Category Archives: 跨時編委會

關於普選和中國問題答讀者留言

2014年11月1日

IN留言:

IN 另一方面他是幫了貴刊宣傳吧…

不過平心而論,或者佔中敏感時期,輿論傾向支持真普選,跨時編輯群希望為事件帶來更多方意見,獨力發表反普選言論

跨時以中立持平態度,用理論去衡量事件,是事實,但與此同時,言論主要反對佔中,亦是不爭的事實

我個人認為,既然很少人願意接受與自己不同的立場,而貴刊又不能表示支持以迎合,不如在批評美式民主的同時,亦着實提出中國現時所面對的問題,以免被非黑即白的佔中人士認為貴刊是中共走狗

只有有人讀的書才能提高人民意識,無視社會風氣,或隨意捨棄“冥頑不靈的人”,絕不能成就革命大事

愚見,有錯請指正

 

2014年11月2日

跨時編輯委員會回應:

IN您好,多謝您的評論。我們希望以下能夠解答您的疑問:

1)本誌並沒有發表「反普選言論」。我們的有關觀點是:

一,普選制度是確立資本主義制度正當性的最好的方法,所有資本主義政黨都會支持普選制度。資本主義普選本身和勞動人民當家作主完全沒有關係,反而是金權統治的最完備的手段;

二,由選舉產生的議會和各級行政人員,是資本主義國家的「外殼」。資本主義國家的「內核」,是軍警特務監獄等暴力機關。當階級鬥爭使「外殼」失靈的時候,統治階級就會使用「內核」保衛資本主義。

三,工人階級的社會主義政黨,最多可以利用資本主義普選制度揭露體制和宣傳自己的主張,資本主義普選不會根本改變勞動人民被統治被剝削的處境,更加不會帶來社會主義。香港勞苦大眾面對的真正問題,是沒有自己的社會主義政黨,被泛民和建制的鬥爭所分化。

四,泛民和建制都主張維持資本主義制度,都支持實行普選,他們的真正分歧,是反中共候選人能否參加特首普選、甚至當選。

綜合以上,我們認為,只要香港的資本主義制度繼續存在,普選是解決政府乃至資本主義制度正當性的最重要的手段。香港的兩大政治集團都主張普選,去維護香港的資本主義。泛民和建制的唯一區別,就是由誰執政。我們反對的,並不是資本主義制度所必然會產生的普選(根本就反對不了),而是那些掩飾資本主義普選的性質、誇大資本主義普選的作用、淹沒資本主義普選的極限——換言之,用謊言去驅使勞苦大眾,成為資本主義民粹鬥爭的炮灰的那種「運動」。

以上不只是一個理論的問題,還是一個實踐經驗的問題。我們認為,一百多年的歷史已經多次證明,宣稱普選是「謀取社會進步的第一步」的說法,是不符合事實的。勞苦大眾要爭取改變自己的處境、進而改變社會制度的「第一步」,是要了解只有當自己切實的組織起來、形成同資產階級抗衡的實際力量之後,才有可能改變任何事情。社會民主派告訴工人相信選舉「好人」進議會,通過福利制度立法去「改善民生」的辦法,在冷戰時期在西歐北歐曾經實行了四十年左右,最後也隨著世界資本主義蕭條和蘇聯瓦解而退場,各國政府大規模削減福利開支,將公共服務私有化或市場化。在2008年開始的經濟危機之後,歐盟更要求各成員國進一步大規模削減公共開支。

2)關於中國問題。留意本誌的讀者都可以知道,我們在革新後的每一期,都有提出反對或打倒官僚獨裁的主張。所謂「打倒官僚獨裁」,究竟是什麼意思?就是保衛公有制、反對私有化、反對官僚特權、反對貪污腐敗,保衛未來的社會主義民主制度所必須的、掌控國民經濟制高點的公有經濟體系。在消除官僚獨裁之後,使公有經濟體系處於職工和一般勞動人民的民主規劃和監督之下,成為社會進步的強大推動力。對於中國,我們除了上述的打倒官僚獨裁的主張外,也有剝奪壟斷資本的主張。總言之,我們反對現行的制度,主張建立由勞苦大眾擁有主要生產資料、實行民主的計劃經濟的社會主義民主制度。

相比之下,市面上多數評論中國問題的說法,特別是同「民主派」有關的,都傾向宣稱私有化加普選,可以瓦解中共官僚專政之餘,帶來一人一票的「公平選舉制度」,讓老百姓可以得到實惠和民主。我們認為,這種說法無論在理論上(資本主義不可能帶來社會平等),還是在實踐上(所謂先進民主國家在事實上的金權統治,特別是蘇聯東歐變天後勞動人民地位和處境的一落千丈),都是破產的。

換言之,我們不是沒有討論中國問題,更加沒有為現行體制背書。我們相信真正能為勞苦大眾服務的那種民主,必須是勞動者擁有和控制主要生產資料的社會制度。我們不認同將資本主義普選等同為民主的說法,更加不認同融入帝國主義世界秩序就可以「實現公義」的說法。

我們在上一期六/七月號發表了兩篇同這個題材有關的文章。給您參考:

跨時編輯委員會:編輯委員會所感

https://quasi-quasi.com/2014/08/21/quasi_review_01/

趙平復:六四事件25週年感想

https://quasi-quasi.com/2014/08/21/六四事件25週年感想/

3)我們是勞動人民的一分子,我們都是用課餘業餘的時間討論、撰文和編排雜誌的。我們完全了解目前社會輿論的風向,同時也沒有捨棄任何人的打算或能力。對於所有願意擺事實、講道理,希望探討工人階級解放事業的朋友,我們都十分歡迎,會盡我們的能力參加討論。

再次感謝您的評論。

《跨時》編輯委員會

發表留言

Filed under 跨時編委會, 跨時首發

Quasi Editorial Committee: Our Fundamental Positions on ‘Occupy Central’

Our Fundamental Positions on Occupy Central

Quasi Editorial Committee

1 October 2014

On 22 September 2014, in protest against the alleged violation of “international standards” by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) in its decision on the framework of the 2017 elections for the Chief Executive (CE), and demanding the introduction of popular nominations of candidates, the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) initiated a class boycott in universities and other higher education institutions, setting the stage for the Occupy Central (OC) movement. On the night of 26 September, HKFS and Scholarism jointly organised the storming and occupation of the square in the east wing of government headquarters; at 1am on 28 September, Benny Tai announced the beginning of OC, demanding the withdrawal of the NPCSC decision and new consultations on political reform.

From 27 September onwards, tens of thousands thronged the streets, occupying major thoroughfares; the government ordered the police to disperse the crowds, making a number of arrests. On 28 September, in protest of police brutality, the Confederation of Trade Unions called a general strike for the next day, demanding the release of all arrested, apologies from the government and the police, the withdrawal of the NPCSC decision on political reform as well as the resignation of Leung Chun-ying. The Professional Teachers’ Union called a strike, and the HKFS announced an indefinite students’ strike. The pan-democratic camp thus fully mobilised itself for a full-scale confrontation with the HKSAR government.

With the US strategy of “Pivot to Asia” in the background, the continuation of the street protests will sooner or later lead to a “shadow CE” and a “shadow government” which will demand recognition from the “International Community”. A total war without gun smoke has finally broken out. The Beijing bureaucratic regime’s connivance of the joint misrule of ex-colonial technocrats and the Hong Kong capitalists, the disappearance of anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist socialist politics in Hong Kong—i.e. the implosion of the penned-up contradictions under “One Country, Two Systems”—is pushing Hong Kong into a critical situation.

In light of these extraordinary developments, the Quasi Editorial Committee publishes the following declaration to provide our readers with a working-class socialist point of reference:

1.The basic political situation in Hong Kong and the predicament of the working people

Hong Kong, just like Taiwan, is an advanced capitalist society highly dependent on international finance capital and with neocolonial features. Both are practicing some form of capitalist democracy. Therefore, it is our contention that democratisation is not a real issue in Hong Kong, the real question here is whether we move towards socialism.  

The struggle between the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps in Hong Kong, like the struggle between the pan-Green and pan-Blue camps in Taiwan,  is a struggle within the capitalist class. Neither the pan-democratic nor the pro-establishment camps have a problem with money politics, and both are perfectly fine with maintaining capitalism in Hong Kong. Their disagreement over the election of the CE through universal suffrage boils down to whether anti-communist, anti-system politicians have the right to run in, or even win the contest.

The real problem facing the working people in Hong Kong is the absence of a socialist party independent of the capitalist class, and the absence of an unified workers’ movement which fights against capitalism. Lacking an independent voice, the working people either have no reason to participate in politics, or become the plaything and fodder of capitalist populism.

In the final analysis, the pan-democratic street mobilisations in the name of popular nominations—which fight for the right of anti-system politicians to be candidates in the CE elections—are a scramble for power for the wing of the capitalist class that is most closely linked to imperialism. Not only will this not enhance any democratic rights for the working people, this could well result in an absolute anti-communist, anti-China consensus in Hong Kong, and a right-wing coup. This kind of movement is against the interest of the working class and the cause of socialism.

Under “One Country, Two Systems”, the Beijing bureaucratic regime has continued the rule of the Hong Kong capitalists and ex-colonial technocrats. This enables the anti-communist camp to describe the sharpening contradictions and social problems issuing out of the world capitalist crisis the outcome of the return to Chinese sovereignty and an “undemocratic political system”. This argument cannot withstand a single blow: no electoral system can stop capitalism from producing contradictions and crises, and the bigwigs will not be deprived of their ruling status by an anti-communist regime.

However, next to the “united front” between the “patriotic left” and the Hong Kong capitalists, the pro-imperialist pan-democrats and their “left wing” have been able to pose as defenders of the “vulnerable”, “grassroots” and “small citizens”. The continuing low ebb of the world communist movement since the 1990s, and the decline of anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist socialist politics in Hong Kong, means that the pan-democratic camp’s anti-communist populism and the pro-establishment camp’s conservative defence of “stability” have become the two main trends of politics. Not only has there been no liquidation of Hong Kong’s colonial system and legacy, capitalism in Hong Kong has indeed become the “shared value” of the two camps.

Precisely due to all this, we are now facing this scenario: the pro-establishment camp, politically bankrupt, can only wish for the self-dispersal or the police repression of the Occupy movement; the pan-democratic camp, gaining enormous political momentum through the street movement, declared that it would mobilise the crowds to occupy government buildings. If this farce and tragedy develops to its logical end, untold damage could be brought to the working people in Hong Kong, all of China, East Asia and even the entire world. 

We are in dire need of a working-class socialist force.

2. A basic scientific socialist analysis of capitalist universal suffrage

Karl Marx argued that the function of capitalist constitutional rule is to present the dominance of the capitalist class as the result of universal suffrage—i.e. giving the dictatorship of the capitalist class “legitimacy” and “recognition” through universal suffrage. Marx thus concluded that the capitalist republic “mandated” by universal suffrage is “the most potent and complete form of their class rule. When the working class attains class consciousness and becomes a powerful revolutionary force, ushering in an era of decisive class battles, capitalist universal suffrage will complete its mission of “schooling” the working people in the hypocrisies of money politics, and has to be “set aside by a revolution or by the reaction.”

When the German Social Democratic Party began its ascendancy in parliament, Engels clearly pointed out that:

“…universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more, in the present-day state; but that is sufficient. On the day the thermometer of universal suffrage registers boiling point among the workers, both they and the capitalists will know what to do.

(Our emphasis)

Engels is very clear here: firstly, capitalist universal suffrage is at most an opinion poll showing the level of support the working class has for its revolutionary party, it “cannot and never will be anything more” under capitalism (“the present-day state”); secondly, when capitalist universal suffrage can no longer maintain the functioning of the capitalist constitution with the emergence of a revolutionary situation, it will then be abolished by either working-class revolution or capitalist counter-revolution.

In his well-known classic critique of social-democratic capitulation to capitalism, The State and Revolution, Lenin restated the above viewpoints of Marx and Engels’, and refuted the social-democratic lie that capitalist universal suffrage is a “classless” form of “democracy”.

In other words: the economic base determines the political superstructure; the best political shell of the private ownership of the major means of production is capitalist democracy; under capitalism, capital itself is power, elections are the stage where various factions of capital contest for power; the revolutionary party of the working class can use the electoral system as a means to criticise and expose capitalism, but when the capitalist class believes the working class has become a clear and present danger, capitalist democracy will be abolished, the shell of universal suffrage will be put aside and replaced by unbridled police-military dictatorship. On the contrary, when the working class overthrows capitalism, it will abolish capitalist universal suffrage and establish a proletarian democracy based on public ownership.

Today, in the 21st century, capitalist universal suffrage has become an ideological weapon in the imperialists bid to thoroughly pacify the working people and permanently consolidate its rule.

3. The reality of real, international standard, universal suffrage

The pan-democratic “left” gives a special emphasis on the idea that a “real universal suffrage”, “without the filtering of candidates” is a “just system”, which allegedly can curb  big business and obtain various welfare reforms, and could even lead to… “the abolition of capitalism”. We contend that this is totally absurd. It is nothing short of being absolutely preposterous in light of the current world capitalist crisis which began in 2008.

For example, in Europe, the European Commission, which takes its cue from German imperialism, is implementing a multitude of austerity measures on the entire European Union, especially its southern states. By massive cuts on public expenditure, big reductions on wages and conditions, large-scale unemployment and bankruptcy, it aims to raise the rate of profit for capital. US imperialism has carried out similar policies after its rescue of bankrupt finance capital, and produced similar results. The US federal and local governments firmly cracked down the Occupy Wall Street movement which called for campaign finance reform and an end to the rule of money.

The imperialist military alliances led by the US are not only invading the Middle East and Africa, they are also attempting to encircle China through its “Pivot to Asia”. The US government’s response to the exposure by Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange of its war crimes, diplomatic intrigues and global surveillance in league with the giant IT corporations is imprisonment and arrest warrants.

All these atrocities by the imperialist ruling class have been resolutely carried out by the state machinery legitimised by capitalist universal suffrage. The working people, not conscious of the problem and deprived of socialist organisation, are completely incapable of resistance in the face of the collusion between the entire capitalist establishment and its media. The capitalist states attitude to organised workers struggle is one of severe repression.

Many supporters of the pan-democratic camp have expressed their massive admiration for the British system, and even call for the return of Hong Kong under its domination. But what kind of “international standards democracy” is it? In Britain, the police, military, judiciary and even the entire “citizenry” pledge allegiance not to the constitution (Britain has no written constitution), nor to the elected lower chamber of Parliament (i.e. House of Commons), but to the Monarchy. The upper chamber of Parliament, i.e. House of Lords, are selected by the government and appointed by the Monarch. The design of this system is to facilitate a coup by the military, police and judiciary (i.e. the core of the state machinery) in the name of the Monarch when the electoral system “breaks down” under the impact of intense class struggle.  

When workers’ struggle was red-hot in Britain in the 1970s, military officers mooted a coup to smash the left, which would not be unlike the US-backed one in Chile by Pinochet. Eventually, the British ruling class, through its popularly-elected Thatcher government, forced the National Union of Miners—the vanguard of the British trade union movement—into striking by the threat of mass lay-offs. After a year of political and military-police encirclement, the miners were defeated. The entire political scene was moved to the right, and the rise of the Labour right firmly established.

This, of course, is not only a problem in Europe or the US. In East Asia where we are, for instance, the political system of the Philippines is a carbon copy of the US; Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Indonesia are all practicing capitalist universal suffrage. And then?

All these places are in fact ruled by the pro-imperialist big bourgeoisie, where any working-class socialist force with substantive power is characterised by its absence. In fact, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, India are all persecuting leftists they deem to be anti-state. The working people are all ruled, exploited and oppressed by the capitalist class, they have formal civil rights, but no real political power whatsoever.

Capitalist universal suffrage is thus nothing more than a tool for the enhancement of the legitimacy of the ruling order and the adjustment of social contradictions.

To spell it out in full: capitalist parliaments are the outer shells of the capitalist state, the heads of capitalist governments are the head servants of capitalism, capitalist military and police forces are the violent core maintaining capitalist class rule—these fundamental facts cannot be altered regardless of the existence of universal suffrage, the procedures of such elections and the party affiliations of the heads of government.

More than a century of historical experience has repeatedly proven that—both in theory and in practice—that it is impossible for the working class to seize political power through capitalist universal suffrage and begin the transition to socialism. When it faces strong domestic and international pressure from the workers, the capitalist class uses welfare measures to ease the situation. These will then be withdrawn once the workers’ organisations become a political threat, and financial and fiscal policies damage the rate of profit. Under capitalism, welfare measures are ultimately paid for by the workers, and become their opposite in the end.

In summary, the parties and politicians who claim that their election to parliamentary and official positionsor even capitalist universal suffrage itselfcan somehow bring about social justice, are nothing but downright liars.

Advocating the omnipotence of capitalist universal suffrage is not only a con game which puts the trivial before the essentials. It is also completely useless in the struggle against exploitation and oppression. And by reinforcing right-wing ideology and electoral populism, it makes the emancipation of the working people even harder.

4. The logic of the street movement 

In the “classics” the New School for Democracy uses to train the leaders of the Occupy movement—i.e. the strategic and tactical manuals of “colour revolutions” by Gene Sharp et al—the importance of using youth and students to lay siege and storm government buildings is repeatedly discussed.

Under this scenario, if the security forces take no action, the opposition can obtain a great propaganda coup by emphasising the self-doubt, illegitimacy, cowardice and impotence of the regime, gathering more support and impetus for larger street mobilisations. If the security forces uses violence and cause many casualties, the opposition can similarly create a massive media offensive, calling on the “international community” to put sanctions on the regime, or even demanding recognition for itself as the sole legitimate government. Even if casualties only number a few, the regime’s unjust repression of the youth could be used to speed up the primitive accumulation of political capital for the arrested leaders. Media warfare along these lines would snowball support for the opposition and crush the regime.

In other words, when the leaders of colour revolutions claim that they do not believe in violence, they are lying.

Sharp himself emphasised that, although the techniques they advocate are marketed under the label of “non violence”, they are not “against violence” as such, but are weapons of political defiance aimed at the overthrow of the targeted regimes. According to Sharp, the ultimate tasks of “political defiance” is to replace a targeted regime with a “democracy” characterised by a “small government” and a “big society”, i.e. where the public authorities are disempowered and the political agenda dominated by the “civil society organisations” created and maintained by imperialism and their compradors.

Sharp also realises that violence is inevitable during the process of regime change. The key question for Sharp is never whether one is in favour of violence, but the manufacture of public opinion in favour of the oppositions ultimate seizure of power. “Political defiance” in the guise of “non violence” is the core technique of this strategy. Benny Tai’s dictum of “love and peace can pierce the armour of tanks”, which he has been repeating since July 2014, could only be properly understood within the context of Sharp’s strategic thought.

A key tactic of Sharp’s techniques is to challenge the capability of the security forces and their allegiance to the regime through the mass occupation of symbolic squares and main thoroughfares. Depriving the targeted regime its ability to govern, breaking down the social-political-economic order, making the people believe that only the opposition in power can resolve the impasse—such is the dynamics of colour revolutions.

Where persuasion fails, shields are used; when shields fail, pepper spray is dispensed; when the spray fails, tear gas is fired; when the gas fails, rubber bullets are shot; when they fail, water and sound cannons make their appearance; this is followed by the very European and American method of beating the crowd with specially-made truncheons, or even the “taking-out” of protest leaders by snipers, like they advocate in the U.S.

This has always been the “universal logic” of smashing demonstrations.

Sharps strategy is nothing less than to push the targeted regime and its police forces to its limits and thus effect a regime changewith the bodies of unarmed people. In other words, those who participate in a Sharp-type street moment are in reality chips in the hands of the anti-regime leadership and their imperialist backers, in a game of political gambita fact that cannot be changed by the subjective motivations of individual participants, or even their leftwing demands.

5. The international context of the movement

Some “social movement activists” claim with great excitement that the firing of tear gas for the first time since the anti-WTO protests at the end of 2005 shows the power of the “resistance”. They say that the action has been very successful and an escalation of violence is due.

However, it seems they are oblivious to the irony that the protests nine years ago were against the imperialist “international standards” used to pacify and oppress the working people, and nine years later, they are enthusiastically demanding… the same imperialist “international standards” which have always been used to pacify and oppress the working people?

Whose interests would be served by a street movement built on such mass political unconsciousness?

The short-term goal of the movement’s leadership is to enforce “real universal suffrage” which will mean de facto independence and Hong Kong’s official establishment as an operational base against the CCP regime. Their long-term goal is to “overthrow the one-party dictatorship” by the combined effort of all anti-communists, realising their political programme since 1989.

These objectives are highly compatible with the worldwide struggle against communist dictatorship by imperialist forces headed by the US, carried out through the means of money, violence and propaganda, since the days of the Cold War. For instance, both Scholarism’s Dash and the allegedly left-wing Globalization Monitor have called upon their supporters to sign an appeal on the White House website demanding the U.S. to deter the CCP from carrying out “a second Tiananmen Massacre” in Hong Kong. This spontaneous and natural action by Occupy supporters has perfectly proven their worldview—one in which the U.S. is the policeman of the world. The same people also give high praises to the United States’ “democratic interventions” into Syria, Libya, Egypt and Ukraine, and see street movements in these countries as objects of emulation.

It is thus clear that Occupy Central has never been just a Hong Kong affair.

6. “Surely we shouldnt look on with folded hands?

Many opine that we should not look on with folded hands in face of police repression, and that “something must be done”. We can understand such emotional responses, but the more important question is: what exactly is the goal of this movement? Who exactly will gain from their “people’s victory”? Will this mean any gains for the working people?

The police always repress anti-government mass movements with varying degrees of violence, in accordance to their development. The leaders of this movement have perfect knowledge, right from the beginning, of the range of violent means the police could use against the demonstrators. However, when the police uses force, the pan-democrats hypocritically demand the police to desist, and encourage people to “protect the students” by taking to the streets. This “moral call” has apparently imbued a previously unknown “social responsibility” in many who normally say they are “uninterested in politics”, thinking now that it is their “duty” to participate. This, however, does nothing but boost the fortunes of the pan-democrats.

The police have always served those in power and their ability to use force has not been strengthened overnight. The police’s use of tear gas has nothing to do with Hong Kong’s “freedoms” being restricted, they used it because the crowd was getting out of their control. If resistance means repression, then people should think carefully what exactly they are sacrificing for.

For instance, will the pan-democrats bring more freedom of speech and assembly in power? No. Because there will be no change in the capitalist system, apart from the agent who runs the show for a different group of capitalists. Moreover, their ideology means that the pan-democrats in power will produce an even more right-wing and pro-imperialist public opinion. To be more thorough: if and when Hong Kong has a government empowered by universal suffrage, the police under a pan-democratic regime will only follow the great examples of Europe and America when they deal with demos and protests, smashing social struggles which they deem problematic without inhibition, because they will no longer be restrained by the lack of legitimacy faced by the current government.

We are certain that the most important question posed here is this: wither China?—A deformed workers’ state, the largest developing country in the world and the prime target of U.S. strategic containment. Will China move towards capitalism or socialism? Should the working people of Hong Kong support a colour revolution and help imperialism achieve world domination? Or should the working people of Hong Kong unite with their class brothers and sisters in the mainland for the defence of public ownership and the eradication of bureaucratic privilege, fighting for working-class democracy and world socialism?

Those who strive for social equality must, by our own thinking and action, reject the populist lies of the colour revolutionaries, reject the colour revolutionaries line of tearing up society in service of a pro-imperialist coup, and stop the unfolding of a grave tragedy. Only then can we really protect the youth, and preserve the precious seeds for a movement which genuinely pursues the interests of the working people and a future of social progress.

7. Our tasks 

The problems created by capitalism, as well as the system itself, can only be overcome through the movement of the self-enlightenment, self-organisation and self-liberation of the working class. 

To end the rule of the minority of capitalists over the great majority of workers, and realise the sovereign power of all the exploited and oppressed led by the working class over society, the political and ideological influence of the capitalist class must be defeated, the working class must build its own socialist party and accumulate its political and organisational power through class struggle. By blowing up the capitalist state machinery and turning the major means of production into public property, a proletarian democracy based on a democratic planned economy will be built, which strives for the world revolution and the transition to socialism.

This is clearly an immensely difficult and long-term perspective. What we can do now is to patiently explain our ideas, giving a point of reference to those who are seriously thinking about the problems of society. In this chaotic period of world capitalist crisis, and imperialist efforts to maintain dominance through political and military struggle, we must try to dispel illusions in capitalist ideology and open the road to working-class self-liberation. Only by taking this road, can we dispel the popular superstitions of the day—no to the imperialist powers, no to the “heroes” of street movements, no to the self-proclaimed saviours and masters—we must create by our own efforts a future for humankind.

Those who seek social progress must break their illusions in street movements. Regime change between different capitalist factions can never transform the conditions of the exploited and oppressed. We must discuss and think how we can hold the banner of socialism anew, so that young workers and students who subjectively seek social progress will not be turned into the new blood and fodder of street movements and populist politics, and become the nucleus in the fight against imperialism and capitalism, against bureaucratic dictatorship and for socialist democracy.

For the reforging of the ideology, organisation and fighting capacity of the working class!

Proletarians of the world, unite!

Quasi Editorial Committee

1 則迴響

Filed under 跨時編委會, 跨時首發

【跨時佔中評論】目錄

本誌對於佔中的基本立場:

《跨時》編輯委員會:我們對於「佔領中環」的基本立場
Quasi Editorial Committee: Our Fundamental Positions on ‘Occupy Central’(英譯)

本誌筆陣對佔中的評論:

  1. 誰的佔領中環?(劉世鼎)
  2. 佔領中環──誰是最大的得益者?(林文清)
  3. 佔領中環評論(千惠)
  4. 佔領中環評論(康雄)
  5. 「左翼」要學生和工人挽救佔中?(蔣往)
  6. 佔領中環評論──為什麼我不參與佔中(林文清)
  7. 香港正在上演的,正是所謂「非暴力抗爭」的戲碼(趙平復)
  8. 當前形勢提出的四個基本問題(趙平復)
  9. 不靠英美,也不靠神仙皇帝(蔣往)
  10. 情緒和警權以外,關於佔中的幾個問題(蔣往)
  11. 給受道德感召而上街的朋友的公開信(陸濡)
  12. 繼續麻煩的佔中反思日記…(蔣往)
  13. 對於「批判地」參與的一些異議:關於立場、領導權和自發性(丁)
  14. 左派為何反對佔中運動,又應該主張什麼路線(洪念途)
  15. 關於「罷工撐佔中」的inconvenient truth(蔣往)
  16. 對泛民10月4日戰術退卻後的政治形勢的若干觀察(趙平復)
  17. 「法治」最終保護的,是現行的政經體制(蔣往,張本清)
  18. 梁振英是古典資產階級憲政派(趙平復)
  19. 集體政治無意識的香港,離末路不遠(黎珊華)
  20. 主動創造權力 別再乞討選票 致渴望真正改變的港台青年(毛淳宇)
  21. 記帳(胡清雅)

發表留言

Filed under 跨時編委會, 佔領中環