I'm saying it sounds like the direct violent conflict between protestors and counter protestors seems to be pretty low, not much higher than any other rate of violent crime I would guess.

Most of the violence to my understanding was between protestors and police, who reportedly repeatedly used unnecessary force.

It seems like you're trying to justify the suppression of protest and the killing of 5 people by the government because there were 2 counter protestor deaths.

If this were America, and we were communists protesting capitalist rule, and the police were mistreating us and we rose up in violence, would you condemn that? Would you condemn them attacking capitalist counter protestors? I don't think you would, right? That's hypocrisy.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not asking for pre-action, the riots were happening and the violent clashes were happening, so the riots that often errupted into violent clashes were met with arrests.

If this were America, and we were communists protesting capitalist rule, and the police were mistreating us and we rose up in violence, would you condemn that?

That's an entirely different situation. In Hong Kong, the rioters were anti-communists fighting against communists for passing a law allowing authorities to arrest a murderer that fled from the mainland to Hong Kong to dodge arrest. These rioters recieved western support, and the riots ended when the HK gov cracked down on foreign funding.

I don't support protest for the sake of protest. I support progressive action and condemn reactionary action. Protesting is not holy, nor is it some abstract ideal, it exists within a definite context.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

"ACAB except when they're brutalizing the people I want to see brutalized."

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

I assume you feel the same way about all the facist protests here in the states

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

Why do we say ACAB? It's because police exist to protect the ruling class of society, and in every western country that class is the capitalist class. In the PRC, it's the working classes. Your thought process is metaphysical, rather than dialectical. By erasing context and insisting on dogmatically applying the conditions of one state to the conditions of an entirely different state, you run into all host of errors.

For example, if I say in the US Empire it is in the people's best interests to overthrow their government and establish socialism, and you were to say the same for the PRC, you would be advocating for the dissolution of the socialist system in the PRC and the likely restoration of capitalism, as it is already socialist. Another example is freedom of speech. I don't support freedom of speech for fascists and capitalists, but I do for the working classes.

When you contextualize and look at phenomena as existing within their necessary interrelations, you move from metaphysics to dialectics, from agnosticism to concrete reality.