Almost everything in these sentences are wrong. It's not just the young people who are protesting in Hong Kong, and most people in Hong Kong have never been born into wealth. There's a great divide between the wealthy and the poor and that's always been the case even in British time.
Source: I was born in Hong Kong 30+ years ago and our family of 4 shared a bunk bed in a room that's probably not much bigger than 100sqft
HK has long had a GDP per capita on par with western nations. Versus China which has had a GDP per capita on par with developing nations until fairly recently.
You think SV valley rents are bat shit crazy? Take a look at HK real estate listings.
There have been many foreboding events that portend the loss of liberty that Hong Kong residence fear. Liberty is what they are fighting to keep. Not wealth.
Addendum: The Chinese judicial system is as one with the communist party. It does not operate the same basic law that Western countries, and tenuously Hong Kong, operate. Under China's judicial system, people literally disappear for months or more with no information provided to family or employer. Many times, they never return.
Unfortunately that's not what's at stake because they won't succeed; freedom isn't actually an option. They think it is, but they'll fail.
> Liberty is what they are fighting to keep. Not wealth.
That might be what they tell themselves, but I can guarantee that if all the HK youth got cushy finance jobs like the previous generation, these protests would have never happened. In absence of personal fulfilment, HK youth are searching for an identity.
> The trigger for the current mass-action was not an economic event
Yes, that was the trigger. However there are triggers, and underlying sentiment. Remember the Umbrella Revolution was a thing only a few years before.
For the record, I'm not saying that Hong Kongers are wrong for protesting or wanting freedom. I'm just saying they'll fail, and the consequences won't be pretty.
> For the record, I'm not saying that Hong Kongers are wrong for protesting or wanting freedom. I'm just saying they'll fail, and the consequences won't be pretty.
You may be correct, you may not. I wonder if people said the same thing right up to the end of segregation, and other things. But that doesn't matter: might does not make right. Our predictions don't matter, our individual stances do.
> Finally, it is the act itself that matters. When instrumental reason is the sole guide to action, the acts it justifies are robbed of their inherent meanings and thus exist in an ethical vacuum. [..] the moral good of a moral act inheres in the act itself. That is why an act can itself ennoble or corrupt the person who performs it.
-- Joseph Weizenbaum
Everybody dies at some point, anyway. All wealth goes down the drain. What these people are changing, and what cannot be taken from them, is themselves. If the results will "not be pretty", there will be no end to songs about them in our lifetime and maybe that of our children and grandchildren -- the kind of songs that would excactly not get written about people with cushy finance jobs, not even once. This isn't meant as snark against you, it's a compliment for them.
They are in the same political and cultural position as Hong Kong: 1 country 2 systems, colonized by a European country, speak Cantonese, etc. but there are no protests in Macau.
Why? The economy is doing well and people there are relatively well off.
[1] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_#...
Getting rid of segregation has a strong moral foundation and backing... keeping colonial roots in control of HK, not so much.
This is so cynical it makes me sad. Some people have principles that are not necessarily the best for their own personal outcome, but they are deeply felt.
I've never been an ambitious person, but I appreciate those that are and all they have created. I do live by principles, however, and my own personal well-being comes second to the idea of liberty.
There is a reason HKers were carrying American flags-> because America is an idea. I certainly support the people of HK protesting this power-overreach.
There are plenty of examples throughout history, let alone in any of the many incidents of competition happening today - from sport all the way to war - of the opposite.
sources? yes, finance was always big in HK, but how many people got those cushy jobs really?
You are assuming HKers would sell their freedom to a tyrprican government in exchange for GDP growth the way mainland Chinese can. That's a big assumption.
Mainlanders may not like it to hear it, and I'll even go as far as to say the best strategy for discussing politics with mainlanders is to not directly tell them this, but their political canon is anomalously full of holes that are exposed when explored in any significant depth (yes I've been through this process with mainlanders).
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3012611...
One of the foreboding events before that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
Update: added my origin to narrow the scope of my comment.
If Hong Kong protestors just followed the path of non violence without attacking China's sovereignty or accepting that they are first Chinese citizen and showing their discontent, it would have been different.
Why Hong Kong is protesting is another reason, which still has roots in economic dissatisfaction.
I think it's important to remember that the protesters began protesting in reaction to China's actions. Protesters are just ordinary people, and it's wrong to hold every protestor accountable to the actions of a tiny minority. China however is a single united and sovereign government; it's actions can't be so easily excused or dismissed.
If a government behaves in a way that breaks faith with it's people, are the people to blame?
I'll tell you this, if I was a CEO and a bunch of people in one of my departments walked out and protested because they felt the company wasn't keeping faith with them, I would place blame on whoever was running that department, not on the people protesting.
A government which is effectively a mouthpiece for the CCP (and has increasingly become so since '97). People aren't protesting China out of nowhere. It's because China has been closing its grip on HK's political process for years now. Are you really trying to say with a straight face that the extradition bill to China has nothing to do with China and its influence on the HK government?
In my understanding, China central government favors Hong Kong stability over anything else. It's quite likely that it's Hong Kong government but China central government that proposed the bill.
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/05/18/beijings-office-hong-k...
I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise.
I also don't know that it's reasonable to expect people who were born and raised in HK when the governance was different and without mainland influence to accept that they should just allow the PRC to change their way of life and rule of law.
And of course there is an economic aspect to it. But much of that is due to industries such as finance beginning to withdraw from HK - there is too much uncertainty there. Beijing has begun exerting influence long before they agreed to with the handover treaty, and there is a general fear that they will continue to accelerate this.
I don't see any way that the PRC loses this, however. International observers aren't going to step in, and the rich in powerful in HK will simply leave, as they have been.
Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion.
Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese Nationality Law" except for the provisions defined in "Basic Law" which differentiate part of two systems for 50 years. So people who accepted it stayed back and those who couldn't went to either Canada, UK or some other destination. The funny part is many returned back [1][2][3], when it didn't work out for them economically or culturally in those places.
Now the situation is very different, the long term prospect of cities like Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Guangzhou looked better than Hong Kong which largely moved to worse especially in housing. This discontent when there is no visible better future prospects descended into protests conflating many issues. If protests only targeting the real primary reason of economics and future prospects, it might not have divided society.
Hong Kong has always been about trade, economics and money. British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy, China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover.
[1] http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1...
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/hk.returnees...
[3] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19438776/ns/world_news-asia_pacifi...
Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued.
https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
They didn't try but abandoned any efforts due to self interest of profits and economic extraction from a colony. The article put this in a better context, I just put excerpts from the link you shared:
Brits wanted to make sure they’d protected their economic interests before they departed, much the way they did in Singapore and Malaysia.
Another one:
In fact, in 1982, when negotiations began, the Hang Seng Index was already shaky due to fears that if China took over, the Communist Party would gut Hong Kong’s rule of law or nationalize wealth, causing the market to crash and capital to flee. The Brits needed to calm markets and ensure financial stability. That meant making sure the handover agreement protected British financial interests.
In the post-war decolonisation period GB had a policy of no independence before majority rule. They were putting in place democratic reforms elsewhere, and ensuring minority rule (ie South Africa) didn't continue after independence.
British corporations that existed in the HK market may have extracted revenue, as might any corporation, of any nationality with their overseas operations. The Hang Seng is a major stock market in its own right, so the majority of money was staying as HK money. The British government, on the other hand, was not receiving billions into the treasury as a consequence of holding Hong Kong.
That's not a fair characterization at all. The distrust for police goes deeper[1] and even just looking at this year's protest it's not clear cut.
> British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy
That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper)
> China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover.
The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law
[1] https://qz.com/281108/is-hong-kongs-famed-rule-of-law-breaki...
British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest of generating profits and economic dividends for Britain. This is how they treated all their colony including Hong Kong. This is not freedom, its like instead of a caged zoo, they gave an open zoo with a bit larger area and decides what freedoms to give.
Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom.
In civil societies we have institution of marriage with regulations and laws. It exists on paper, although many will say love doesn't need a certificate. If there is a commitment it's not a problem to put it on paper, not granting Hong Kong freedom and democracy on paper shows Britain's treatment of Hong Kong as a colony.
> The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law
If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong.
Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law which contravenes basic human rights in 1999. No one protested at that time because although it was against basic human rights, it benefits Hong Kong people economically.
"On 26 June 1999, in line with the request of the HKSAR Government, the NPCSC issued its interpretation which makes it clear that children born outside Hong Kong will be eligible for the right of abode only if at least one of their parents has already acquired permanent residence status at the time of their birth. Also, those eligible for ROA need to comply with Article 22 of the Basic Law, i.e. they need to apply for the necessary approval from the relevant Mainland authorities before entry into Hong Kong.
The Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, announced measures to be taken by the Government. Later rulings of the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that the Government had acted entirely constitutionally and legally.
Differences in opinion remain as to whether Hong Kong's judicial independence and the rule of law have been undermined. Criticism of the interpretation has originated largely from the legal sector."
I don't want to speculate why the British did what they did, and that's not the point
> Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom.
There's a difference between freedom and democracy and I will answer separately. On democracy, HK had long had some sort of election for the legislature (sure not the entire 150 years). I was there and my parents voted. It's dishonest to say you can't find any evidence of it.
On freedom. Basic Law may well (I am not sure) be the first local constitution, but the HK court system followed British precedence and people in HK generally enjoyed the same freedom guarantees that British living in UK do. Also, in practice there's increasing levels of self-censorship so having the Basic Law doesn't mean much.
> If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong. Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law... No one protested at that time
Actually plenty of people protested, but I see you cherrypicked examples. More recently China re-interpreted Basic Law to disqualified democratically elected legislature members. China also sent agents to HK and kidnapped an HK resident into China for political crime. You said British only granted freedom to HK base on self-interest, and you are very eager to be very generous towards China's motivations and skipped over examples that are very easy to find. Either you are not able to find them because they are blocked by the GFW, or that's something are more intentional on your part.
Only if you ignore the fact that government encouraged (and rewarded) counter-protestors were attacking them in the subways on the way to and from the initial peaceful protests.
Independence movements are as old as the concepts colonialism and empire.
Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong?
Because no one outside of Hong Kong is going to fight a war with China over it, and that's what defending that right in any substantive way means.
Everything here is just wrong...Are the elder citizens also protesting? Yes. Were today's young protestors born into wealth? No. Are they protesting their career prospects? No. Are they protesting for their human rights? Yes.
The so called 'economic miracle' fallacy only works if you ignore that it was the CCP who crippled the economic development of China.
Loosening your grip upon your victim's neck is not the same as performing the Heimlich maneuver. It doesn't make you a qualified doctor. The 'economic miracle' fallacy presents the strangler as the savior.
If we can agree that the Great Leap Forward was a regressive measure, then what of the One Child Policy? Is this not regressive and changing the terms of success? If you can not create positive economic outcomes for the majority of your population, shrinking your population is the same as moving the goal posts.
Ultimately it was not central planning which advanced the economic circumstances of Chinese people. It was the individual acts of citizens.
Given the large disparity between China and other developing countries, yes the government from the 80s onwards has played a significant role in accelerating the development of the country. The alternative conclusion would be that individual citizens of the rest of the world are somehow significantly less capable than the Chinese, which strikes me as a odd conclusion.
And the one child policy definitely had a positive effect on the development of the country. It effectively kickstarted a middle class by enabling parents to funnel resources into a single child.
They have been saying this since 1997 and I have yet to see it happen. In order to have a functioning finance industry, you need people with education and a willingness to move.
Bankers won't move to China because a) personal risk b) no banker I know actually likes staying in China (they always fly back over the weekends) and c) 60% tax rate. And people just don't trust the legal system there. And Hong Kong is the next closest things.
The only bankers that I have seen move from HK to China is when they pay them 10x the salary. Those are usually family offices with private equity money. It just isn't sustainable to do.
Also, Hong Kong provides a lot of financial benefits for mainland Chinese companies. That's why there are so many shell companies in Hong Kong. All those benefits will evaporate if moved elsewhere. Even Singapore is 3-5x more difficult for a Mainlander to open a company. Added to the fact Mainlanders have no sway on the Singaporean government and have a history of cracking down hard on criminals, they are much more reluctant to swap HK for Singapore.
All this talk about the financial industry in HK going down is just wishful thinking. Even Mainlanders are logical when it comes down to business. They won't shot themselves in the foot. That's why they have been showing restrain. It's not because they are afraid of another Tiananmen Sqaure. It's because they are looking at their wallets. How much damage it would do to their own companies.
I want to point out that Hong Kong people tried every way they can before this protest. They are aware the consequence.
I recommend: https://www.chinalawblog.com/2019/08/hong-kong-for-internati...
I consider the 2 to be intertwined. If you are not free to pursue a better way of life, economic circumstances matter very little. The Arab Spring was sparked by a Tunisian street vendor having all his possessions confiscated by the local police. Out of frustration he set himself on fire.
Authoritarian regimes are rarely fair and are not particularly interested in the financial well being of the population.
> The finance industry is already planning to exit HK (too volatile), and China can kill the rest of their economy.
Businesses aren't leaving HK because of the volatility, they are leaving HK because Beijing is choosing the winners and losers. And they have decided that Beijing and Shanghai will be the financial capitals.
if you think Chinese government is authoritarian, then it is an exception coz it does care and try its best to improve the financial well being of the population. and it is the social contract between China government and its people. you need to realize that even "authoritarian" governments are quite different.
Otherwise not so much. See Xinjiang, Tibet, and so on.
and of course, the central power encourages integration, go to a university far from home, assimilate, etc.
And I have no problem with that on a fundamental practical level. But the reeducation camps, the constant aggressive in-your-face surveillance, the book confiscation, the history falsification, the other forms of very serious oppression is very real, and it is unacceptable.
It's more than that.
Back in the 70s, Westerners could very easily make the case that the USSR was corrupt, inefficient, hopelessly backwards and fundamentally organised in the interests of the state rather than the people. The evidence was abundant, even to Soviet citizens; any possible defence of the Soviet system was predicated on blind ideological faith or a tapestry of lies.
Contemporary China is a long way from perfect, but a Chinese citizen could quite legitimately make the case that their system is superior to Western democracy on a pragmatic level. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese people who grew up in squalid shacks with no running water but now have a lifestyle that is recognisably middle class. They're on the tail end of the longest and fastest period of economic growth in human history and they're still growing - we can quibble about the percentages, but their GDP growth figures are still spectacular. While many Westerners are struggling with homelessness due to a chronic shortage of housing, Western newspapers are writing about China facing a crisis due to building too many homes.
We're not talking about North Korea, we're talking about a political system that can be legitimately defended. It's not whataboutery for Chinese people to point out the manifold problems facing many Western democracies right now - there are advantages to democracy, there are advantages to Communism with Chinese Characteristics and there's no prima facie case for the superiority of either that relies solely on pragmatism rather than ideology.
If Westerners want to promote democracy in China, their arguments will need to get a whole lot more sophisticated. Why is political and social liberty really so valuable? Why are the rights of the individual more fundamental than the rights of society as a whole? Why should troublemakers be allowed to destabilize society with impunity? Given the current political climate, finding better answers to those questions might also prove rather valuable domestically.
It is even easier to look at India, where the putative democracy the country has has not led to any kind of economic miracle for the poor.
There are a lot of studies about how economic prosperity and democracy/liberalism went hand in hand in a lot of countries. And there are outliers, and the studies can be questioned, and so on.
China rented out its workforce and a relatively enlightened but autocratic leadership made sure it works, they make a lot of money, and that they reinvest that.
India never had such a strong leadership. They probably spent a lot of time and energy just doing what other multi-party democracies do, squibble, play the politics game, and so on.
Also, don't forget how India slowly started to get rid of the caste system and other deep rooted inequality problems, similarly grassroots efforts to curb corruption progressed through the various courts and legislatures.
China spent no time with such sentimental stuff.
You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
China has a full blown caste system via hukous.
I generally agree with you but I think you got timeline wrong. Which matters in this example.
70s in communist countries was a period of relative prosperity. The political repressions ceased, the economies got more consumer oriented, the arms race slowed down, the goverments got more technocratic. Communist countries started to catch up with Western consumption levels. Mass housing developments, car factories, Coca-cola and Pepsi in shops etc.
Lot of younger generation had been happy to join the party not for ideological reasons but for the material prospects it opened.
Then two events happened - first oil crisis and the financial markets dried up suddenly (many communist countries borrowed heavily when money was cheap in eurodollar), second Afganistan, Reagan and Star Wars programme (arms race again).
Communist countries sliped from relative prosperity to austerity which resulted in fall of communism at the end of 80s.
What I am saying is that the revolutions happen often after long period of relative prosperity when economy starts going downhill. And we have similiar circumstances brewing in China right now.
I’m sure Hilter would have loved That...: also let’s not forget about the color revolution, seem to do a lot as well.
But hey if we all cherry pick, we can see the world our way rather than reality.
As an American, I sometimes wonder if it is too dogmatic to treat democracy as the end all be all of governments.
As I understand it, democracy refers to a heuristic for solving the problem of reaching consensus in a decision making scenario in a system of multiple agents each having a differing opinion. In this heuristic, every agent has the right to vote on an issue in order to influence the consensus. (America is a republic so we vote on other agents to do the voting on our behalf rather than the issues themselves.)
Computer scientists can come up with all sorts of different ways of tackling the consensus problem. For example, one strategy is to choose the agents with the most information about the system (most educated) and treat their opinions as more important when reaching consensus. (As society advances and modeling societal problems become more sophisticated, solutions may require people with increasingly more domain knowledge.)
Although variations of such strategies are probably not democracies, I don't think they are necessarily inferior, if as a heuristic when tried out, are actually effective.
If there's a formal proof that democracy is, in fact, the best government, I'm open to hearing it though.
When people say they want democracy, don't they often mean more specifically that they want rule of law / due process? Is it not possible to have both a government that have characteristics that make it authoritarian / not democratic but also have rule of law?
But you will find that CCP insists on having the last say. Imagine electing Trump and Walmart CEO says we won't support the plan to build USA-Mexico wall. Trump says ok.
Like installing an internet connected Windows XP on your network with no updates, it introduces tremendous attack vectors that established actors/economies (UK, France, US, Germany) will be all to happy to exploit.
If some new party comes and aims at the weak spots of CCP like censorship etc...etc... And promises that we'll keep economy as fast as CCP does minus the personal freedom restrictions. People will vote for them.
And new party might even attempt this and take economy several years back.
Democracy will include lots of selling hopes and setbacks...it takes time to learn new lessons for public
Plus, we could maybe see a fairer distribution of wealth and prosperity. Wealth disparity is a very big problem in China.
I simply posted why they might not want democracy. As they might fear about losing power.
If we assume democracy does good, but it still makes CCP lose power then it's not good for CCP and they'll not want it.
If democracy will actually be good or bad, that's open discussion. But that's not point of my comment.
When the young ruling elite encounters a crisis, a real problem, often they see that doing it in a transparent and equitable way would only serve as gunpowder for their detractors. Hence the very fast descent into totalitarianism.
And it's no wonder the real crisis of every regime is not some natural disaster, or economic collapse... no, in large nation states the game is entirely about the meta level, the power, and how to keep it, how to distribute it. Naturally this leads to the aforementioned populism/nationalism/etc.
Had it not been the case, there would have been no government capable of stopping the rebellion: if one solider can control a 100 citizens (via say bullets) then in order to control 1.3 billion, China would need to give bullets to 130 million people so if 10% of them switch sides the other side gets 13 million people with bullets who aren't friendly to the party line.
That's exactly how the USSR fell. Population stopped supporting the government.
Plus Soviet was actually brought down by many of the high officials themselves.
When you think about it, even the current CCP regime started as a rebel army.
In feudal times ther were many instances of folks from higher classes abusing the folks from the lower ones. Nothing really happened, some isolated instances of retribution happened, and that was it.
Scandals/abuses worked the same way in the USSR. The very worst offenders eventually got shifted around the system. (source: https://www.libri.hu/konyv/majtenyi_gyorgy.kommunista-kiskir... alas no English translation, but there are probably similar surveys of historically documented real stories about how the men of the ruling party were somehow always more powerful than the official propaganda stated how equal everyone is)
What makes you certain of that? HK did attract more billionaires/rich people in the last few years despite the volatility.
While this is true, I think those improved economic circumstances will eventually create a need for more political freedom. Chinese people already make occasional demands of their government, and that will only become more common. I think that as China grows more prosperous, it will eventually also have to become more free.
I did not state any position on the matter at hand.
They did complain a lot about how the CCP plunged the country into the largest famine in history because of their incompetence. It was this incompetence that led to the rise of Deng Xiaoping. Mao then launched the Cultural Revolution during which different factions in the CCP fought with each other rather than "keep their head down". At Tiananmen Square in 1976 millions of people, peasants and rich, shouted slogans attacking Mao and the Gang of Four. Deng Xiaoping then launched the economic miracle by reducing CCP involvement in the economy .
To say that the history of modern China is a long, stable period where the people never spoke up and built a powerhouse economy by listening to the directives of the all knowing CCP is historical revisionism at best.
What about TW? I'm not seeing the connection to the PRC there.
Money wouldn't have flown into PRC (and it would have collapsed with the rest of the communism) if the US hadn't opened up investment.
... And their kids will probably look at their own situation being worse than their parents and protests in response.
This is what happened in South Africa and in also France as it does not take much to figure out that political freedom is required to make a fundamental change.
I think in China the ruling party elite seemingly were not so much different from the peasants in the beginning and everybody lives improved overall as they adopted Mao's two systems approach.
I just want to point out that WW2 was fought with horses[1]. It's not like the West has always been fully industrialized. The development may appear as a miracle to the people, but it is not out of ordinary.
Take a tour outside the shopping district or the high end business district.
Having lived in both places, it’s clear why their school books repeatly give opinion rather than statements.
Edit: And regarding Occupy, it is often considered the most successful protest in modern Western history. Countless leaders and young people have seen it as a blueprint and guide to how to continue their struggle. I have seen dozens if not hundreds of videos on youtube that cite the enormous progress Occupy made on how to run a successful protest in the current era, and movements such as Extinction Rebellion are going to take those tactics to another level.
And if HK and China do eventually become liberal democracies, it'll be because of gradual change within the Chinese government.
I'm personally very optimistic about their long term prospects, I just think history has taught us that violent revolution or sudden change usually leads to negative consequences in the short to mid term. There's more than enough examples in our lifetime.
On the other hand, most of the economic gains, the reduction of poverty around the world, the economic development of Europe, Asia and Africa have all been done thanks to the rule of law, relative peace, investment, etc... Not due to revolution.
The entire concept of economic prosperity is meaningless outside a free market with due process protections. If the government can take away your prosperity for no reason at all, it's purely arbitrary and ephemeral whether or not you actually have it at any given moment.
Just how poor have you ever been?
China's incarceration rate -- for crime -- is 118 per 100,000, for 1,649,804 total. Let's add the DOD claim that an extra 3m are held in re-education camps, and take that to 4.5m, which takes us to 308 per hundred thousand. The US figure is _655_, disproportionately poor people.
Comparing an over-zealous drug incarnation against a political political concentration camp is just perfect. Every time I visit Europe I encounter similar lazy thinking from aging leftists and teenage anarchists.
Economic concerns elected Trump.
Chinese people today have lived through an economic miracle. If I lived there I doubt I'd criticize their system, especially considering people still can remember worse times. For young Hong Kongers however, they didn't live during British rule. They were born into wealth, and now their own career prospects (like many millenials around the world) aren't great. So they protest.
The unfortunate thing is that they'll fail. The finance industry is already planning to exit HK (too volatile), and China can kill the rest of their economy. Rich HKers will leave. In the end, the protests will only hurt HK.
Occupy Wall Street didn't do anything, successive Ukrainian revolutions never lasted either. Ukraine is often cited: after the Orange Revolution, Yanukovych eventually came back to power. Poroshenko had his time, but lost in the biggest landslide in Ukraine's short history. Now Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe, they're not in the EU, they're not in Nato, they lost Crimea, Donbass is at war, and while Zelensky can't possibly be any worse, there's no clear sign things will get better.