Communist Support for Imperialism: Two Cases

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

It has been the norm throughout the 20th century and after that communists and socialists have almost always supported the struggle against colonial rule or imperial expansion. The support for the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation and opposition against U.S. intervention in many parts of the Third World are just some notable examples.

But it seems that there are two particular times when this norm wasn't the case: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the People's Republic of China's invasion and subsequent occupation of Tibet. Concerning these two occasions of expansionism, many communists have supported the occupying force. (Most noteworthy are Michael Parenti's indictment of "Old Tibet" or William Blum's defense of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in his popular book, Killing Hope.)

The usual "benign imperialist" defense of invasion was employed by the communists: simply that the invading force was "progressive" and the pre-invasion regimes were "backwards" and "primitive" and also that "living standards increased dramatically after invasion" and the classic assertion that "the people desired liberation".

My problem, however, is that these reasons are just too vague and ambiguous.

So, my question is, since several communists seem to condone and/or support it on certain occasions, what exactly are the standards or criterion for proper imperialism? When is imperialist occupation justified or when is it the progressive action to take?

Note: I'm using the dictionary.com definition of imperialism: "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies."

[commyrebel]

It has been the norm throughout the 20th century and after that communists and socialists have almost always supported the struggle against colonial rule or imperial expansion. The support for the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation and opposition against U.S. intervention in many parts of the Third World are just some notable examples.

But it seems that there are two particular times when this norm wasn't the case: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the People's Republic of China's invasion and subsequent occupation of Tibet. Concerning these two occasions of expansionism, many communists have supported the occupying force. (Most noteworthy are Michael Parenti's indictment of "Old Tibet" or William Blum's defense of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in his popular book, Killing Hope.)

The usual "benign imperialist" defense of invasion was employed by the communists: simply that the invading force was "progressive" and the pre-invasion regimes were "backwards" and "primitive" and also that "living standards increased dramatically after invasion" and the classic assertion that "the people desired liberation".

My problem, however, is that these reasons are just too vague and ambiguous.

So, my question is, since several communists seem to condone and/or support it on certain occasions, what exactly are the standards or criterion for proper imperialism? When is imperialist occupation justified or when is it the progressive action to take?

Note: I'm using the dictionary.com definition of imperialism: "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies."
fist of all china is not really communist and Afghanistan was one of the causes of the fall of the Soviets

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

fist of all china is not really communist and Afghanistan was one of the causes of the fall of the Soviets

I don't believe that I have asserted that China is communist. In fact, I'm of the opinion that there has never been communism as Marx conceived it. I apologize if my post lacked some clarity with regards to that.

To your second point concerning the Soviet Union's collapse, I don't know how it is pertinent to the topic.

[Vahanian]

I don't believe that I have asserted that China is communist. In fact, I'm of the opinion that there has never been communism as Marx conceived it. I apologize if my post lacked some clarity with regards to that.

To your second point concerning the Soviet Union's collapse, I don't know how it is pertinent to the topic.

you said that there was 2 examples of communist support for imperialism and use china as an example then say china isnt communist. what are you trying to say here?

[Raúl Duke]

I think he means that some communists support China's invasion of Tibet and that some communists have/had supported the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan. The Afghanistan case is a little tricky since the U.S. also played an imperialist role (i.e. funding the Mujahideen) and to some communists it would be seen "anti-imperialist" to side with the Soviets since their role was to protect the USSR-friendly government in Afghanistan at the time. Either way, what happened in Afghanistan at the time was part of the "power politics" that the 2 superpowers engaged so to compete/suppress/etc one another's influence.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

you said that there was 2 examples of communist support for imperialism and use china as an example then say china isnt communist. what are you trying to say here?

Darko's correct in his assessment. I mean to say that the cases of Chinese and Soviet imperialist expansion are commonly defended by several communists and socialists, even if they don't consider China or the Soviet Union to be "communist" in the true sense of the term.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well I think a communist could justify imperialism by saying that when the evil cappies conquer the globe they are merely doing what Marx predicted they would, and that it is a necessary process in the economic development of the world.

As for the Soviets/Chinese I don't know why any anti-imperialist would support either.

[Jazzratt]

"Imperialism" has a different and more nuanced meaning in Marxist and Marxist-Leninist vocabulary. At its very basics one could describe it as "economic and cultural imperialism" whereby the national bourgeois of large capitalist nations are more able to exert control over smaller nations. Invasions are a very small part of this paradigm.
I'm sure a leninist could explain far better than I.

As for communist support of these actions, the supporters themselves would be better placed to explain it themselves but I suspect a lot of justifications will be based on pragmatism or supporting the lesser evil in the cold war.

[synthesis]

So, my question is, since several communists seem to condone and/or support it on certain occasions, what exactly are the standards or criterion for proper imperialism? When is imperialist occupation justified or when is it the progressive action to take?

Well, here's the problem. Imperialism can be the result of progressiveness relative to the society in question, but it is never progressive in practice. This is because progress is implemented by force, which will always be resented, and therefore reactionaries are able to collude with progressives by promoting class collaboration for nationalist purposes. That's always a setback, like it was in Afghanistan.

But as for the target audience of this message - communists who supported the invasions of Tibet and Afghanistan - I suspect they would accuse you of conflating "progressive" with "revolutionary." In their line of thinking, Russia and China weren't expanding their empires, they were exporting their revolutions. I've already explained why I think that's bullshit, but hopefully that answers your question.

[AvanteRedGarde]

If you knew anything about Tibetan history, you wouldn't be concluding that China's invasion of Tibet was an act of imperialism.

1) Tibet has been considered part of China, off and on, for a long time- since before the rise of the Lama system in Tibet.

2) The Lama system in 1940's Tibet is comparable to the Catholic Church in during the Dark Ages. It was the state. In the Lama system, there is no room for women. Boys who are inducted into the system at an early age faced years of hard work years and sexual abuse. Those at the top of the Lama system did basically no work. Those outside of it faced a life of drudgery. The Lama system basically controlled most of the land. Based on this point alone, it initial invasion could be considered a 'humanitarian intervention' by today's standards.

3)The Communist Party of Tibet formed independently of the CCP. It first asked the Soviet Union to invade and then asked China. The CPT staged an uprising the coincide with the invasion.

4) The Lama system has been a reactionary force world wide. It fought with the Axis powers during WW2. After the Chinese invasion, the Dali Lama's troops were trained by the CIA in Colorado.

5)Obviously China is no longer a progressive force in the world, but we should demarcate its revolutionary period from its current reactionary one.

6) It's amazing how the American left is ready to jump to arms over Tibet, yet they are silent on the fact that every single square inch the U.S. controls was gained by invasion. Indicative of this, the U.S. left is quick to call China an imperialist power, yet they are not even comfortable with the full implications of American imperialism.

Read something besides Western propaganda

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

AvanteRedGarde: Since I'm an ignorant American leftist, perhaps you could recommend an "objective" history of Tibet, a book or an article maybe, so I could become enlightened. The assertions in your post are not sourced, so it is rather difficult for me to take them as fact.

[RGacky3]

1) Tibet has been considered part of China, off and on, for a long time- since before the rise of the Lama system in Tibet.

So? What we now know as China is the result of European Imperialism, so why does what is considered china go against self-determination.


2) The Lama system in 1940's Tibet is comparable to the Catholic Church in during the Dark Ages. It was the state. In the Lama system, there is no room for women. Boys who are inducted into the system at an early age faced years of hard work years and sexual abuse. Those at the top of the Lama system did basically no work. Those outside of it faced a life of drudgery. The Lama system basically controlled most of the land. Based on this point alone, it initial invasion could be considered a 'humanitarian intervention' by today's standards.


Any sources for this? Evidence I hav'nt heard of this, but again I may be simply misguided.


3)The Communist Party of Tibet formed independently of the CCP.

Knowing the history of the Communist parties during the Cold war I seriously doubt that.


5)Obviously China is no longer a progressive force in the world, but we should demarcate its revolutionary period from its current reactionary one.

I believe our stance is that of self determination, not that of forced "progressiveness" (if thats what you call China).


6) It's amazing how the American left is ready to jump to arms over Tibet, yet they are silent on the fact that every single square inch the U.S. controls was gained by invasion. Indicative of this, the U.S. left is quick to call China an imperialist power, yet they are not even comfortable with the full implications of American imperialism.

No they are not silent, and they do realize the full implications of American Imperialism, The American left have been some of the bravest and most outspoken in the world.

Also, both China and the USSR were imperialistic powers, both were class societies, so what they say they invaded for should be taken as seriously as what the US says it invades for.


I don't believe that I have asserted that China is communist. In fact, I'm of the opinion that there has never been communism as Marx conceived it.

Well China was not even genuinely Socialist, China was and is a class society, not a society going toward Communism or even genuine Socialism.


So, my question is, since several communists seem to condone and/or support it on certain occasions, what exactly are the standards or criterion for proper imperialism? When is imperialist occupation justified or when is it the progressive action to take?

First of all if its a soceity where imperialism is even a real option, or state enforced "progressivism" on other countries is an option, then I seriously doubt its a socialistic society. Had the CNT won over the fascists I seriously doubt the option of invading other countries would have ever come up (there would have been no state).


It has been the norm throughout the 20th century and after that communists and socialists have almost always supported the struggle against colonial rule or imperial expansion.

They have been against American/European Capitalist power and for their State-Social power and influence over the third world.


Either way, what happened in Afghanistan at the time was part of the "power politics" that the 2 superpowers engaged so to compete/suppress/etc one another's influence.

Exactly nothing more than that, whats been happening for centuries.

[Kernewek]

1) Tibet has been considered part of China, off and on, for a long time- since before the rise of the Lama system in Tibet.
so? they don't want to be part of China now



2) The Lama system in 1940's Tibet is comparable to the Catholic Church in during the Dark Ages. It was the state. In the Lama system, there is no room for women. Boys who are inducted into the system at an early age faced years of hard work years and sexual abuse. Those at the top of the Lama system did basically no work. Those outside of it faced a life of drudgery. The Lama system basically controlled most of the land.

none the less, the people of Tibet don't want Chinese rule

you're also ignoring the fact that the Dali Lama himself wished to reform the old system and end Tibets isolation



Based on this point alone, it initial invasion could be considered a 'humanitarian intervention' by today's standards.
you consider decades of brutal oppression to be humanitarian intervention?



4) The Lama system has been a reactionary force world wide. It fought with the Axis powers during WW2.
Tibet was neutral in ww2, England is the only European power it has any real diplomatic relations with



After the Chinese invasion, the Dali Lama's troops were trained by the CIA in Colorado.
can't say I blame them for getting help wherever they could



6) It's amazing how the American left is ready to jump to arms over Tibet, yet they are silent on the fact that every single square inch the U.S. controls was gained by invasion. Indicative of this, the U.S. left is quick to call China an imperialist power, yet they are not even comfortable with the full implications of American imperialism.
so because America is imperialist that means imperialisms ok?



Read something besides Western propaganda
Read something besides Chinese propaganda

[NecroCommie]

so? they don't want to be part of China now
They do ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24097313/
And this is just one of many sources. Feel free to search for yourself.


none the less, the people of Tibet don't want Chinese rule
There is no national vote taken in tibet on this matter. You are sprouting lies without any data to back it up. Tibetan elite mostly want autonomy, not independence, and no-one really knows the oppinion of tibetan masses. I doubt they want separation from china after the economical advances made by the chinese government.


you're also ignoring the fact that the Dali Lama himself wished to reform the old system and end Tibets isolation I dont support the reforms, but (social) isolationism must end. And that is why chinese tibet-policy is good. ---->
Qinghai-Tibet Railway, the world's highest railway, extends 1956 kilometers from Xining to Lhasa. About 960 kilometers of the line is more that 4,000 meters above sea level and the highest point is 5,072 meters. The railway was commissioned on July 1 2006. The first three trains to run on the railway are trains from Beijing to Lhasa, Chengdu(Chongqing) to Lhasa and Xining-Lhasa. http://www.tibettravel.info/explore-tibet/qinghai-tibet-railway.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai-Tibet_Railway
you consider decades of brutal oppression to be humanitarian intervention?
You can make anything sound bad if you try enough so your sentence proves nothing. The truth is that chinese intervention has improved the life standard of all tibetans a little, and the life standards of tibetan women a lot. ---->
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200101/23/eng20010123_61172.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083766
http://info.tibet.cn/en/newfeature/faf2003/t20050516_29443.html
Feel free to search for yourself.


Tibet was neutral in ww2, England is the only European power it has any real diplomatic relations with
While it is true that Tibet engaged in no military operations during the war (gee... I wonder why), one could hardly call it neutral, proven by your very own statement. I do recognize that they were not straightforward nazi allies, but the tibetan elite was somewhat "preferring" nazis over the communist movement that spread amongst the peasantry. I give it to you that avanteredgarde was a bit dramatic with his expressions on this matter.


can't say I blame them for getting help wherever they could
Also Al-qaeda is pressed into a corner and takes any help it gets, but it is no justification for collaboration with sinister governments.

Your argument that: "because they fight an evil enemy, any action is justified" can be reversed to support the chinese point of view.


so because America is imperialist that means imperialisms ok?
That is not what he meant. He pointed out that american sympathizers have no "moral high-ground" on chinese foreign policy.


Read something besides Chinese propaganda
Read something.

I really am not very pro-chinese, but this talk about tibet being "occupied" and that it is a human-rights catastrophy is complete BS.

[Kernewek]

They do ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24097313/
And this is just one of many sources. Feel free to search for yourself.
I phrased it badly, the point is they don't want to be ruled by china



There is no national vote taken in tibet on this matter. You are sprouting lies without any data to back it up.
the fact there's been violent clashes between the Tibetan people and the Chinese authorities would suggest they are pretty unhappy with Chinese rule



You can make anything sound bad if you try enough so your sentence proves nothing. The truth is that chinese intervention has improved the life standard of all tibetans a little, and the life standards of tibetan women a lot. ---->


Tibet’s economy might have improved but it's come at a price

Tibetan people have been brutally oppressed, many have been killed or imprisoned without trial, they have no say in how the country is run they can't speak freely or even have pictures of the Dali Lama

If things improved so much why are the people so unhappy?



While it is true that Tibet engaged in no military operations during the war, one could hardly call it neutral, proven by your very own statement.



the engaged in no military actions, they gave no material support to any country, the government didn't even offer any words of support to either side, they wanted nothing to do with the outside world and were totally neutral



I do recognize that they were not straightforward nazi allies, but the tibetan elite was somewhat "preferring" nazis over the communist movement that spread amongst the peasantry.

Tibet was not a Nazi ally in any way, other than taking in 2 german refugies who fled India the Tibetan government had absolutly nothing to do with the Nazis, many accounts suggest the Tibetan government feared the Nazis



Also Al-qaeda is pressed into a corner and takes any help it gets, but it is no justification for collaboration with sinister governments.
Chinese government's pretty sinister as well, as are the governments of most other countries



That is not what he meant. He pointed out that american sympathizers have no "moral high-ground" on chinese foreign policy.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread defending America

[NecroCommie]

So? What we now know as China is the result of European Imperialism, so why does what is considered china go against self-determination.
I dont get this one due to my bad english grammar. :blushing:


Any sources for this? Evidence I hav'nt heard of this, but again I may be simply misguided.
I too would like to see some sources, although these accusations would not surprise me a bit. These accusations are quite common features on asian cultures, let alone isolated asian cultures.


Knowing the history of the Communist parties during the Cold war I seriously doubt that.
Me too, but I dont see it as a bad thing.


I believe our stance is that of self determination, not that of forced "progressiveness" (if thats what you call China).
China forcing itself upon others is like any other capitalist state forcing themselves, so there I agree with you. However socialism should always advance, despite the resistance of nationalistic fanatics.


The American left have been some of the bravest and most outspoken in the world.
I dare doubt this one, although I agree with the rest of your statement. Perhaps you just haven't seen the acts of the european left. Also the radical left of latin america puts other movements in shame.


Also, both China and the USSR were imperialistic powers, both were class societies, so what they say they invaded for should be taken as seriously as what the US says it invades for.
The fact that all these powers are "colouring" their motives to their liking, is just ordinary class warfare. I would also argue the imperialist nature of USSR under lenin. Lenin was the cause of many many nations gaining independence.


First of all if its a soceity where imperialism is even a real option, or state enforced "progressivism" on other countries is an option, then I seriously doubt its a socialistic society. Had the CNT won over the fascists I seriously doubt the option of invading other countries would have ever come up (there would have been no state).
Where as my ideal state would indeed abandon interventionism, I still think that state enforced progressionism is far better than imperialism.

And as to what would have happened, I think this is a whole other topic. We could argue that forever and not get anywhere.


They have been against American/European Capitalist power and for their State-Social power and influence over the third world.
True. All you did was call it bad names. You did not give me anything through which I would see it as a bad thing.


Where as I am still quite neutral towards the chinese, I felt that some of these arguments were aimed at marxism-leninism in general ---> thus my response.

[NecroCommie]

I phrased it badly, the point is they don't want to be ruled by china
I agree that autonomy should be granted. Independence would be disastrous though.


the fact there's been violent clashes between the Tibetan people and the Chinese authorities would suggest they are pretty unhappy with Chinese rule
Where as some dissent is there for a reason I agree, this is mostly about Tibetan monks spreading buddhist nationalism amongst people. And as it happens, religion and nationalism are the two most illogical things on this earth.

And I do agree that chinese should grant autonomy for tibetans, since the chinese do not seem to understand some necessary aspects of the tibetan culture. But the fact remains that Tibet is economically addicted to china. Independence would come at even greater prize than the chinese intervention.


Tibet’s economy might have improved but it's come at a price
Not just economy, but also womens rights, and the rights of non-buddhists.

Tibetan people have been brutally oppressed, many have been killed or imprisoned without trial, they have no say in how the country is run they can't speak freely or even have pictures of the Dali Lama
America does not allow racism or nazism in any way, and I see this as a similar thing. Not that Chinese government would be alot better, but do not mistake the Tibetan elite as some innocent victim of a cruel world.


If things improved so much why are the people so unhappy? Sure there are riots even here in Finland, one of the richest countries in the world. The existence of riots means that there is an oppositon. It tells nothing about its size. The other thing is the nature of these riots. I completely support prohibiting nationalist and right-wing demonstrations and riots (as a form of class war) But I have to agree with you on the fact that chinese government have gone over the board on this matter.


the engaged in no military actions, they gave no material support to any country, the government didn't even offer any words of support to either side, they wanted nothing to do with the outside world and were totally neutral
Tibet was not a Nazi ally in any way, other than taking in 2 german refugies who fled India the Tibetan government had absolutly nothing to do with the Nazis, many accounts suggest the Tibetan government feared the Nazis
Officially, yes. But we all know that even swiss leaders prefer some camps over other, even when they dont act upon it. During the 2ww, most members of national elites supported nazis. And personally I dont see nazi supporting alot worse than supporting extremely imperialist state like... hmm, I dont know... say, Great Britain?

I was not trying to say that tibetan government was secretly allying with the nazis or anything. More like they were neutral only because they had to be neutral to survive. If they had power to "safely" join the war, I have no doubt they would have joined the wrong (capitalist) side.



Chinese government's pretty sinister as well, as are the governments of most other countries
I agree. That does not still justify the collaboration with the extreme capitalists.



I haven't seen anyone in this thread defending America
Well that is another issue. I just told what he wanted to say.

[Kernewek]

Not just economy, but also womens rights, and the rights of non-buddhists.
non Buddhists weren't oppressed in Tibet, if anything they had more personal freedom than the Buddhist population



America does not allow racism or nazism in any way, and I see this as a similar thing. Not that Chinese government would be alot better, but do not mistake the Tibetan elite as some innocent victim of a cruel world.

first of all you can openly be a member of a Nazi party in America, but that's beside the point

you can't compare wanting freedom of religion or criticizing an oppressive capitalist occupier to supporting Nazism



Officially, yes. But we all know that even swiss leaders prefer some camps over other, even when they dont act upon it. During the 2ww, most members of national elites supported nazis. And personally I dont see nazi supporting alot worse than supporting extremely imperialist state like... hmm, I dont know... say, Great Britain?

Tibet didn't support great Britain, they only had relations with us because we forced it upon them

[NecroCommie]

non Buddhists weren't oppressed in Tibet, if anything they had more personal freedom than the Buddhist population
If you were not a monk or a member of the high-class, you were fu**ed. There are little sources on the status of non-buddhists, but if we assume that tibet was anything like neighbouring religious cultures, the oppression of non-buddhists would be more than likely.
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-mcg2.pdf
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-mcg1.pdf
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/96054/96063/6552390.html



first of all you can openly be a member of a Nazi party in America, but that's beside the point
I did not know that to be honest. I thought that every civilized culture had long since banned all forms of racism and fascism. I do know that most european countries deny all pro-fascist symbolism and speech. So This news on nazism being legal in US makes China actually more civilized, since it has the guts to ban chouvinist practices.


you can't compare wanting freedom of religion or criticizing an oppressive capitalist occupier to supporting Nazism
There has never been freedom of religion in Tibet as there is now (see one of my links above). You can call pro-lama tibetans with all the good names you have, but you cannot change the fact that the lama-system was an oppressive feudal system of religiously fanatic elitists.

And yes I can.

[Vahanian]

If you were not a monk or a member of the high-class, you were fu**ed. There are little sources on the status of non-buddhists, but if we assume that tibet was anything like neighbouring religious cultures, the oppression of non-buddhists would be more than likely.
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-mcg2.pdf
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-mcg1.pdf
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/96054/96063/6552390.html



I did not know that to be honest. I thought that every civilized culture had long since banned all forms of racism and fascism. I do know that most european countries deny all pro-fascist symbolism and speech. So This news on nazism being legal in US makes China actually more civilized, since it has the guts to ban chouvinist practices.


There has never been freedom of religion in Tibet as there is now (see one of my links above). You can call pro-lama tibetans with all the good names you have, but you cannot change the fact that the lama-system was an oppressive feudal system of religiously fanatic elitists.

And yes I can.



Any country where relgion dictaed goverment is oppressive to any one who dosent follow that state relgion

china more civilized then the us just because the us allow people freedom of expresion? while children in china work for a few dollars a day if that?

[NecroCommie]

Any country where religion dictated government is oppressive to any one who dosent follow that state relgion

But China does not dictate religion. It only keeps Tibet from becoming theocratic nazilandia by making sure that the people get some real help in additon to all the religious "help". China does dictate the importance of religion, but it does not dictate religion, as in: "You must now be atheists!" And I personally see it as a thing that should be introduced to europe too.

If you would like to criticize chinese government, I would much rather point out the extreme form of corporate control, and the nationalistic agenda china has in Tibet. I would also point out the lack of even mock-democracy in china, but Freedom of (from) religion in china is better than what many European states can promise.


more civilized then the us just because the us allow people freedom of expresion? while children in china work for a few dollars a day if that?

Dont go offtopic here comrade. You know very well that my: "China being more civilized" statement only concerns anti-fascism, since I were then talking about anti-fascism.

You would allow nazism to advance? Whoa! You are on a wrong forum dude. Complete freedom of expression is an illusion. There is always some cultural norms and taboos concerning freedom of expression, so the most we can do is make sure that fascism is not promoted in these cultural norms. Did you notice that you just defended the Fascists "freedom" to promote their ideas?

[Kernewek]

If you were not a monk or a member of the high-class, you were fu**ed. There are little sources on the status of non-buddhists, but if we assume that tibet was anything like neighbouring religious cultures, the oppression of non-buddhists would be more than likely.


tibeten government was very accepting of other religions and tibet has a large muslim population



I did not know that to be honest. I thought that every civilized culture had long since banned all forms of racism and fascism. I do know that most european countries deny all pro-fascist symbolism and speech. So This news on nazism being legal in US makes China actually more civilized, since it has the guts to ban chouvinist practices.

it's this new idea that we call freedom of speach, it has it's flaws but overall it's pretty cool
did you know that in china this conversation could land us in prison?



There has never been freedom of religion in Tibet as there is now (see one of my links above). You can call pro-lama tibetans with all the good names you have

before the chinese occupation members of all religions were free to practice their faiths, now the chinese government dictates what they can belive



but you cannot change the fact that the lama-system was an oppressive feudal system of religiously fanatic elitists.

a system which the current dali lama has no intention of re-instating




And yes I can.
you want to get rid of freedom of speach and religion?

if you want dictate what other people can think then you're no better than a fascist

[mosfeld]

Kernewek, can you please give sources to this crap you're saying?

[NecroCommie]

tibeten government was very accepting of other religions and tibet has a large muslim population

The existence of minorities does not mean the minorities were treated well. Until you can come up with sources to this stuff I will have to assume that Tibet was no better than surrounding theocratic cultures.


it's this new idea that we call freedom of speach, it has it's flaws but overall it's pretty cool
did you know that in china this conversation could land us in prison?

Freedom of speech should never extend to fascists. As I mentioned earlier: Freedom of speech is a subjective term, and therefore all this: "All oppinions should be allowed!"-ranting is naive.


before the chinese occupation members of all religions were free to practice their faiths, now the chinese government dictates what they can belive
Now this is complete BS! Sources? I have already given mine.


a system which the current dali lama has no intention of re-instating
Sources?


you want to get rid of freedom of speach and religion?
I want freedom from religion, and to defeat fascism. And what kind of freedom of speech are you talking about? As I said earlier, freedom of speech is subjective.


if you want dictate what other people can think then you're no better than a fascist
I have no intention of dictating what people should believe, but I do not allow fascism. So basically I wish to dictate what people dont believe. Luckily this is one of the few things in which me and my state agree on.

[Kernewek]

Kernewek, can you please give sources to this crap you're saying?

Oppression of religion and freedom of speech in china is well documented, as is chinas treatment of the Tibetan people. Before you ***** about me believing the lies of the capitalist media lets remember china's also a capitalist country, one with a powerful economy which the other capitalists don't want to piss off, where as the dali lamba has openly expressed opposition to capitalism on many occasions. Capitalists are in favour of Chinese rule.

source on chinese opression of tibet
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_18340.pdf

source on chinese opression of religion, also has stuff on tibet and how chana treats women which cast doubts over the claim that things have really improved for tibeten women
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china/report-2008


The existence of minorities does not mean the minorities were treated well. Until you can come up with sources to this stuff I will have to assume that Tibet was no better than surrounding theocratic cultures.
burden of proof lies with him making the claim, any evidence these people were opressed? I've never read anything to say the where

bu here's some interesting reading
http://www.tibet.com/Muslim/tibetan-muslim.html





Freedom of speech should never extend to fascists. As I mentioned earlier: Freedom of speech is a subjective term, and therefore all this: "All oppinions should be allowed!"-ranting is naive.
so you don't belive in freedom of speach



Now this is complete BS! Sources? I have already given mine.


sources above about how muslims, the largist religious minority were free



Sources?
he's stated it in many interviews, do a google search

besides the old system was based on keeping tibet isolated, chinas opened tibet up, dali lama couldn't bring the old system back if he wanted to



I want freedom from religion, and to defeat fascism. And what kind of freedom of speech are you talking about? As I said earlier, freedom of speech is subjective.
I'm talking about actual freedom of speach, speech that is free, the idea that you are free say what you want and not get carted of to prison because someone else dissagrees with you



I have no intention of dictating what people should believe, but I do not allow fascism. So basically I wish to dictate what people dont believe. Luckily this is one of the few things in which me and my state agree on.
so you wish to control what people can believe, you're no better than the fascists you hate so much

[Hiero]

burden of proof lies with him making the claim, any evidence these people were opressed? I've never read anything to say the where

bu here's some interesting reading

This is going off topic from the original point, which was the buddhist theorcracy in Tibet was oppressive. It doesn't matter if the Buddhist monks allowed other religions, no one could escape the feudalist system of exploitation.

This naturally leads to Tibet having it's own contradictions that are comparable to China. Being the case Tibetan's fought against the the Tibetan society before the PLA arrived. In Gao's book (2008) it is mention that during the cultural revolution thoose high up within the army and CCP even had to send Chinese PLA troops into areas in Tibet where locals were damaging Tibetan history.

It is really a-historical and anti-materialist to think that Tibet is the only place in the world were people did not rebel against the feudal order. Yet is ok to talk about the bourgeiosie wars against feadulism in Western-Europe. The Chinese revolution and the national war against Japan stimulated contradicitons in Tibet. Tibet is part of the Chinese revolution.

Now this is a historical-materialist analysis. You however take a liberal analysis, for example:


sources above about how muslims, the largist religious minority were free

Were free to enjoy feudal expliotation? Even if they were free to practice their religion, they weren't "free" in an absolute sense. They were free as much as they had to participate in the feudal structure which the reactionary buddhist monks maintian by force to uphold and used force to stop the progessive movement to remove this structure.

[Kernewek]

This is going off topic from the original point, which was the buddhist theorcracy in Tibet was oppressive. It doesn't matter if the Buddhist monks allowed other religions, no one could escape the feudalist system of exploitation.
no, the origional point was that the chinese occupation of tibet is an imperialist act. I allways thought communists were against imperialism, guess I was wrong

I'm not sayingt the fudelist system wasn't opressive in otherways, what I am saying is that tibet had freedom of religion




It is really a-historical and anti-materialist to think that Tibet is the only place in the world were people did not rebel against the feudal order.
where did anyone claim that?



Yet is ok to talk about the bourgeiosie wars against feadulism in Western-Europe. The Chinese revolution and the national war against Japan stimulated contradicitons in Tibet. Tibet is part of the Chinese revolution.
tibet is only part of the chinese revoution because china invaded
china forced it's rule apon the tibeten people, it should be up to the tibetens to decide their government



Now this is a historical-materialist analysis. You however take a liberal analysis, for example:
history shows that tibetens are a distict people with their culture, anyone who claims they support the workers should support the tibeten peoples right to self-determination




Were free to enjoy feudal expliotation? Even if they were free to practice their religion, they weren't "free" in an absolute sense. They were free as much as they had to participate in the feudal structure which the reactionary buddhist monks maintian by force to uphold and used force to stop the progessive movement to remove this structure.
I never said they were free in an absolute sense, but they had more freedom than they do now

[Hiero]

I allways thought communists were against imperialism, guess I was wrong

You're wrong, but not about that.

The point you have avioded is the fact that Tibetan's were rebeling against feudalism before the PLA intervened. The PLA simply came to Tibet to support the revolution which was occuring all over China.


it should be up to the tibetens to decide their government

They did. The only people of Tibet who fought against the PLA were fuedal lords (buddhist monks), who deserved to be put down.


I'm not sayingt the fudelist system wasn't opressive in otherways

here you say they were more free.


I never said they were free in an absolute sense, but they had more freedom than they do now

The Buddhist monks may not be as free as they were before, their system of expliotation is no more, they are not free to expliot. But many peasants are free from that expliotative system, there is no fear that they are going to be starved or taxed to death which was common in fuedal China.


history shows that tibetens are a distict people with their culture, anyone who claims they support the workers should support the tibeten peoples right to self-determination

No one is saying anything against that. There may be a problem in modern China where certian nationalities may not have complete self-determination. I am sure there lots of problems in China especially post Mao as China has to accomendate alot to the west to maintain it's urban development. But this is a Chinese problem, not something unique to Tibet. The pro-independence Tibetans are so ignorant that they assume the problems Tibetans face are not faced by the majority Han population as well.

My anti-historical and anti-materialist marks came from two reason. 1) What you believe to be history is wrong, this the anti-historical remark 2) you assume that revolution was forced on the Tibetan people, this is anti-materialist remark.

China is made up from various nationalities, and in China with development in the productives forces, the decedent fuedal system coming to it's end and the colonialist/imperialist interaction with China stimulated a popular movement first against imperialism then fuedalism and capitalism at the same time. This extended all throughout China, including Tibet. What was happening in Tibet was happening all throughout China. To think that Tibet was an enclave to the rest of China, or that revolution is simply a Han nationalist movement is untrue. If it was Han nationalist, then it is anti-Han as well, because there was an attack on institutional religion and the feudal structure in the Han nation as well. These attacks came from the peasants and proleteriat at many times it was the masses who went overboard and destroyed historical artefacts and brutally murdered people without trial and the PLA working on ordrers from the CCP had to intervene at times to return some form of order.

[Kernewek]

You're wrong, but not about that.

The point you have avioded is the fact that Tibetan's were rebeling against feudalism before the PLA intervened. The PLA simply came to Tibet to support the revolution which was occuring all over China.
I'm not deniying that many were rebelling against fudalism, infact many of the younger monks were highly critical of the fudalist system, and at first china did have support from many tibeten people, including many monks and lords, but this support didn't last

the tibeten people do not want chinese rule and it should be up to them to decide their government, china has no right to force it's rule apon them



They did. The only people of Tibet who fought against the PLA were fuedal lords (buddhist monks), who deserved to be put down.
if the masses had really supported china there would have been no need for such a brutal and opressive ocuppation




here you say they were more free.
yeah, they had more freedom than they do now




The Buddhist monks may not be as free as they were before, their system of expliotation is no more, they are not free to expliot. But many peasants are free from that expliotative system, there is no fear that they are going to be starved or taxed to death which was common in fuedal China.
and now under chinese rule tibet has more opressive system of exploitation




No one is saying anything against that.
if you support the chinese occupation then you are denying their right to self determination



There may be a problem in modern China where certian nationalities may not have complete self-determination. I am sure there lots of problems in China especially post Mao as China has to accomendate alot to the west to maintain it's urban development. But this is a Chinese problem, not something unique to Tibet. The pro-independence Tibetans are so ignorant that they assume the problems Tibetans face are not faced by the majority Han population as well.

I'm not deniying that other groups who don't want to be under chinese rule, chinas an imperialist power which has forced it's rule on many groups



My anti-historical and anti-materialist marks came from two reason. 1) What you believe to be history is wrong, this the anti-historical remark 2) you assume that revolution was forced on the Tibetan people, this is anti-materialist remark.

there was growing opposition to the old fudal system in tibet, that's not the point, the point is chinese rule was forced apon the tibeten people



China is made up from various nationalities, and in China with development in the productives forces, the decedent fuedal system coming to it's end and the colonialist/imperialist interaction with China stimulated a popular movement first against imperialism then fuedalism and capitalism at the same time. This extended all throughout China, including Tibet. What was happening in Tibet was happening all throughout China. To think that Tibet was an enclave to the rest of China, or that revolution is simply a Han nationalist movement is untrue. If it was Han nationalist, then it is anti-Han as well, because there was an attack on institutional religion and the feudal structure in the Han nation as well. These attacks came from the peasants and proleteriat at many times it was the masses who went overboard and destroyed historical artefacts and brutally murdered people without trial and the PLA working on ordrers from the CCP had to intervene at times to return some form of order.
again I'm not saying that people in tibet didn't want a change, what I am saying is they didn't want chinese rule, any sources that it was the tibeten people responsible for the destruction of temples and the killings?

many people in iraq and afganistan wanted a regime change, should we there for defend american imperialism?