So I’ve been to the doctor just now queuing for a longer period of time than I expected (for some minor issue), and I had a longed-for nice accidental nap on the train to University Station. I like how that length of trip from Hung Hom is one that’s long enough for a satisfying nap and for waking up one stop right before mine. I like it less when I am awake and I have to anticipate when I’ll have to get down, just to be 2,3, or 4 stops ahead.
An impatient personality it must be.
The point for writing this now is because I am a bit too exhausted mentally to start another task immediately, reviewing Chris’s paper on Localist Populism since 2014 Occupation Movement. Just between us, I do sometimes have a perception that the theoretical sharpness of his writing could be even stronger? Perhaps that’s the feeling I get from reviewing the last project proposal on Guangzhou & Chengdu compared on economic upgrading. Maybe that is because it is by nature water blowing when the data hasn’t been collected or analysed yet. Nevertheless I like his tone – gentle and humble, just like him in person – and I look forward to reading the paper as a way to start my reflection on the issue.
A more important reason for writing is because I realise this form of ‘wanting the task/ event/ podcast/ reading/ whatever to kick off my thinking on this issue’ really serves just that purpose – kicking it off, that’s it. Too much of that and my head’s being spun around. So I hope I can take a nice pause to reflect further on the article – essentially a summary of what Chris and Leung Po Lung have said in giving a talk on ‘Strikes in Hong Kong: Past and Present’ on I think around 6 September.
It was the time when I brought my father along (probably because he cares about me, and especially so at the time, and that he was free during that period). As usual I was super diligent in jotting down notes, and after a whole 1.5 month, I can still reconstruct a colossal 6000 Chinese characters (6 pages) of two articles on it, hopefully to be published on some (I was gonna say respectable, but is Mingpao still respectable given its shitty editorials?) media platform.
So yes. Writing the article in fact helped organising myself (see the blog address :)) a lot. A lot, can’t stress more. It helped resolving an almost 5-year question of mine: why the fuck are my friends around CUSP plus all that convinced of the political power of strikes? How is something that remote from our present lives (or my last 20 plus years for that matter) even possible? I must say that listening to a podcast on the recently ended UAW (United Autoworker’s Union I think. I hate acronyms when I don’t know what I mean and use it to puzzle others, as everybody else) Strike. I think listening to that, and also searching events that were mentioned in passing in the talk in order to write an article that the reader on the street picking up the paper or scrolling fb would understand – that helped me a lot to get into the scene of an actually happening, or happened strike. And that does help a lot in immersing oneself in the power of that strike, both politically and bit surprisingly morally.
So on what have I been convinced? Yea I have that incredible feeling of finally feeling part of the joy and sadness from a monumental show of strength by a collective that seemed far from us (or I should say, usually hidden from our eyes in the workplaces, behind the scenes). I think the immediate striking point was at some point, I figured that taking strikes as the most powerful political tool to bring social changes make sense. And I know for Anna to think that way, she’s rooted. I still remember how my comment on Karl Marx’s Capital after reading it in 2016 was that it makes sense. The idea that it makes sense comes from many other things at the mainstream that I have been fed with not making sense – being superficial, being bland, being outright counter-intuitive, etc. Like liberal media commentaries, neoclassical economics for sure, even public governance things I remember from CUHK times. The language in those tings are clean, or passionate in a bureaucratic/ rigid way, idk. But the lens of political economy always help me to see things like 1000x clearer and more excitingly.
So why does striking make sense as a political tactic? I remember reading Julian’s blog regarding the bar benders’ (紮鐵工人) strike in 2007, where he put a line in red and it was something like: ‘when capitalists are making profit out of the labouring of labourers, what’s a better way to undercut their profit than having the labourers, their source of profit, to stop labouring?’ The idea to me is, what’s a more fundamental strike at someone’s profitmaking out of source X than to remove source X – more precisely, explicitly reject to be X, the dehumanised factor of production ‘labour’ or just ‘L’ in neoclassical economics and (more importantly) DI-the-fucking-RECTLY reject & challenge profitseeking practices that we have long condemned and they have long themselves experienced as dehumanising and painful, and DEMAND change in form of, well, direct demands that blackmails the long-time blackmailer to a CLEAR, unequivocal RESPONSE?
當你抗爭的對象是藉工人勞動從中取利的資本家，有甚麼比透過罷工截斷其利潤來源更具威脅，更能成為談判的籌碼？紮鐵工潮旁觀記（一） , 心湖淬筆 http://mindtologos.blogspot.com/2007/08/blog-post.html
And in the above half-rant there lies a lot of different fertilizers that come fruitfully into this ‘this make sense’ declaration. First is of course, hundreds and thousands of news of how things just are BAD to HELL in our current human world that’s not entirely different from an Aristotlean slave society, in the sense of a bunch of smurfs run chores and do things that are too gross to be seen in the open light for us and live segregated, second-rate citizen lives. There are a lot. Sweatshops sound like a platitude once it has become a Liberal Studies topic, once you have flattened it into ‘a social issue’. But it’s not. Every pinky that’s gone from handling a machine, every extra 4+ hours of OT, it counts towards some human flesh just like yours or mine being crushed into a state of hopelessness and acceptance of reality as it is. (And Trump is a ‘reality’ TV show host. I now understand why the crowd would like a Joker than cut that kind of crap short for a punchline. *spoiler alert if you haven’t watched the excellent movie*).
The second is of course, the Marxian language I’ve acquired over time. So the idea that the source of surplus value (or in simpler but wrong technically term, profit) is socially necessary labour-time. So yea, I just have never thought of striking as reversing this logic but it fits like seamlessly: withhold the handing over of labour-time to your boss, and you get no surplus value and a destructed capitalist production logic that goes in a chain reaction. Think of chemistry as chain reaction between atoms (whatever). I always liked Marx’s analogy of the study of society to the study of evolutionary biology – it spreads, contagiates, just like that. Okay, I actually have heard of that multiple times: ‘we need to choke capitalist production at its choke points’. But I guess the way Julian put it makes its tie to the theory even more intimate: workers, as the source of surplus value, are the only ones that technically, morally, effectively and legitimate able to ask for what they should have by refusing to perform that function.
I guess the third and final ingredient in this chemical reaction in the brain that gets me the newfound conclusion is *ta-da!* reality. I don’t know what in the Vox podcast on UAW strike hit me, but maybe some background chanting? Maybe on how they fought this week-long struggle with each like US$250 per week, like a few thousand HKD to care for an entire family? The human and less–tidy fragments of reality that stem from that, like some of them really really want to give up and take the General Motors deal, even though it doesn’t respond to their core demand? (Yes they took it eventually) Like another untidy detail of Trump actually stubbornly being on the side of workers this time because of his stupid campaign promise to bring jobs back to America? (GM was trying to pull out of certain states in America and go to Mexico. Tbh, this is anti-property rights, but to be fair the honest and straight forward way to bring jobs back to America is not to attract businesses but to force production to stay in the US with hefty government fines? Why do capitalist firms have this free pass to make America worse over and over again? I don’t mean to support this, just mean this logically.)
Perhaps it has been in my training to see things in very tidy compartments, both as theories and case studies (empirical evidence to back the theories up). I guess you can say that’s my strongest ability (one of). But I realise the kind of stuff that I read that get me to identify as someone who is really glad that I’m able to see the world as it is with these lens (was gonna say ‘as leftwing’, but tbh I have a much more complicated pattern of thought than that kind of dichotomous categorisation on the political orientation plain – I think some other diameters include ‘feasibility’, ‘coherence’, etc.), is when I am reading some more personal account that show how the theory fails in very believable ways to portray the historical and practical effects of phenomenons that had been closely studied by the (left) intellectuals.
Say, cleaner actually don’t like the minimum wage because her boss almost immediately cut her hours, or that her social benefit claims become more troublesome because her earnings have exceeded some limits. They find it cumbersome to their normal conduction of lives. Or when a guy in Chengdu recounts how he witnessed all the paramilitary struggles against one another during the Cultural Revolution in the factory he worked for, but the strongest piece of memory was how he climbed to the next dormitory to get an electricity cable to connect to theirs, and almost fell onto the ground, when he and his pals needed the light to play Poker cards and mahjong. Natural because production was being stopped!
Or when Justin Trudeau actually took a picture with some high school students on his daily jog and then people questioned why was it taken by a professional photographer – realising that the prime minister is actually crafting his image to be a down-to-earth one by having a photographer around him during his outings.
These things just add the necessary dose of reality to me that makes the complicated effects and results coming from actions or policies in certain direction more believable and lubricates the theories that I’ve heard in the right way – make things messier than they are in a good way. In a way that makes me firmer in my beliefs (because they make even more sense, lol).
Yea, I think these are the kinds of things that make me like Guardian and Vox podcasts a lot. The light human touch. And the Oral History on Chengdu workers whose state-owned factory was going to be torn down soon. Each of them have a personality that shed very different angles of light on the same time period and they are the living testimonies of monstrous experiments and fortunes they had been through.
So back to the article that I’ve been writing for Chris. The idea is roughly this: that Hongkongers had been very militant in strikes and social movements in the past since 1842. Militancy had been in the air right there in the Causeway Bay or Central that I am now walking in. So I took pride in coming up in the title 香港人的勇武史︰罷工的前世今生 , of course knowing how pointless it is to receive gratification by intellectually masturbating at my own ingeunity but still can’t help to get some adrenaline or whatever prompting a sense of achievement over coming up with something like this sort. The point is throughout the process of writing, I am convinced by the historical details that strikes had been possible (because they have happened), effective in forcing capitalist & governmental response, and popular because there had been mass mobilisation.
The last point I think is especially striking, because seeing Hong Kong now everyone are pretty dull and often thinks grimly about the possibility of actually being a meaningful collective that can fight for something meaningful in a powerful way. (Ok, maybe I am the only one thinking that way. I am not convinced by the kind of solidarity coming simply from being ‘yellow’ (pro-democracy).)
So there had been teachers’ strike and nurse’s strike in the 1970s. There had of course been general strikeS in 1920s – 1920 Strike by machine workers, 1922 Strike by sailors and 1925 Canton-Hong Kong General Strike involving Hong Kong workers returning to Canton as part of striking en masse. I am sure these are commonplace knowledge within the left circle, but first of all the nurse’s strike hasn’t been to me, secondly this is definitely not the case for the general public, and thirdly going into the details make them a lot realer and powerful. They were GENERAL or at least multiple-sector strikes – imagine neighbors in the whole district filled with a very natural sense of brotherhood and almost vulgar solidarity with workers from a sector who dared to speak up against the British, and very naturally stopped their own lines of production as if it’s just how things are. Stopped serving the French in restaurant or grocery stores when some ship repair workers refused to repair a French warship that just crushed Fujian in 1884. To be fair it’s pretty like how people from the neighbourhood go out and shout at the police together in the evenings recently – a kind of natural response as a human being to the suffering of fellows.
Communism mattered a lot at the time before it went very, very sour and rotten in China. That’s another story, one that I am surely very interested in pursuing later on.
Now I am a bit self-conscious of perhaps appearing to be ‘hypomanic’ because I write so much. So yes, partly I feel some excitement from being able to speak my mind, but no, no. I have always felt all these things during readings but just deadly unable to articulate these insights and intellectual strikes. Writing them help me to make sense of my own thoughts and why I have been and will remain that dedicated at least in principle to these ideas in the future. All these helps me to vent and understand myself better. Trust my judgment (ok hypomanic persons are sometimes said to lack self-insight. Let see what others think.)
And for those who have seen my personal writings before, these are a lot less obscure and inchoate right. At least I think so.
Another related thought is that recently, I do feel like I need to walk the talk in some way. Like when I am savoring something $300+, in a very real sense that money can alternatively be spent a lot more effectively by another person in a worse situation – it’s a lifesaving amount of subsidy for others, at least potentially. So say with gym and yoga, the kind of things that I can clearly do myself (to some extent) at a very low cost at a high level of willpower. Why do I pay for quite petty bourgeois classes that cost a fortune? I am not changing my personal habits right away, but I am digesting the ‘market only recognise preferences backed by purchasing power’ point a bit in my life. Have had many nice meals outside and crave dinner at home, really.
Once again, I am not going to take my happiness right now for granted and think that everything is moving just the way I wanted – so I remembered, at the clinic just now when heading to the bathroom, that not so long ago I used to have this very nasty and uncomprehensible-today habit of walking into commercial buildings randomly, choosing a high-enough floor level, and go into the bathrooms or staircases finding out windows that are accessible enough. This is probably too much detail, but I want to say it. That was me, obsessively preoccupied, just a few months ago.
What would you think of me after knowing about this piece of me? As expected? Will you make it a blackspot that’s forever on your head when you think of me? Is it something gossip-worthy? I wonder, but I still want to say it. It’s a part of me that makes me who I am now, and making sense of what drove me into that level of dedication to my belief and subsequent devastation at the inability to achieve it, in the earlier part of this writing, is part of the healing.
Thanks for listening,