I think it would be very interesting to hear what you think since you are there. What is it like? What's the feel of the people around you?

Particularly in the area I am, its an incredibly weird atmosphere. Totally calm, totally organised, 50m down the road there's a recycling organisation manned by students, there's 3 or 4 first aid areas within about 1km of me. But for two days people were just walking up and down the street and sleeping there.

Its now really diminished, there's a lot less people and on the other side of the water (kowloon) its starting to get violent. After last night with the exec refused to step down under any circumstances it all appeared to get a little bit disparate and the groups started to disintegrate. Most arguments now are between protesters and "anti-protesters" There were a bunch of scenes last night where various people attempted to block the last remaining road and other groups pulled them back.

Overall - not really intimidating or difficult (outside of the 3 key areas) but just a very odd set of circumstances

Rumours (potentially conspiracy theories) are that the people fighting are govt sponsored triads, either for money or leniency going in and trying to clear occupiers. Not sure how much truth involved

A CIA plot to annoy China. Not going to work.

I think people like you give way too much credit to the CIA, Putin.

Really CIA? I mean I'm not by any way claiming expert knowledge but this would be incredibly surprising. It appears to me to be far more of a movement thats been building for several months, there's been various broken promises from the government and it all came to a head in time for National Day.

Seems a huge amount of work for the CIA to go to for an incredibly minimal return... not totally sure what the point would be

I love the idea of the CIA plotting to annoy people.

Surprising? How many color revolutions does it take for people to stop being surprised?
The main money man (Jimmy Lai) behind this astroturfed 'revolution' has well known connections with the US government.

What broken promise? The government got rid of the election committee and is implementing universal suffrage for the election in 2017. That of course wasn't enough because the goal all along was destabilization.

Hilarious that people are whining about the electoral system in Hong Kong when the system is far more open and democratic than anything the British allowed for decades. But the West never said a word about it.

Sorry, Putin the whole point is they are NOT implementing universal suffrage for the election in 2017. Thats the whole point of the protest, the only people eligible for election in 2017 have to be nominated and cleared through the Beijing govt beforehand

If I understand Putin correctly, he is claiming that the CIA is supporting Occupy? If so, that is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long, long time.

If I may note, I believe universal suffrage is the right to vote. Like everyone would get to vote. Having free elections would mean that there is a range of candidates to choose from, which are not interfered with by a third party. I thought that it was the fact that Beijing was choosing candidates made it a problem.

no mendax not ridiculous - I think you'd be surprised if you looked a little deeper because you'd find that CIA supported NGOs are indeed active in many countries where these types of events have occurred.

hammac - I'm assuming that you've never been to an Occupy event then?

@ cardcollector that was my understanding as well.

Putin - I don't think anyone is going to argue that it was more democratic under British rule.

But that fact doesn't negate the current issue. They were promised free elections, not elections of a group of people chosen by Beijing.

Putin33's back? Too bad.

If only the CIA were really so all-powerful it could create huge protest movements like this from the head of Zeus.

I don't expect this to escalate too much more. China cannot repeat Tienanmen Square in a world with Youtube. Some compromise will be reached or the government just waits the protest out and its plan goes ahead as-is.

But there will be a reckoning for Red China. The CCP stays in power because it continues to deliver uninterrupted economic growth. What happens when China inevitably goes into recession? Probably a lot of things, few of which the CCP will like.

Lmao Putin is wrong here but Invictus you have got to stop saying Red China. The time for that was 40 years ago

"you have got to stop saying Red China. The time for that was 40 years ago"
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. As long as the CCP is still in power, I would think the use of "red" would still be accurate.

The CCP is no more "red" than DRC is democratic.

The ROC still exists, and the mainland is still run by a communist party. The term's just as valid as ever.

Mendax has it. Official names are usually not very descriptive. After all, they say the US is a democracy, which of course has been debunked.

I love it when Thucy says the US isn't a democracy. You can almost hear the threads of credibility being pulled away :).

The Republic of China is still red. It may be a very different shade of red than it was in Mao's day, but red it remains.

Bro did you not hear about this:

http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

And how the fuck is it red? It's not even a democracy or republic either. Automatically disqualified.

By what definition is the PRC not a republic?

"Red" refers to it being run by a communist party, as opposed to the ROC on Taiwan, which is run by non-communist parties. Pretty simple.

Are appearances all that matter to you? Christ. You have more in common with putin than you probably realize

No, "red" means actually communist; which they of course are not.

And also, I'll save you some time and bring you into the 21st century:

We call PROC "China" and ROC "Taiwan." Simple huh?

In religion, it is an entirely subjective matter about whether a person or group in question is "really" Muslim, or Hindu or whatever. In form of government though, the words "communist" or "republic" have physical definitions, which, when they are not met in physical space, mean the words are not applicable, no matter what the group calls itself.

"No, "red" means actually communist; which they of course are not."

Why? Because you say so? All the "red" means is that a communist party runs the country. It doesn't require some Talmudic analysis into whether True Communism is being practiced.


"And also, I'll save you some time and bring you into the 21st century:

We call PROC "China" and ROC "Taiwan." Simple huh?"

Even Taiwan doesn't call itself Taiwan. You have a very superficial understanding of the issue here. Google "One China principle."

Are you going to answer me on how the PRC is supposedly not a republic?

"It doesn't require some Talmudic analysis into whether True Communism is being practiced."

Why not? Doesn't red mean communist? And if it's not true communism, it's not communism. What's so difficult to understand about that?

And who gives a shit what China and Taiwan call themselves. North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, according to it. Why don't you ever call them that?

As to China being a republic, google "republic" and get back to me.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Got back. How is the PRC not a republic?

As for all the "red" business, it's a boring topic that's been done a thousand times. If you can't accept that the CCP is a communist party then I really don't feel like wasting more time on this.

Are you, Invictus, really going to sit here and say that China's government is responsible to it's voters and governs according to law? You , of all people are going to bat for the Chinese system of government? Wow. All just so you can win an argument online against Thucydides, I reckon.

I accept that the Communist Party in China calls itself that in the same way that I accept it when a US president says something to the nation along the lines of "my boss is you, the American public." It's a joke. Yeah, powerful people say it, and it gets carved into the sides of buildings and put up on dot gov websites, but gilded words ain't true

But I'm glad to know that if you ever comment on North Korea I can troll you for not saying DPRK. See you then

Read the full definition, kiddo.

"a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government"

Pretty sure there are no more emperors. Republics need not be democracies.


I said I'm not wasting more time on the other issue.

Honestly the first definition is a waste of time. You don't get to be a republic just because your king says he's a president.

That's nonsense. Under your definition the Roman Republic wouldn't even be a republic.

Republic is a very general term. It just means the state is not a monarchy.

@ Invictus: Genuine question - imagine that the Republican Party in the USA won the next elections for both presidency and congress, and then for some reason changed its name to "The Republican Communist Party", but made no change whatsoever to a single one of its policies.

Would it be accurate to say, in those circumstances, "The USA is a communist country" ?

Obviously not. But the CCP is not the GOP with a different name.

The CCP practices democratic centralism. It is a member of international communist party organizations. Its official ideology is still based on Marxist-Leninism. It maintains a one-party socialist state. What more do you need for it to be a communist party?