FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Can Hong Kong Trigger a Chinese Revolution?

by

“Power concedes nothing without a demand”

-Frederick Douglas

A historic showdown is shaking Hong Kong’s core, between the Chinese government and the mass movement confronting it. The people demand the removal of the Beijing appointed Governor and insist that they vote on his replacement. The Chinese government has vowed zero concessions, creating an inevitable collision with potentially revolutionary effects.

The government has twice made attempts to crush the movement with violence; both failed miserably. Each time thousands of new people entered the movement in response. The following day after pro-government gangs attacked the protestors an estimated 200,000 people mobilized. And after each new, even larger mobilization the fresh threats by the government look increasingly pathetic.

A student leader of the protests was quoted in The New York Times:

“We know that every time they assault us, we resist harder, and we know we’re on the right path, otherwise the government wouldn’t have been so afraid of us.”

This resembles a dynamic often referred to as the “whip of the counter-revolution,” where government violence “whips” people into action, pushing the movement forward.

The mass movement has created a no-win situation for the Chinese government. It’s the same problem all governments face when targeted by a mass movement with a strong demand: if the government surrenders it loudly pronounces its weakness, inviting more attacks that utilize the same strategy of massive ongoing mobilizations. It’s very risky for an elite-dedicated government to show it can be moved by the people mobilized.

It’s especially risky for China, since there are other regions watching Hong Kong closely that will either be motivated or intimidated by the results. China has an especially vulnerable underbelly with its periphery, particularly Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet.

People assumed that Taiwan would gradually fall back into China’s orbit, but this logic is being questioned as the process towards reunification has stalled. This has infuriated Beijing, and led some to question whether the government is losing control of its periphery. Any protest success in Hong Kong will only power those in Taiwan looking to maintain their distance from China.

An emerging super power cannot tolerate such blatant roadblocks to expansion. The Chinese government is tired of acting passively, both domestically and internationally, when it feels capable of expediting events by force. Smashing the Hong Kong movement will set an example to other regions and ethnic groups inside China’s borders. Failing to smash the movement, however, will have the exact opposite effect.

But the Chinese government faces an even bigger danger at its very core — the Chinese working class. From the Economist magazine:

“… it remains possible that [General Secretary Xi Jinping] will authorize force. That would be a disaster for Hong Kong, and it would not solve Mr. Xi’s problem. For mainland China, too, is becoming restless.”

For a decade the Chinese working class has waged a fight-back against the ultra-exploitation that increased during the transition to capitalism.  China now has American-style inequality gaps. During the capitalist transition, 30 million state workers were fired in the massive privatization of state resources that created billionaires while also creating ever larger demands on worker productivity — working faster and/or longer hours —to boost corporate profits.

The racist stereotype of the docile Chinese wage slave has been shattered by collective action. Business Week reports:

“From 2000 through 2013, at least 10 protests have drawn more than 10,000 people…the most common triggers are land grabs by local officials, labor issues, pollution, and ethnic tensions. Underpaid teachers, homeowners, and coal miners have all taken to the streets at one point or another. There is no definitive tally of how many protests are staged each year in China, but one estimate by researchers at Nankai University put the number at 90,000 in 2009.”

These strikes and protests have successfully raised wages and benefits in China, which have repeatedly been declared “bad news for corporate profits.”

The higher wages have threatened China’s capitalist business model, which over-relies on cheap exports that are grounded in slave wages.  China’s labor movement has successfully raised the price of labor, and now neighbor nations are using slave labor to challenge China’s exports.  If the protests in Hong Kong are successful, unions in China will be inspired to make new, bolder demands. And a healthy Chinese labor movement will inevitably infect the labor movements of neighboring nations.

The protests have already awakened the Hong Kong labor movement, helping ensure an even broader base of support. The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions recently announced a strike in support of the student movement and included four demands:

“the immediate release of all the arrested, an end to the suppression of peaceful assembly, replacing the ‘fake universal suffrage’ formula with the genuine political reform workers have been demanding, and the resignation of Chief Executive Leung Chun Ying.”

This is significant because Hong Kong unions have a long history of organizing mass protests, including the successful one in 2003 of 500,000 people that eventually led to the resignation of Hong Kong’s governor. They city has a tradition of mass protests where every year tens of thousands — often hundreds of thousands — mobilize for or against various issues usually related to democratic rights. This tradition began in 1989 when 1.5 million marched to show sympathy with the Tiananmen Square protests.

But mass movements don’t always work. Tiananmen Square was drowned in blood, as have recent protests in Thailand. But in 2002 mass protests in Venezuela defeated a military coup that sought to oust President Hugo Chavez. Egyptians successfully used the tactic to oust a dictator and then struck again against his successor.

The x factor in every mass movement is the army and whether soldiers are willing to kill their fellow countrymen on government orders. When the Iranian revolution used ongoing mobilizations to oust a U.S.-backed dictator, the turning point was when the Shah’s troops were deemed “unreliable” to follow government orders to kill protesters.

When soldiers refuse to fire on protesters — a common feature of revolution — the magical armor of government is shattered, and state power becomes powerless. While recognizing the feebleness of government in the face of mass opposition, the people begin to recognize their own collective power.

All of China is watching Hong Kong closely, as is the whole of Asia. The entire region is affected by China’s economic-gravitational weight, and if the region follows in Hong Kong’s footsteps, it’s capable of dragging the rest of the world behind it.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

More articles by:

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
Tommy Raskin
Syrian Quicksand
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Still Tries to Push Dangerous Drug Class
Jill Richardson
The Attorney General Thinks Aspirin Helps Severe Pain – He’s Wrong
Mike Miller
Herb March: a Legend Deserved
Ann Garrison
If the Democrats Were Decent
Renee Parsons
The Times, They are a-Changing
Howard Gregory
The Democrats Must Campaign to End Trickle-Down Economics
Sean Keller
Agriculture and Autonomy in the Middle East
Ron Jacobs
Re-Visiting Gonzo
Eileen Appelbaum
Rapid Job Growth, More Education Fail to Translate into Higher Wages for Health Care Workers
Ralph Nader
Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria—Wide-Ranging Lawyers for the People
Chris Zinda
The Meaning of Virginia Park
Robert Koehler
War and Poverty: A Compromise with Hell
Mike Bader – Mike Garrity
Senator Tester Must Stop Playing Politics With Public Lands
Kenneth Culton
No Time for Olympic Inspired Nationalism
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Final Days of the Regime
Irene Tung – Teófilo Reyes
Tips are for Servers Not CEOs
Randy Shields
Yahoomans in Paradise – This is L.A. to Me
Thomas Knapp
No Huawei! US Spy Chiefs Reverse Course on Phone Spying
Mel Gurtov
Was There Really a Breakthrough in US-North Korea Relations?
David Swanson
Witness Out of Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
George Brandis, the Rule of Law and Populism
Dean Baker
The Washington Post’s Long-Running Attack on Unions
Andrew Stewart
Providence Public School Teachers Fight Back at City Hall
Stephen Cooper
Majestic Meditations with Jesse Royal: the Interview
David Yearsley
Olympic Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail