The Left and Hong Kong

The Left, in its many forms and strategies has posited itself as the principal mouthpiece against global injustices of the neo-colonial American Empire, the corporate takeover of the world, the Israeli genocide in Palestine and the violence of the far-right regimes in Europe. It has not always lost its path in conspiracy theories and has lobbied throughout for social welfare systems and an end or reduction in war. However, there exists a lack of criticism, call to action and agitation regarding the on-going movement in Hong Kong. It is not the first time that this has happened and is a trend that has long plagued the Left. The current movement in Hong Kong has directed its angst not only at the Chief Executive Carrie Lam but also against Beijing. The high-flying slogan, “Hong Kong is not China yet” is reflective of a two-fold grievance. Firstly, it is directed at Beijing’s extra-sovereign intrusion into the election of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, which was one of the sparks which lit the Umbrella Movement. Secondly, it is a direct “hands-off” proclamation to Beijing to stop their attempts to encroach upon the political freedoms guaranteed to the people of the city in the handover agreement of 1997 which interestingly expires in 2047. The people of Hong Kong are aware of the abysmal condition of society and rights in China. They do not take pride as Chinese citizens and drastically opposed the bill to allow extradition to China proposed in June 2019.

China has always been the poster boy of the Left, due to its so called convincing economic success. The responses to the mounting crimes of the Chinese state have always been apologist. The front that voices support for non-interference in sovereignty or for regional autonomy; sits back and does precious nothing on the violence by Beijing, when it directly tries to intervene in Hong Kong’s polity. They cling on to it as if it is their last bastion of glory.  As the radical protestors gradually look to spread their campaigns to the mainland, it is perhaps weeks before Xi Jinping lashes out in the historically authoritarian fashion that characterizes the Communist Party of China. It is not the first time that the Left resorts to this ideological hypocrisy. The lack of condemnation that Soviet Union receives is often disproportionate to its crimes. Eric Hobsbawm, a lifelong Marxist and a staunch critic of imperialism refused to give up his membership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union when they toppled Hungary in 1956. In good spirit, I shall add that E.P. Thompson did give up the same.

The current movement, which is a potentially cathartic outburst of the despair at the failure of the Umbrella Movement, has drawn away from the time-tested methods of the organised Left. It is a historic moment since it is a deviation from the Left’s self-proclaimed monopoly over resistance. This is a claim and a process of marginalization which has been there for decades and has been challenged, is being challenged and will be challenged. An ideological hegemony over resistance defeats the very purpose of resistance. The movement is largely banner-less with the only flag being that of colonial Hong Kong. This is an interesting trend which merits a separate discussion as to the claims to identity of the people of the movement. It follows a leaderless model. It is radical to the core and is barely content with minimum parliamentary concessions. The movement continued to gather steam even after Lam’s decision to suspend the bill, as the door is always open for a revival of the bill. Evidently, Hong Kong feels betrayed even by their pro-democracy lawmakers regarding their insufficient opposition to the bill. The protests are no longer constructed around a single agenda. It now wants Lam’s resignation all together, the release of those arrested in previous protests and an independent inquiry into the multiple cases of police brutality alongside the complete withdrawal of the bill.

The fluidity of the movement is not premised on the typical Left strategy of organised hierarchies, but on mobility, innovation as well as a capacity to adapt to new requirements. They use online discussion forums to mobilize people. There is little need for a ‘Talking Union’ here. It is not that there are no moderates, but the methods of passive resistance have been found to be futile against the onrush of police brutality. The protestors have taken their lessons from the Umbrella movement. So, in response to police brutality, the protestors occupy the police headquarters and lock officers inside. The movement has visibly turned anti-establishment. The mood in the camps is summed up perfectly in the slogan, “There are no rioters, only a tyranny”. This group who mobilizes through online forums and passes on messages of solidarity through Lennon walls is desperate enough to take the fight till the very end. They, for the moment, are little interested in replacement but in destruction of the decadent system that exists. The people occupying the Legislative Council pronounce in their banner, “If we burn, you burn with us.”

Sujato Datta

Intern, AGA