. Basically HK people want the system that they created



Okay, so then what *is* this vaunted 'system that they created', exactly, and what's so good about it that it's worth battling PLA forces for -- ?


JohnRawls wrote:
to stay and they legitely consider the Chinese version of the common law system that they have created to be superior what mainland China has.



If these Hong Kong separatists consider the Chinese version of the common law system to be 'superior', then what common law system are the *separatists* battling for, and why -- ?


JohnRawls wrote:
Ugyurs is a bit more complicated but I would assume they want cultural and religious freedoms. At least in HK there is no need for military or dictatorial rules and is not what the people want.

All sides think of Myanmar as a an object of some sort it seems. While Europe and US seem to care at least a bit about the murders, they still don't care enough to do anything about it while places like China or Russia are literally okay with the murders since it is nothing special in their mind. This is wrong from all sides.



Correct -- I don't see anything substantive being done by the 'international community', not in the way that Obama sent in a special forces unit to get Gaddafi, etc.
#15159808
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, but this so-called 'self rule' is basically just localist separatism, in political vision -- they're not currently having resources and finances *extracted* out of the country by China (to the best of my knowledge), as happened to colonies that were colonized by the European powers in previous centuries.





Okay, so then what *is* this vaunted 'system that they created', exactly, and what's so good about it that it's worth battling PLA forces for -- ?





If these Hong Kong separatists consider the Chinese version of the common law system to be 'superior', then what common law system are the *separatists* battling for, and why -- ?





Correct -- I don't see anything substantive being done by the 'international community', not in the way that Obama sent in a special forces unit to get Gaddafi, etc.


Their own courts who are independent and not controlled by anyone. Elections by the people of Hong Kong instead of appointments. I am not sure what is the largest fear of the HK people but my bet would be that they don't believe that the mainland legal system to be fair or just to them, at least compared to their own. Also the 2nd place goes to self elected vs appointed positions in local municipalities, legislative or executive branches. Some of the appointed candidates are in power not because they are competent or have support of the people but because they are loyal to the mainland. Then 3rd place would probably be increasing corruption which is a direct result of one and two.

Again, this is my opinion. Ask Patrickov for more details since he is actually from there and is a opposition supporter.

Something similar happened to Estonia back in the 40s and after the WW2. How some people describe it is that the Soviets came in and destroyed local culture and way of life. Ignoring the hurr durr Soviet Union is bad argument, i believe this to be a situation when two incompatible systems collide with the larger system just destroying the smaller one. This destroys the average way of life for a lot of people so of course they are not going to be happy about it nor like it. This is not an easy topic to come to a conclusion because there are too many smaller questions and externalities that are rather subjective. The modern consensus that has been reached a least in the "West" is that these kind of situations should be reduced to a minimum if not even outright be illegal or inhuman even in cases where the supplanting system or way of life is clearly inferior or barbaric. The Wests idea is that the inferior system will change itself over time but others shouldn't enforce change. Then again, this is the consensus in the "West" which is not something that all the people even believe in or adhere to in policymaking.
#15159809
JohnRawls wrote:
Their own courts who are independent and not controlled by anyone. Elections by the people of Hong Kong instead of appointments. I am not sure what is the largest fear of the HK people but my bet would be that they don't believe that the mainland legal system to be fair or just to them, at least compared to their own. Also the 2nd place goes to self elected vs appointed positions in local municipalities, legislative or executive branches. Some of the appointed candidates are in power not because they are competent or have support of the people but because they are loyal to the mainland. Then 3rd place would probably be increasing corruption which is a direct result of one and two.

Again, this is my opinion. Ask Patrickov for more details since he is actually from there and is a opposition supporter.

Something similar happened to Estonia back in the 40s and after the WW2. How some people describe it is that the Soviets came in and destroyed local culture and way of life. Ignoring the hurr durr Soviet Union is bad argument, i believe this to be a situation when two incompatible systems collide with the larger system just destroying the smaller one. This destroys the average way of life for a lot of people so of course they are not going to be happy about it nor like it. This is not an easy topic to come to a conclusion because there are too many smaller questions and externalities that are rather subjective. The modern consensus that has been reached a least in the "West" is that these kind of situations should be reduced to a minimum if not even outright be illegal or inhuman even in cases where the supplanting system or way of life is clearly inferior or barbaric. The Wests idea is that the inferior system will change itself over time but others shouldn't enforce change. Then again, this is the consensus in the "West" which is not something that all the people even believe in or adhere to in policymaking.



I guess I still see this all as being bourgeois-*intramural*, basically -- you're having to resort to vague characterizations of 'clearly inferior or barbaric', referring to China's jurisprudence, when you said earlier that:


JohnRawls wrote:
Basically HK people want the system that they created to stay and they legitely consider the Chinese version of the common law system that they have created to be superior what mainland China has.



I have to emphasize that, from what I can see, Hong Kong isn't being *colonized* financially or materially, so much of this separatism is just *localist* politics, and nothing more. It certainly isn't *class* conscious, and it certainly isn't proletarian or revolutionary.

You may want to cite some high-profile cases instead of just describing HK separatist politics in such abstracted, vague terms.
#15159811
ckaihatsu wrote:I guess I still see this all as being bourgeois-*intramural*, basically -- you're having to resort to vague characterizations of 'clearly inferior or barbaric', referring to China's jurisprudence, when you said earlier that:





I have to emphasize that, from what I can see, Hong Kong isn't being *colonized* financially or materially, so much of this separatism is just *localist* politics, and nothing more. It certainly isn't *class* conscious, and it certainly isn't proletarian or revolutionary.

You may want to cite some high-profile cases instead of just describing HK separatist politics in such abstracted, vague terms.


Re-read the text. I didn't call anyone Barbaric. I mentioned Barbaric in context of the supplanted system which is the HK system in this case but to clarify, i didn't state that the Chinese or HK systems are inferior in any way to each other. I don't see how this topic can be discussed without vague concepts. If we go in to modern concrete examples then this will turn in to side tacking and who you believe to have a better system for example EU or US. So whos system is better? How do you even decide that? Then there are examples of some pre-industrial tribes vs modern versions of capitalism, liberalism, socialism, communism etc. Is it still okay for us to decide what is better for the people of those tribes? I can see many problems that will arise with concrete examples in this topic.

As for HK specifically. A large chunk of people of Hong Kong run away from China during its hard core communist days because HK was a part of Britain because they were prosecuted or afraid of mainland CHina in some way or the other. So any infringement on the freedoms that Britain provided is considered by them to be colonization. They simply do not believe the mainland system to be fair to them right now or historically due to the history of the region. I am not sure why is this so surprising. You can quote extradition laws here or the recent legislation that allows to remove candidates at the whim of the mainland. Or the fact that almost all of the notable opposition candidates or supporters are either under legal prosecution, have left HK or in jail. Access to social mobility ladder has been more or less not controlled by anyone but with the mainland cracking down it seems that the social mobility ladder is basically under Chinas control and they will cut you off unless you don't agree on some question which don't even have to be related to HK being a part of China or not. I am a bit baffled that you call them separatists though. This movement or protests have not been separatists at its core. So why are they separatists? Can they be freedom fighters perhaps for their cultural rights, rights to expression or even the ability to decide their own workers rights and so on.
#15159813
JohnRawls wrote:
Re-read the text. I didn't call anyone Barbaric. I mentioned Barbaric in context of the supplanted system which is the HK system in this case but to clarify, i didn't state that the Chinese or HK systems are inferior in any way to each other.



Do you understand that this is *confusing* -- ?

'Barbaric' is a strong word, and you used it in reference to *something*, but it's unclear whether you were applying the term to describe the Hong Kong common law system or China's.

You *did* characterize one or the other system as being 'superior', but, again, you're not providing any specifics or evidence -- just your own descriptions:


JohnRawls wrote:
Basically HK people want the system that they created to stay and they legitely consider the Chinese version of the common law system that they have created to be superior what mainland China has.



---


JohnRawls wrote:
I don't see how this topic can be discussed without vague concepts. If we go in to modern concrete examples then this will turn in to side tacking and who you believe to have a better system for example EU or US. So whos system is better?



The West is known for their *bourgeois* revolutions of the 18th century, preceded by the English Revolution in the 17th century:



Marxist theory

The Marxist view of the English Revolution suggests that the events of 1640 to 1660 in Britain were a bourgeois revolution in which the final section of English feudalism (the state) was destroyed by a bourgeois class (and its supporters) and replaced with a state (and society) which reflected the wider establishment of agrarian (and later industrial) capitalism. Such an analysis sees the English Revolution as pivotal in the transition from feudalism to capitalism and from a feudal state to a capitalist state in Britain.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_R ... ist_theory



The American and French Revolutions were similar, in repudiating monarchies and overthrowing feudal relations in favor of more-inclusive citizenship and private property (equity) ownership -- historically progressive at the time.


JohnRawls wrote:
How do you even decide that? Then there are examples of some pre-industrial tribes vs modern versions of capitalism, liberalism, socialism, communism etc. Is it still okay for us to decide what is better for the people of those tribes? I can see many problems that will arise with concrete examples in this topic.



If you really want to abstain from value-judgments about historical developments *altogether*, then you've effectively *forfeited* all political claims and lines you may have, or have had. I doubt that you're really interested in forfeiting your politics *entirely*.

*Of course* analyzing history involves making comparisons and value judgments -- not necessarily to *impose* on others, though, as you're suggesting.


JohnRawls wrote:
As for HK specifically. A large chunk of people of Hong Kong run away from China during its hard core communist days because HK was a part of Britain because they were prosecuted or afraid of mainland CHina in some way or the other. So any infringement on the freedoms that Britain provided is considered by them to be colonization. They simply do not believe the mainland system to be fair to them right now or historically due to the history of the region.



Can we get a little more *concrete* than just 'beliefs', though -- ?

Who's currently the most vocal proponent of Hong Kong separatism right now? Any names? Are they on Wikipedia, etc. -- ?


JohnRawls wrote:
I am not sure why is this so surprising. You can quote extradition laws here or the recent legislation that allows to remove candidates at the whim of the mainland. Or the fact that almost all of the notable opposition candidates or supporters are either under legal prosecution, have left HK or in jail. Access to social mobility ladder has been more or less not controlled by anyone but with the mainland cracking down it seems that the social mobility ladder is basically under Chinas control and they will cut you off unless you don't agree on some question which don't even have to be related to HK being a part of China or not. I am a bit baffled that you call them separatists though. This movement or protests have not been separatists at its core. So why are they separatists? Can they be freedom fighters perhaps for their cultural rights, rights to expression or even the ability to decide their own workers rights and so on.



If the Hong Kong separatist movement is genuinely interested in workers rights it would be for the workers rights of the workers of the *world*, and not just for (necessarily-separatist) *Hong Kong* workers rights -- early on the protestors had an opportunity to reach out to *Chinese* workers, to promote international workers solidarity, but that didn't happen, which is telling by omission.
#15159821
ckaihatsu wrote:You're implying that China orchestrated the coup in Myanmar?


What I said in my previous post was exactly a "no" to this question.

I don't think any foreign country orchestrated this. The most damning comment I could ever say would merely "China's recent actions created an atmosphere for this to happen", but as many people say here, China probably is not happy to see this themselves.


ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not pro-China, but the Hong Kong separatist movement has no forward / progressive direction, and neither do the Uighurs either. Sure, everyone should have better civil rights, but there's no 'trans-China' politics out there from either camp, to be championed.


Hong Kong is rather off-topic in this thread, so allow me not to continue this discussion. My only response is that your observation is fairly accurate.


ckaihatsu wrote:I never said that I blamed Trump for the Myanmar coup -- you're conflating vastly different things.


Then I suggest against mentioning Trump because from what I see he's irrelevant to the topic. Unfortunately, you unnecessarily mentioned him again a few posts later.

1) Really? The excuse for the failure of commun[…]

I read this in a defens forum. Women have lower ph[…]

I already addressed this. How so? Remind me. […]

Identity Politics

@wat0n Do you have anything to say about my a[…]