China

481 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Hey Ken Burch when 500 thousand protesters storm Washington congress senate and White House carrying the Chinese flag and hammer and cicle, destroying as much as they can and demanding communism then we’ll talk. 

The Peoples Liberation Army has an obligation to protect socialism against cia plants.

Never knew you were such a defender of the imperialist corporate media’s lies. 

the 1989 protesters were not fighting to turn China capitalist-they were making a peaceful stand for socialism without repression, paranoia, and endless screaming campaigns against "deviationists".  They weren't carrying the US flag.  They WERE singing the Internationale.  And when Beijing crushed its democracy movement in 1989, Bush didn't care.  He said nothing because they weren't on his side. 

What happened in 1989 was a legitmate, libertarian socialist revolt from below.  Nothing but tragedy came of that revolt being crushed.

BTW, in case you've not noticed, China went capitalist anyway.  The democracy movement never wanted China's cities to be filled with western banks and luxury hotels.  They didn't march and die for KFC and McDonald's.  It's not a victory for socialism that billionaires are Party memberse.  It was no victory for socialism that what exists now is a capitalist dictatorship.

Socialism never needs dictatorship to survive, and when dictatorial methods are used, the socialist aspects of the state always end up vanishing, because socialism, in the end, has to be linked to human liberation in all forms.

And the Hong Kong protesters had no alternative but to occupy the airport.  They also aren't fighting to overthrow the Party on the Mainland-they are simply fighting an unjust law which would allow Beijing to extradite political dissidents for questioning and trial.  There is no reason to have such a law, because there is no reason for Beijing to try to stop Hong Kong from moving to full democracy and no reason to punish anyone for working for it.

What happened in 1989 was not a CIA plot.  What's happening at the airport is not a CIA plot.

And nothing the PLA did in 1989 or WOULD be doing if it crushed the airport protests now could possibly be called "defending socialism"-any more than Brezhnev was defending socialism by crushing the Prague Spring, or Krushchev when he crushed the fight for a humane, democratic form of socialism in Hungary, or Stalin was defending it by crushing the socialist rising against Stalin's pointless insistence that the DDR mirror Stalin's model without question or deviation, or that Stalin was ever defending socialism through the purge trials, or the Gulag and the Kolyma-or Lenin was defending it by crushing the Krondstadt rising when all that was about was a defense of free speech and the original idea of the soviets as real decision-making bodies.

None of that was ever about defending socialism.

None of that was ever necessary to defend socialism.

And there is no reason for any reason for any state which claims to be "socialist"-let alone any other state-to ever do any of those things again.

At some point in the far future, Beijing will have to apologize to the people for what it did in 1989.  Why not just call on them NOT to act in the same way in Hong Kong this time?  Why not just call on them to leave Hong Kong's internal affairs alone and let the place be a full-fledged democracy if that's what the people of that country want?

China doesn't need to be able to intimidate the people of Hong Kong to be secure, for God's sakes.   And it would certainly have no justification to storm the place and kill them by the thousands.

It's time for Beijing to just back the hell off here.  

 

 

Thats a long winded load of US corporate bullshit! I guess you really believe your horse shit hey?

Protestors I Tian An Men square killed unarmed military personnel when they fire bombed them in buses and burned to death! Those were criminals not peaceful protesters. 

Keep twisting your definition of capitalism to include those you feel are a threat to your own version of materialism. 

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken that extradition law is a red herring. Imagine not being able to bring a Canadian back to Vancouver if they flee to the North West Territories.  I think you just don't get that Hong Kong is and always has been a part of China. Tell me Ken why did the UK not give the people of Hong Kong any democratic rights, they had nearly a hundred years.

In the meantime the people of China seem to be getting on with life despite your revulsion for a system that has raised the most people out of poverty on the planet. Imagine if China was more like India, with its liberal democracy, they hardly have any repression at all in India or the Kashmir, if your a Hindu. I use India because they are another nasty country left over after British rule with a flawed system that is lauded as a democracy.

Try traveling some, maybe take a nice shuttle ride.

https://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/hongkong/zhuhai-macau-bridge...

1) I've never defended the British denying the vote to anyone, or anything ELSE the British Empire ever did.  They SHOULD have given the people of Hong Kong full self-rule from the start-just as there should never have been a start, because Britain never had any right to take Hong Kong, any more than Britain ever had any justification for ever having a single colony, including Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the first colonies of the Empire.

And it was Margaret Thatcher who cheerfully signed over Hong Kong to China-most of its population wanted independence, which they should have been given-which means that what's happening there now has nothing to do with British imperialism. 

2) I don't want the Chinese government overthrown, or "The West" taking any greater control of Chinese economic life than anybody else.  And given that the country is, for all practical purposes, capitalist, in what sense is what the regime is doing about defending "socialism" at all?  And what necessity is there for Beijing to be able to silence all dissent against what it does not only in the actual PRC, but in Hong Kong itself?  Why should this ever end with Hong Kong being put under full "Market Stalinism"?

3) If the PRC is currently prosperous, bully to them-but why assume the PRC can only be prosperous if dissent and critique of the status quo are forever treated as crimes?   Why should the Left defend what the PRC leadership now, when defending them now means agreeing to defend the country being a police state for the rest of eternity?  

4) In the case of the extradition example of sending someone who has escaped from NWT to Vancouver-obviously that person should be extradited if they are wanted for actual crimes, such as rape or murder then by all means send them back.  Buy that should not extend to people being extradited for their political involvement.  If, for example Nunavit had asserted the right to self-determination by voting to establish sovereignty-association, and subsuquently establish a government and economy run on some form of socialism grounded in Inuit traditions.  Supposing a Ginger Goodwin left-labour organizer shows up there, on the run from an even further-right British Columbia provincial government which has vowed to start executing socialists.   Would you argue that, in the name of Canadian sovereignty, British Columbia should be able to demand that that labour organizer be extradited to what we all know would be certain death?

The government of the PRC is simply another government.  It no more deserves exemption from dissent and critique than any other.

There has to be some way of recognize Chinese sovereignty without treating the government of the PRC as if it should be accorded the political equivalent of papal infallibility.   

And basically, all I'm asking for here is that the PRC not stage a massacre at the Hong Kong airport.  Why on earth shouldn't all of us ask that of them, just as we ask all other governments not to massacre people?

 

You’re basically just making up bullshit to continue to demonize the Communist government of China. 

If Hong Kong was actually run by the Communist government in Beijing, it would be more like any other similar Chinese city such as Beijing or GuangZhou. With far less poverty as it has now. 

I notice in your comments in this thread you constantly avoid the true reality of widespread poverty in Hong Kong. And substitute it with bullshit scenarios of military crackdowns that have never happened as you have narrated. 

NDPP

WATCH: 'Gang of 4': Who is Misleading the Young in Hong Kong?

https://twitter.com/CGRNOfficial/status/1161979601855234048

 

WATCH: "Hillary Clinton has called for support of the rioters in Hong Kong. Let's see what happened when she 'supported' Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq."

https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1161921720380461056

As always the 'pro-democracy' imperialists and their western liberal cheering squad are there...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

swallow wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Hey Ken Burch when 500 thousand protesters storm Washington congress senate and White House carrying the Chinese flag and hammer and cicle, destroying as much as they can and demanding communism then we’ll talk. 

The Peoples Liberation Army has an obligation to protect socialism against cia plants.

Never knew you were such a defender of the imperialist corporate media’s lies. 

Yeah Ken, we must all rally to the defence of Capitalist China. States must always smash dissent! All protesters are CIA agents! Protest is imperialism! Viva! 

(Just trying to echo NDPP's racist party line that protesters are incapable of free thought and must be in thrall to white puppetmasters.)

Not really sure if you understand what’s been going on in 香港for the last 170 years or not? But really, when people protest, it’s  for a good reason! Do you really believe that most of these protesters are all worked up over an extradition law that will never effect a law abiding citizen? And at the same time, give a total fucking ratts ass about living in poverty? Really!

And now, all of a sudden, it’s Beijings fault for 160 years of British raping?!?!?

Oh and by the way, China isn’t capitalist. Over 75% of all the corporations are owned by the state. Maybe some idiots that don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground will buy you horse shit? Or you actually believe your horse shit? I don’t care which it is so you pick. 

1) I'm fully aware of the legacy of British imperialism.  As a person whose ancestry is more Scottish and Irish than anything else, I'm descended from some of the first victims of British imperialism.

2) The legacy of the British Empire had nothing to do with the democracy movement of 1989, and it has nothing to do with the airport protests now.  If the British government wanted to mess with China over Hong Kong, why would it have signed over Hong Kong to eventually go under full Chinese rule?

3) The people of Hong Kong were the ones living under British rule most recently.  By all accounts, they didn't like it.  By most accounts, they are still furious that Margaret Thatcher signed them over to China when those people would actually have preferred independence.  Why on earth, after all that, would they only be doing the airport protests out of some sudden, inexplicable wish to become lackeys of Whitehall?

4) Agreed that it's not JUST about the extradition law-it's also about the Chinese government trying to prevent the Hong Kong government from establishing full democracy and about Beijing's insistence that, at some point, the place must be put under exactly the same uptight, paranoid, sometimes murderous constraints the people of the PRC are made to live under.  That it has to end up being a place where no opposition voices are tolerated at all, where you can still be arrested for the art you make, of all things.  Why couldn't Beijing just agree to perpetually keep Hong Kong in "special administrative" status, with free speech and multiparty elections WITHIN Hong Kong? Why not try something with Hong Kong that would be like what sovereignty-association might be like with Quebec?  The PRC would still get whatever economic benefits it gets from the place now, so what would they have to lose?

5) the Chinese government is not in a battle for survival.  They don't have to be able to suppress all internal dissent, persecute gays, or extradite dissidents from Hong Kong just to avoid overthrow.  There has never been a single moment, since 1949, when there was any real possibility of the PRC being brought to an end.  

6) For those bringing up 1989 in Easter Europe-the DDR, Poland, Hungary and what was then Czechoslovakia didn't fall because of free speech.  Those states fell because they'd never been legitimate, because they'd been used for the previous forty years NOT to build a glorious socialist future, as they should have, but instead mainly as a buffer to protect the USSR against another Western invasion-something the people of those countries never needed to be put under military occupation to agree to, since they'd all have gladly agreed to be part of a voluntary defense pact with the USSR out of gratitude for the Red Army's role in liberating them from Naziism-and as a means to mete out collective punishment to those countries for not having stopped a Nazi invasion of the USSR that those nations could never possibly have prevented.  Instead of using the situation to make those countries into better socialist models than the USSR itself-which was a clearly achievable goal-the term "socialism" there was perverted into a euphemism for collective oppression, even though the people subjected to that never did anything to deserve it.  There were chances to change that-East Berlin, 1953, Hungary 1956, Poland at around the same time, Czechslovakia during the Prague Spring-but every time, the Soviet leadership said "no, we won't allow ANYTHING to change.  We won't tolerate any variance from OUR exact model, even if you don't need our exact model in your country".   It became clear that no humane, transformative, liberating model of socialism-and, quite frankly, socialism without human liberation and freedom fear isn't socialism-and it wasn't reasonable to expect the populations of those countries to accept living exactly like they'd been kept living for the next 50 years, 100 years, or perhaps in perpetuity.  The only way to have kept those regimes in power would have been for Gorbachev to have the Red Army kill more people in those four countries than Stalin did at the height of the Great Purges.

What I'm saying is, it's never "anti-imperialist" to defend states which do things like that.  If anything, the insistence of states which called themselves "anti-imperialist" on doing things like that from the Thirties up to 1989 benefited no one but the imperialists themselves, by allowing them to claim they have a lower body count.

Socialism never needed repression.  It never needed secret police.  It never needed mass executions.  What it needs is a commitment to actually serving the people, and the people can only be served if the people themselves actually have the power to decide what "being served" means.  

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Hey Ken Burch when 500 thousand protesters storm Washington congress senate and White House carrying the Chinese flag and hammer and cicle, destroying as much as they can and demanding communism then we’ll talk. 

The Peoples Liberation Army has an obligation to protect socialism against cia plants.

Never knew you were such a defender of the imperialist corporate media’s lies. 

the 1989 protesters were not fighting to turn China capitalist-they were making a peaceful stand for socialism without repression, paranoia, and endless screaming campaigns against "deviationists".  They weren't carrying the US flag.  They WERE singing the Internationale.  And when Beijing crushed its democracy movement in 1989, Bush didn't care.  He said nothing because they weren't on his side. 

What happened in 1989 was a legitmate, libertarian socialist revolt from below.  Nothing but tragedy came of that revolt being crushed.

BTW, in case you've not noticed, China went capitalist anyway.  The democracy movement never wanted China's cities to be filled with western banks and luxury hotels.  They didn't march and die for KFC and McDonald's.  It's not a victory for socialism that billionaires are Party memberse.  It was no victory for socialism that what exists now is a capitalist dictatorship.

Socialism never needs dictatorship to survive, and when dictatorial methods are used, the socialist aspects of the state always end up vanishing, because socialism, in the end, has to be linked to human liberation in all forms.

And the Hong Kong protesters had no alternative but to occupy the airport.  They also aren't fighting to overthrow the Party on the Mainland-they are simply fighting an unjust law which would allow Beijing to extradite political dissidents for questioning and trial.  There is no reason to have such a law, because there is no reason for Beijing to try to stop Hong Kong from moving to full democracy and no reason to punish anyone for working for it.

What happened in 1989 was not a CIA plot.  What's happening at the airport is not a CIA plot.

And nothing the PLA did in 1989 or WOULD be doing if it crushed the airport protests now could possibly be called "defending socialism"-any more than Brezhnev was defending socialism by crushing the Prague Spring, or Krushchev when he crushed the fight for a humane, democratic form of socialism in Hungary, or Stalin was defending it by crushing the socialist rising against Stalin's pointless insistence that the DDR mirror Stalin's model without question or deviation, or that Stalin was ever defending socialism through the purge trials, or the Gulag and the Kolyma-or Lenin was defending it by crushing the Krondstadt rising when all that was about was a defense of free speech and the original idea of the soviets as real decision-making bodies.

None of that was ever about defending socialism.

None of that was ever necessary to defend socialism.

And there is no reason for any reason for any state which claims to be "socialist"-let alone any other state-to ever do any of those things again.

At some point in the far future, Beijing will have to apologize to the people for what it did in 1989.  Why not just call on them NOT to act in the same way in Hong Kong this time?  Why not just call on them to leave Hong Kong's internal affairs alone and let the place be a full-fledged democracy if that's what the people of that country want?

China doesn't need to be able to intimidate the people of Hong Kong to be secure, for God's sakes.   And it would certainly have no justification to storm the place and kill them by the thousands.

It's time for Beijing to just back the hell off here.  

 

 

Thats a long winded load of US corporate bullshit! I guess you really believe your horse shit hey?

Protestors I Tian An Men square killed unarmed military personnel when they fire bombed them in buses and burned to death! Those were criminals not peaceful protesters. 

Keep twisting your definition of capitalism to include those you feel are a threat to your own version of materialism. 

I never even heard Deng Xiaoping claim that the Tian An Men Square had fire bombs, or assert that they were attacking unarmed military personal.  

What my vision of liberation is is socialism without repression-socialism where the workers hold actual democratic control of the workplace and the wealth.  There was never any good reason for any state which called itself "socialist", to reject that and put a bureaucratic dictatorship in place. 

Do you really assume that socialism cannot co-exist with liberation and freedom from fear of arrest?  Why?

And why do you assume the only way to OPPOSE capitalism is to defend everything any supposedly "socialist" government does in the name of "internal security"?  

No state should ever use lethal force against its people-and, in my view, those states which label themselves "socialist" have a special obligation not to do so, because any state which purports to be about socialism also needs to be state grounded in liberation and generosity of spirit, not paranoia-as-organizing principle.

The truth is, the model for the Left in most of the world now is not the USSR under Stalin, or China since 1949-it's the ideas of the Zapatistas in southern Mexico and the libertarian socialists of AFRIN in Rojava.

That's the path the left is moving towards-the path it would have stayed on, and on which it would have liberated the world, had the Krondstadt Rising not been crushed, had the Soviet Union actually been what it was supposed to be-a cooperative union of fully-empowered soviets in which the people of communities made all collective decisions by humane, direct-democratic means.

That's what it was supposed to be about-not the bullshit "Great Leader" model which derived from the imperialist past. Socialism needs to be built on the IWW maxim "We're ALL Leaders", not "Exceed the Bauxite Quota".
 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And, at the same time, Hillary Clinton needs to STFU.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

As to Hong Kong-I don't defend the economic status quo in that city-although Beijing clearly does, since it is essentially trying to leach off of it in current arrangement.    

On economics, Hong Kong is a capitalist hellhole for many of those who live in it.  

Why assume, though, that the only way to change that is to replicate the Market Stalinist approach?  Why insist on making the place just as politically and creatively repressive as the PRC?

And what the hell does the PRC even have to be this paranoid about?  To be constantly acting as if the Party is about to be overthrown by some sort of diabolical conspiracy that can ONLY be blocked by keeping the country in a perpetual state of fear?

What does the PRC currently provide to the people of China that it can ONLY provide by making it impossible to publicly disagree with the Party about anything?

Why can there not be prosperity, a continued reduction in poverty, AND free speech and the right to dissent from the line?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Ken Burch please give me an example of your socialist paradise that is not a Scandinavian country.

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

So Ken did you notice that almost 4 million US citizens don't get to cast a vote for the President or chose their own Governor. I wonder what the  US response would have been if the Chinese and Russians or Iranians were providing covert aid to Puerto Rican protestors bent on vandalizing the legislature while waving the hammer and sickle. I am sure it would be a measured response, measured in the number of dead bodies.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Agreed that "The West" should not be doing anything to destabilize any country, anywhere.  

That goes without saying.

But agreeing to that doesn't have to mean assuming every government NOT in "The West" deserves uncritical support at all moments.  

And no, it would not be a victory for socialism if the PLA stormed the Hong Kong airport and started killing people there.

It's time to move past things like, that, folks.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yup Ken time to move on past this stuff. Just like we've moved on from the other revolutions that have done so much to lift people around the globe out of poverty and into a democratic paradise. We've helped Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc etc.

Its time arrogant people from the NATO imperium stopped pointing fingers at anyone in the world because our ruling oligarchy is the most brutal on the planet and we are unable to reign them in and instead our "progressives" want to use that brutality to teach other nations what is right and wrong..

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch please give me an example of your socialist paradise that is not a Scandinavian country.

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

So Ken did you notice that almost 4 million US citizens don't get to cast a vote for the President or chose their own Governor. I wonder what the  US response would have been if the Chinese and Russians or Iranians were providing covert aid to Puerto Rican protestors bent on vandalizing the legislature while waving the hammer and sickle. I am sure it would be a measured response, measured in the number of dead bodies.

Obviously, the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed.  They should be given either statehood or, better, outright independence as soon as possible.  

Nobody who has read what I've posted on this board has any grounds for concluding that I've given "the West" or the U.S. or Canadian governments ANY passes on repressive acts.  I've never done that and never would.

I don't defend any state using repression against radicals anywhere.  BTW, most of those on this board identify as some form of radical, are people who want to fundamentally change the systems WE live under.  Would you argue that it's legitimate for the U.S. or Canadian governments to repress US?

 

As to My models, here are some: 

-the original idea of what the Soviet Union was supposed to be like before that idea was murdered when the Krondstadt rising was crushed;

-the secular, libertarian socialist society that AFRIN is trying to create in Rojava;

-the values the Zapatistas have worked for since their encounters and dialog with indigenous Mexicans moved them away from the discredited Leninist model and towards a humane, cooperative form of social organization;

-the voluntary, non-state socialist approach that's being created spontaneously all over the world with massive increase in the number of co-operatives, co-operatives which are being organized into networks which embody a working alternative to the capitalist corporate model.

And if the argument is that some of the models I support doesn't exist in practice yet...so what?

The idea of revolution STARTED with the notion of creating a world which did not yet exist.   

Why, then, should we limit ourselves now to nothing but the replication of already-existing models?  

What good did it do the world for "socialist" states to be created, for decades, on the exact model of what Stalin or Mao did?  Why should those models have been the only forms Mao or Stalin or their ideological descendants would tolerate? 

Why couldn't China, for example, be prosperous and have a socialist form of wealth distribution without the coercive paranoia that seems to be the PRC's organizing principle these days?  Without the ludicrous idea that all dissent is a threat or a plot? 

Why couldn't it have been possible to defend the USSR from outside attack without turning it into what Stalin turned it into?  Without absurdities like the state telling artists, writers and poets exactly what they could and could not create?

Why shouldn't it be permissible, for example, for an independent Left to exist and organize in China, just as it has a right to exist here?  Why shouldn't artists, poets, novelists, sculptors, composers be allowed to fully express their creative vision?  To, if nothing else, create a socialist aesthetic from below?

As people of the Left, we are supposed to believe in and trust the people-the PRC model doesn't trust the people.  If it did, it wouldn't be obsessed with keeping them silent.  

And of course there are always provocateurs and people trying to do sabotage in any society-should we really conclude from that, though, that ALL dissent, all opposition, is nothing but an outside conspiracy?  That nobody in a place like the PRC could have valid grievances against anything the party is doing?

Where does defending states like the PRC end?  What does it lead us to?

It damn sure can't liberate the people.

 

swallow swallow's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

There are no states that don’t repress dissent. China, like the USA and Canada, represses protesters. 

But the Chinese state, unlike the USA,  is defended on this board as some sort of paradise that can never be criticized. 

And protesters in China are demonized here as US puppets. That is racism and imperialism, pure and simple, in what is supposed to be an anti-racist and anti-imperialist space. 

Calling Ken an apologist for imperialism is so absurd as to defy belief. But here we are. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

swallow wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Chinese government represses people who want to fundamentally change their system, please show me a sovereign state that does not repress people who violently try to disrupt the normal course of everyday life. In China like in most of the world any anti-government person can rely on help from "pro-democracy" NGO's to help them. In Canada playing paintball with the wrong person from one's church and talking global politics can land you in jail for a long time.

There are no states that don’t repress dissent. China, like the USA and Canada, represses protesters. 

But the Chinese state, unlike the USA,  is defended on this board as some sort of paradise that can never be criticized. 

And protesters in China are demonized here as US puppets. That is racism and imperialism, pure and simple, in what is supposed to be an anti-racist and anti-imperialist space. 

Calling Ken an apologist for imperialism is so absurd as to defy belief. But here we are. 

Well said, swallow.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

WATCH: 'Gang of 4': Who is Misleading the Young in Hong Kong?

">https://twitter.com/CGRNOfficial/status/1161979601855234048

"misleading the young"? 

Sounds like some western right-winger circa 1968: "goddam stupid kids don't understand the issues, all just brainwashed by these commie agitators". 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

NDPP wrote:

WATCH: 'Gang of 4': Who is Misleading the Young in Hong Kong?

">https://twitter.com/CGRNOfficial/status/1161979601855234048

"misleading the young"? 

Sounds like some western right-winger circa 1968: "goddam stupid kids don't understand the issues, all just brainwashed by these commie agitators". 

 

And really, we should just BELIEVE the PRC's state news service when it serves up a fantasy image of the protests supposedly being planned over a fancy dinner in an expensive restaurant?

The idea is not really that far from the white Southern canard in the States, in rhetoric that would later be parroted almost word-for-word by the white minority regime in South Africa, that the only reason black people were challenging the intolerable status quo they were made to live under was that "outside agitators"-everybody knew who that term was a euphemism for-and the Communist Party "subverted" them.