this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
421 points (99.5% liked)
In Person Activism
426 readers
264 users here now
"Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them." -Tim Snyder
A community for sharing information about ways to get involved with real world activism to make the world a better place.
Spend less time arguing about politics on the internet. The world is in trouble. Get out there and try to help.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What I find disheartening is that it ultimately didn't work. Or am I wrong?
That’s not entirely true. Protests like these, at the very least, demonstrate class awareness to towards those in power. “Look what we can do”
Never forget that true power lies with the people. Always.
That really only works when the majority don't have power. The Hong Kong protests failed because it was a minority trying to take power they never had, against the wishes of the majority.
Also international news agencies spilling the beans on the fact the leaders of the group were in constant communication with us agencies.
Ah yes the minority.
~300k vs 1.4 billion. That's the definition of a minority.
That's not an honest comparison.
You have chosen the police-reported number of protesters (338 K) instead of 2 M reported by other sources.
You have also made a false comparison between Hong Kong (~10 M people) and the entire population of China. I recommend to use percentages. Up to 20% of the local population showed up to protest. More were dissatisfied.
What number of Chinese would show up to protest if a hot topic would appear and the regime would seem weak for a moment, is unknown.
So you said all that to say they're the minority and didn't have enough members to vote, so we should listen to said minority because they protested not getting their way because they didn't represent the majority viewpoint.
That's called tyranny, little one. China is a democracy. You have a problem, get educated, run for office and get voted in. If your problem is widespread then you'll have no problem winning an election on it.
Yes, the Republic of China appears to be a democracy.
About the People's Republic of China, we can read in Wikipedia:
So, we read that democracy never came.
So, we read that only one party is allowed to exist and rule. We also read about CCP propaganda, which I think you have consumed too much:
I should note that according to its own words, the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) is also a "democracy", even if its passing of power among the Kim family resembles a hereditary monarchy. If you take words and slogans at their face value, you'll be easily mislead.
P.S.
Don't troll. Also, don't spread disinformation.
NATOpedia is not credible on enemies of the west.
It's the working class, the majority, who don't have power..
It's the everyone with less than a gigabuck.
The working class control China, hence why billionaires are regularly executed if they hurt Chinese citizens.
I know it's hard to understand.
A fun question for you: can a worker in China start an independent trade union?
The answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China
China is a mostly capitalist country with the state owning a lot of capital, and a "communist" party deciding without a mandate from people. But it retains some features of socialist policy.
In year 2021, Beijing was the city with the biggest number of billionaires living there (later, Mumbai took over).
If you take the list of countries by income inequality, you will see that China has greater inequality than most of neighbouring countries, and most of Europe.
Some Gini indexes of Asian countries, more equal first (source: United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research):
Some highlights from other continents:
Going by the Gini index, China has a lot in common with the USA and its closest matches among big countries are Russia and India.
It didn't do anything from what I recall.
I believe it was quickly dissolved after they found that the leadership was in direct communication with USA agents.
Plus I recall there was general dissatisfaction from civilians who found the protestors to be a nuisance.
There is no opinion here, just what recall from the event history.
My understanding was that there was some push back and political/police violence but the Chinese state largely let it play out and then within a month or two made mass arrests of the organizers.
This was a broadly supported movement, impressive in its size and unity.
The strategy Xi used was to not over emphasize the level of public support through direct confrontation - but to wipe out all resistance when the “controlled” energy of the crowd has somewhat dissipated.
Lesson for the current environment in the US: have a long term strategy tied to your goals, put very high degrees of pressure on specific state actors / functions that they cannot ignore or wait out
You are correct, it didn't work.
HK was economically dependent on China already, so their last struggle occurred too late, under the implied threat of the Chinese army moving in. The city government found ways to bring in Chinese police (or interior ministry troops) to overcome and outlast the protests.