China Hong Kong SAR: News and Images

[Superboy]

The CPUSA exists today. One of their recent conventions was held in capitalist New York City, of all places. So if the Chinese want to export their version of socialism to the US, feel free to do so. Persuasion, not force, and let the American public make up their own minds. If the Chinese failed, do not complain.

The US is hella socialist. I mean, half of the state of New York is Puerto Rican already. New York City is a quarter Jewish. The US is socialist and liberal, and allows gay marriage, and does not have capital punishment. Heck, even the president of America is a black dude. If America is not socialist, then why is it destroying itself?

China will never, mark my words, NEVER be as liberal and socialist as America

 

[Desertfalcon]

The US is hella socialist. I mean, half of the state of New York is Puerto Rican already. New York City is a quarter Jewish. The US is socialist and liberal, and allows gay marriage. Heck, even the president of America is a black dude. If America is not socialist, then why is it destroying itself?

China will never, mark my words, NEVER be as liberal and socialist as America

Sounds odd coming from a Canadian. If we are as socialist as you say, then Canada is down-right...North Korea.

 

[Superboy]

Sounds odd coming from a Canadian. If we are as socialist as you say, then Canada is down-right...North Korea. View attachment 117226

North Korea is totalitarian, not socialist. Canada is socialist, even more so than the US.

Belarus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rus.svg/640px-Coat_of_arms_of_Belarus.svg.png

North Korea http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Emblem_of_North_Korea.svg

both totalitarian with that red star

 

[Keel]

He's got pictures of guys that killed a combined 100 million people. It's pathetic, to be honest...

count the numbers: India throughout its history should have way surpassed the 100 million comfortably : The location of where the Greatest Tragedy of mankind has been happening and still counting.

The CPUSA is the formal face of all anonymous socialists/communists that infiltrated assorted left wing political groups in the US. If the CPUSA is irrelevant it is thanks to the spectacular and ignoble collapse of the Soviet Union that convinced the American public of the failure of the ideology that the CPUSA stands for. But if the CPUSA is ever going to gain political momentum via popular support, there is nothing the US government can do about it.

China also has a democratic party
CPUSA is a convenient way for your agency (-ies) to track down the dissentiants. Saves a lot of snooping jobs.

 

[Superboy]

The US is a two party totalitarian society. Independents can theoretically win, but they have to be trillionaires to be able to compete with the two parties. Heck, only in Ukraine can bit rich oligarchs like Poroshenko, Kolomoisky get elected.

No independents in US politics RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

 

[Keel]

1st off Hong Kong currently not being oppress by China. Government, Hong Kong enjoy more freedom compare to the mainland Chinese, Hong Kong economy wasn't in ruin after Hong Kong return to China. I don't think majority populace in Hong Kong support a prolong protest that can trigger a revolution to destroy Hong Kong economy since Hong Kong population still live under the democratic banner with freedom to granted according to the law. China government allow Hong Kong populace to vote for the candidate vetted by the elite in Hong Kong to ensure foreign power can't undermine China government and hurt China national interest with all the foreign agency can easily used money influence the candidate from the Hong Kong election, any rational thinker probably agree with China government decision because Hong Kong still under China's sovereignty. China government can't allow Hong Kong leader to destroy China by covert action from the outside influence.

Correct.
Writings on the walls
The countries that stick their necks out supporting the rallying upon the happening of the event were the president of Taiwan - Ma YJ; USA's white house and UK's PM/DPM

 

[Desertfalcon]

North Korea is totalitarian, not socialist. Canada is socialist, even more so than the US.

Lets be fair, except for the odd-ball country like North Korea, no country is really socialist and there hasn't really been any for a long time. What has happened is that people have redefined what socialism is in order to grind their own political axe. Go to Vancouver or Seattle or Los Angeles or NYC or Toronto and you will see private industry after private industry, after private industry. You will see private homes and private property. You will also see things like government regulations, mandated environmental policies, mandated health care, labor laws, etc., but those are not socialism. They are what guard against many of the excesses of a purely free market. I am a conservative politically in my country, but it's like a tell the Tea Party types in my own party, "It's really easy being a libertarian and shouting SOCIALISM! at the government....when you live in a country where every single tap you turn on, clean healthy drinking water comes out and you guys think magical fairy dust causes it." I don't know about you, but when I take my medications, or drink out of the tap, or get on an airplane and see that American flag on the tail, I feel pretty good about the degree of "socialism" we have. Doesn't mean I don't think regulations and mandates shouldn't be sensible and be necessary, but I most certainly don't want to live in a truly non-"socialist" libertarian society where drinking tap water or getting on an airliner, is playing Russian roulette with you life.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Finally, i disagree with my good friend Leverage buyout point about: 'US foreign policy is values-based and reactionary, so all of the Russian and Chinese talk of deep manipulation is simple projection.'

This couldn't be further from the truth if i understand what you mean by U.S foreign policy being value based and reactionary. U.S foreign policy is based on maintaining supremacy by all means possible, accompanied with divide and conquer(they learned it from us.) Moreover U.S foreign policy is more pro-active than reactive, Instead i will say its instead Russia and China foreign policy which is reactive since they tend to be on the defensive always. They are reduced to barely reacting to our moves since they are weaker and more vulnerable(not being a 'democracy') so they are susceptible to unrests(which we make use of to the maximum giving our 'democratic' credentials). If by value based you mean U.S foreign policy is based on spreading democractic values/principles then i must say im dissapointed in you my good friend. U.S foreign policy isnt value based at all( thought hey use it when needed to counter rival states/ennemy states), if they were we(U.S/west) wouldn't have as ally Saudi Arabia, GCC countries, etc.

I'm trying to think of an example where the US initiated action against the USSR, and I am coming up blank. Korea was a reaction to the spread of Communism, the 1953 Iranian coup was in reaction to the oil nationalization, Vietnam was a reaction to the spread of Communism, Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis was a reaction to the spread of Communism and the Soviet military threat, the alliance with Israel was in reaction to Soviet domination of the Middle East, the Dominican Republic was in reaction to the revolution there and to prevent the spread of Communism, Grenada was in reaction to a leftist coup, Panama was in reaction to the threat against free passage through the canal, Iraq was in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and threatening posture towards KSA, Afghanistan was in reaction to 9/11, and Iraq was... I still don't know.

Did I miss anything? Perhaps I overlooked a few "small wars." Please tell me how I'm wrong, and how the US was actually the pro-active initiator of conflict in those cases.

As far as values-based, what I mean by that is that we still interfere where we have no strategic interest, but cannot tolerate atrocities, such as Somalia and Bosnia (Rwanda will forever be our shame). Where we do have a strategic interest, we work where we can to install our value system (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan), so long as it does not interfere with our strategic interests (e.g. our alliance with the military dictatorships of South Korea). But strategic interest has always had primacy over the values system, as far as I am aware. I welcome any counter-examples you can provide.

 

[Desertfalcon]

The US is a two party totalitarian society. Independents can theoretically win, but they have to be trillionaires to be able to compete with the two parties. Heck, only in Ukraine can bit rich oligarchs like Poroshenko, Kolomoisky get elected.

No independents in US politics RealClearPolitics - 2014 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

IOW, we have a basically two or three party system, kinda' like....Canada, the UK, France, Australia, Germany, Greece, Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, etc., etc., etc.

Even in democracies with multi-parties, they often join into coalitions, that basically break into a two party, left-of-center, right-of-center, split. It isn't corruption that causes it. It's because most voters in most real democracies, are fairly moderate and parties try to make the most of whichever side of "center" they are on. And as in the USA, the reason why third parties don’t do well or raise much money...is because the American people don't donate to them nor vote for them. They yell, "corruption!" when really, it is just frustration that they can't get many people to vote for them. They are always on the ballot. In my state, like almost every other in the last national election, I had a choice of about 9 different parties to vote for. I voted for the Republican Party, just like I always do, just like most Americans do for either them, or the Democrats. Just as in the UK, most will either vote Conservative, Liberal, or Labour. In Germany, SD or CD, and so on.

 

[tranquilium]

Lets be fair, except for the odd-ball country like North Korea, no country is really socialist and there hasn't really been any for a long time. What has happened is that people have redefined what socialism is in order to grind their own political axe. Go to Vancouver or Seattle or Los Angeles or NYC or Toronto and you will see private industry after private industry, after private industry. You will see private homes and private property. You will also see things like government regulations, mandated environmental policies, mandated health care, labor laws, etc., but those are not socialism. They are what guard against many of the excesses of a purely free market. I am a conservative politically in my country, but it's like a tell the Tea Party types in my own party, "It's really easy being a libertarian and shouting SOCIALISM! at the government....when you live in a country where every single tap you turn on, clean healthy drinking water comes out and you guys think magical fairy dust causes it." I don't know about you, but when I take my medications, or drink out of the tap, or get on an airplane and see that American flag on the tail, I feel pretty good about the degree of "socialism" we have. Doesn't mean I don't think regulations and mandates shouldn't be sensible and be necessary, but I most certainly don't want to live in a truly non-"socialist" libertarian society where drinking tap water or getting on an airliner, is playing Russian roulette with you life.

Well, in the long run, human society is continuously advancing and political models advances along with everything else. Vast majority of the nations today don't really follow the 18th century capitalism or socialism model. In general, they take a form of government that has elements from both school of thought.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Well, in the long run, human society is continuously advancing and political models advances along with everything else. Vast majority of the nations today don't really follow the 18th century capitalism or socialism model. In general, they take a form of government that has elements from both school of thought.

Exactly.

 

[Aepsilons]

@LeveragedBuyout , @mike2000 , @TaiShang, @Chinese-Dragon et al,

Perhaps what we can do, as students of geopolitics, is to list out the points that these Hong Kong protesters find disconcerting with the Central Government. And then, we can juxtapose these to the policies of the Central Government, listing and identifying its resolution of said grievances.

From my reading of the Chinese members here and their reaction to the protests in HK, its more or less condemning the protesters as traitors and worthy of some kind of hardline response. Hardly worthy of intellectual, academic discourse. Let's change this around and discuss this, point by point. I'm listing you guys because of your background(s) and the high quality as fair nature.

 

[gambit]

Oh, there are alot of things the US government can do. Tax evasion anyone? Another red scare?

You are straining here. Noam Chomsky is essentially a communist and look at him throughout the yrs -- a millionaire.

 

[bolo]

Which is why there were not one but two red scare, basically propaganda campaign to rid of the CP.

Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TaiShang]

@LeveragedBuyout , @mike2000 , @TaiShang, @Chinese-Dragon et al,

Perhaps what we can do, as students of geopolitics, is to list out the points that these Hong Kong protesters find disconcerting with the Central Government. And then, we can juxtapose these to the policies of the Central Government, listing and identifying its resolution of said grievances.

From my reading of the Chinese members here and their reaction to the protests in HK, its more or less condemning the protesters as traitors and worthy of some kind of hardline response. Hardly worthy of intellectual, academic discourse. Let's change this around and discuss this, point by point. I'm listing you guys because of your background(s) and the high quality as fair nature.

Although the protesters failed to develop a clear, comprehensive political agenda other than throwing out some abstract ideas such as democracy (which could come in any form) and freedom, at the core of their demand, as it seems, lays the desire to elect their chief with no direct/indirect intervention from Beijing.

I did not hear or read them chanting: "We are hungry; cannot feed our kids," or "we need public housing and affordable education," or "we want universal healthcare," etc. Their protest is of geopolitical nature given that they demand Beijing to hand off Hong Kong. This is interesting given the fact that HK is among the most unequal in terms of income per capita among the developed countries/regions.

Essentially, they question and challenge Beijing's sovereignty over Hong Kong. You can't simply demand the central government to cast off all the political control over a province. Beijing is a highly decentralized capital already with local governments enjoying greater say over their immediate affairs, granting more than that may lead to de facto separatism.

As a province of China, Hong Kong will have to be content with whether they indirectly elect their chief or Beijing simply appoints a governor. But, today, a certain group of Hong Kong residents seem to enjoy a degree of autonomy that they do not deserve at all.

This One Country Two Systems model is a farce, in my view. Just repeal it step by step and the problem is solved. To begin with, China should have a full control over Hong Kong's immigration matters. The immigration laws and procedures must be unified with the rest of the country.