Questions about Tibet

[mosfeld]

Hey,

Im supposed to turn in an essay in 15 days against an independent Tibet.

I was hoping you could help me out by answering my questions and maybe adding points why Tibet shouldn't be independent.

Only got one question as of now, i might ask some more later.

Hasn't Tibet historically always been a part of China? (please elaborate, don't just answer yes or no)

[x359594]

Tibet has not always been part of China. For different periods in its history Tibet existed as several kingdoms and states contiguously related to each other. Some of the kingdoms/states were allied to China or provinces of China at different times in history (see The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages by C.Beckwith.) The point here is that during these periods Tibet acted autonomously. There was little actual Chinese presence in the Tibetan plateau in terms of garrisons, legations or missions. There were few Chinese residents.

From the 7th century Tibet had a central government located in Lhasa that was nominally acknowledged by the various principalities and petty kingdoms existing on the Tibetan plateau. Throughout its history Tibet's control of neighboring areas at different times extended to northern Pakistan in the west to Yunan and Sichuan in the east, and from north of the Kokonor lake (Qinghai) south as far as Bhutan.

The Tibet question is not at all simple. It's entirely possible to make an argument that Tibet is part of China since in modern times Tibet only proclaimed its independence in 1912 after the fall of the Quing Dynasty.

A related question is to what extent is Tibet a truly autonomous region under the rules of the Chinese constitution itself; is it really self-governing? Does it enjoy freedom of religion? For example, the 17 Point Agreement between the PRC and TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region) says,

"In accordance with the policy towards nationalities laid down in the Common Programme of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the Tibetan people have the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leadership of the Central People's Government." (point 3)

"The Central Authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The Central Authorities also will not alter the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of various ranks shall hold office as usual." (point 4)

"The policy of freedom of religious belief laid down in the Common Programme of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference will be protected. The Central Authorities will not effect any change in the income of the monasteries." (point 7)

"The spoken and written language and school education of the Tibetan nationality will be developed step by step in accordance with the actual conditions in Tibet." (point 9)

"Tibetan agriculture, livestock raising, industry and commerce will be developed step by step, and the people's livelihood shall be improved step by step in accordance with the actual conditions in Tibet." (point 10)

"In matters related to various reforms in Tibet, there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central Authorities. The Local Government of Tibet should carry out reforms of its own accord, and when the people raise demands for reform, they must be settled through consultation with the leading personnel of Tibet." (point 11)

Not a simple issue at all.

[apathy maybe]

Hey,

Im supposed to turn in an essay in 15 days against an independent Tibet.

I was hoping you could help me out by answering my questions and maybe adding points why Tibet shouldn't be independent.

Only got one question as of now, i might ask some more later.

Hasn't Tibet historically always been a part of China? (please elaborate, don't just answer yes or no)

Against an independent Tibet?

OK, to answer your first question, no. A good place to find out more, is the article on Wikipedia (but please don't quote it directly, instead follow the sources) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet .

Why shouldn't Tibet be independent? Because the glorious Chinese government is far better suited to bringing the peasants into the 21st century! By means of a centralised government, innovations can more easily spread, including to Tibet! Indeed, I would argue that using this logic, no country should be independent! There should be one world state!

All this talk of self-determination is racist crap, there are no races, and as such there should be no nations!

Fuck the religious folks who want to return Tibet to some autocratic theocratic state, China's benevolent rule is far better!


(Oh, I may not be 100% serious. Seriously, I'm not sure that the position is defensible unless the people of Tibet wanted it that way.)

[x359594]

...I'm not sure that the position is defensible unless the people of Tibet wanted it that way.

That's the question isn't it? The only way to determine the answer is for the Tibetan people to make their view known by means of some sort of referendum, something the ruling oligrachy of the PRC will not permit.

As near as we can tell without the benefit of a such a referendum the Tibetan people are willing to be part of China provided they enjoy genuine autonomy, namely, the peaceful preservation of their language and culture, the ownership of their land (whether collectively owned or otherwise,) and the freedom to practice their religion. They are willing to leave all questions of foreign policy and military matters in the hands of the central government of the PRC. They would also like to see the Han Chinese settlers leave or least enjoy the same rights as the Han Chinese. At present they're treated like second class citizens in the land of their birth.

[Panda Tse Tung]

To really answer the guys question.

Here's the famed Michael Parenti article:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

[Kassad]

This article here provides everything I'm about to say to you, so feel free to read it: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8919

First of all, all revolutionary socialists should view the current 'human rights' movement in a very critical manner. The problem with these groups like Human Rights Watch is that they now command a lot of authority, as the human rights movement is incredibly popular at the moment. With popular celebrities leading the crusade, many people have been made aware of different affairs regarding human rights violations across the globe. This gives them the opportunity to criticize United States' imperialism and the devastating effects it has had on nations like Cuba and Korea, but instead, they choose to be servants of the American imperialist machine.

Organizations like Human Rights Watch do what the United States government and military-industrial complex have been doing since the start of the 20th century. They demonize a nation, claiming it either has a brutal dictator or they use some form of fear tactics that instills such a raging nationalist fervor in the nation that the populace sounds the horn of war and marches on. It's almost laughable that people don't see this already. Iraq? Brutal dictator, used as a scapegoat for United States colonial occupation and expansion. Cuba? Fidel Castro is painted as a dictator who is ruining the Cuban nation, which is used as an excuse for an inhumane blockade of the Cuban state. It goes on and on. The demonization campaigns are consistent when referring to China, Korea, different parts of Africa and Iran.

Once the United States has a reason to invade, usually with some form of scapegoat, they occupy a nation under the banner of humanitarian intervention, which is exactly what Human Rights Watch and the Save Darfur movement want to take place in Darfur. Note, I would love to see significant aid and international peacekeeping take place, but with the current imperialist hegemony of the United States and the United Nations, we realize that is totally impractical.

Now, onto the main topic. The People's Republic of China should not be considered a socialists state to anyone. Upon the death of Mao Tsetung and the abandoning of the success of the Cultural Revolution and socialist planning in China, China embraced market reforms and massive revisionism to Marxist theory. This has led to economic growth, but at the expense of millions now being left without proper resources and many dying due to starvation. The bourgeoisie dictatorship does not hesitate to take control, which it has once more. Regardless, China is a growing power in the world that's economic growth is rivaling some of the most industrialized nations in the world.

The United States does not like being threatened on a global scale, so what do they do? They demonize a nation so they can use their exaggerated claims to manipulate resources and eventually exploit the economic and political situation in favor of military intervention. The People's Liberation Army liberated Tibet from religious theocracy and feudalism under the Dalai Lama. After the Dalai Lama's oppressive oligarchy was shattered, massive land and resource reforms modernized the Tibetan state, fighting illiteracy, poverty and providing education and healthcare on a much broader scale.

Of course, socialist planning is a massive threat to the United States corporatocracy, thus they use Tibet as a scapegoat for demonizing China. The Dalai Lama and his 'government in exile' receives consistent support from the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States. He claims that he is the rightful leader of the Tibetan people and the Free Tibet movement paints him as a peacemaker; a liberator from Chinese oppression. Regardless, as rational thinkers, we realize this fallacious argument is totally false. The Dalai Lama only seeks to bring religious feudalism and oppression back to the Tibetan state so that he and his Buddhist cronies can retake control and re-establish the bourgeoisie landowner control over Tibet. The Dalai Lama's sympathy with American colonialism is incredibly evident, as is his desire for a theocratic Tibet. His racist and tyrannical regime must never be allowed to regain control.

Another farce that is consistently painted in the American corporate media is the idea that the majority of the Tibetan masses are crying against Chinese tyranny. This is absurd, as we all know. The calls for 'independence' are merely a cry of theocratic Buddhist monks; the cronies of the Dalai Lama. There is no mass movement to liberate Tibet coming from the Tibetan people, as the majority of Tibetans obviously want to salvage and retain revolutionary reforms in Tibet. Do not be fooled by consistent demonization campaigns by the corporate media elitists.

Tibet is another example of American demonization of anti-imperialist states. China's reforms in Tibet have made life for the basic Tibetan peasant much more stable and compassionate. Tibetans have access to resources that they never had under religious theocracy and will never gain again if religious feudalism is allowed to regain control. It is the duty of all revolutionary socialists to defend the working class of Tibet and say no to American imperialism and religious tyranny.

[ZeroNowhere]

Eh? China isn't socialist... The US rulers feel threatened by socialism... Therefore they demonize China? What.

[Kassad]

Eh? China isn't socialist... The US rulers feel threatened by socialism... Therefore they demonize China? What.

No. The United States is threatened by socialism in general, which is why they demonize nations like Cuba and impose inhumane economic sanctions on nations like Korea to prevent any type of socialist development. China is a growing economic power, which threatens the corporate dominance of the United States. Therefore, they demonize China.

[mosfeld]

<claps> Bravo, bravo.

Thanks for the replies.

[Pogue]

No. The United States is threatened by socialism in general, which is why they demonize nations like Cuba and impose inhumane economic sanctions on nations like Korea to prevent any type of socialist development. China is a growing economic power, which threatens the corporate dominance of the United States. Therefore, they demonize China.

As if Korea would carry out any socialist developement ever.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Ha! Tibet deserves freedom from China; never forget Tienenman Square, nobody should live in fear of that. China is a monster: capitalist economy and totalitarian government. If liberating Tibet strikes a blow against the Chinese state then I support it 110%

[x359594]

...I don't mean that theocracy should return to Tibet BTW.

Not likely. Even the Tibetan exile community does not want to return to the status quo ante as far as government goes.

It's important to note that large areas of the country were not under Lhasa's rule; they were controlled by large monasteries in some areas, big landlords in others and nomadic tribes in still other regions. The monasteries have been smashed or reduced to their function as religious institutions supported by donations, the big landlords are now Chinese state partnerships with private capitalists and the nomads have been forced to settle as laborers or traders.

As for China, the contradictions of "market socialsim" are sure to lead to a crisis, and the tradition of authentic socialism will be revived; there is already an underground movement among students, workers and intellectuals to bring about a socialist future for China.

[Kassad]

Ha! Tibet deserves freedom from China; never forget Tienenman Square, nobody should live in fear of that. China is a monster: capitalist economy and totalitarian government. If liberating Tibet strikes a blow against the Chinese state then I support it 110%

Have you ever done one ounce of research and embraced any kind of theory or ideology that was totally your own, or do you like propagating what the bourgeoisie media tells you? Tianamen Square was a violent uprising of students calling for bourgeoisie democracy. These students were not calling for revolutionary socialism or the embracing of Marxism. Instead, they were calling out to the bourgeoisie class and begging for even stricter control than they already have on the People's Republic of China. Sympathizing with the students at Tianamen Square is sympathizing with reactionary and bourgeoisie tactics, as well as all movement supported by them.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Have you ever done one ounce of research and embraced any kind of theory or ideology that was totally your own, or do you like propagating what the bourgeoisie media tells you? Tianamen Square was a violent uprising of students calling for bourgeoisie democracy. These students were not calling for revolutionary socialism or the embracing of Marxism. Instead, they were calling out to the bourgeoisie class and begging for even stricter control than they already have on the People's Republic of China. Sympathizing with the students at Tianamen Square is sympathizing with reactionary and bourgeoisie tactics, as well as all movement supported by them.
Honey, it's that kind of class-war paranoia that made me sick of Marxism; the media is biased and doesnt always get the story right but I doubt theres any mass-conspiracy behind it.

Watch the footage and you'll see the only violence at all was perpetrated by the so-called "Peoples Liberation Army". I didnt see any tear-gas, billy-clubbing, etc. until the PLA showed up.

I frankly dont give a damn whether they were calling for socialism or not. They could be calling for Nazism and it still wouldnt justify the way the military handled it. They wanted to advocate a politic aside from the Party, good! That's what true democracy is: being allowed to speak your mind without fear of police interference, not to mention army interference wich is what China resorted to.

I wasnt aware that you had full knowledge of every single thing in support of the students or that you set the standard for reactionary. The whole world watched and saw what China did; they cant deny the charges, the current climate of fear, intimidation, and restriction is living proof of those charges and is exactly what the students wanted to stop.

If that un-named hero who stood in front of the Chinese tank is "bourgeoisie" as you call it (stupid put-down by the way... it's silly) then long live the bourgeoisie and may they win every battle:tt2:

[PRC-UTE]

I've read in several places that the Tianamen Square protests were a mixed bag. some were there against the capitalist roaders, and others were "democrats". I remember reading an article by Chinese rightists trying to explain away that the crowd there were singing the International. I believe it was posted here by a Chinese comrade, I can look for it later.

Wasn't the Dali Lama system created by the Chinese centuries ago? Kind of ironic if I"m remembering that correctly.

[Sendo]

YEs or no is irrelevant to today. Tradition only matters in forming Tibetans and Chinese's opinions not the matter of justice and injustice, which can only be determined by the present situation and the residents' wishes.

The REd invasion vastly improved a chattel-slavery, plundering, hierarchical, hypocritical "Buddhist" society run by rapist pedophile monks who were left pretty much alone considering they all should have been sent to labor camps. Many Tibetans supported the GCPR, too and didn't make a to-do about ethnicity.

In recent years, however, anti-Tibetan racism is common among Chinese elites and many migrants face this. However, most of the Free Tibet movement wants a US-proxy state put in place which, honestly, I don't know is worse or not than being part of the "People's Republic". In any case, the Tibet issue is really only a specialty for non-socialist liberals who would rather moan about China's treatment of Tibet through revisionist lens while ignoring the plight of the Han et al farmers and workers in China "proper".

[Janine Melnitz]

Okay, Green Apostle the "human" is clearly an idiot but:

Tianamen Square was a violent uprising of students calling for bourgeoisie democracy.
Come on: the students were reactionary, but there's not a shred of evidence that they were violent. More importantly, the idea that "Tiananmen Square" was all about a reactionary student movement is, ironically, the product of Western propaganda: what violence took place during "the incident" didn't come from the students, nor did it happen in the Square; it was in the suburbs of Beijing (http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Zeitfragen/Tiananmen/tiananmen.html) -- where workers rose up at the same time as the students, but for exactly opposite reasons, namely in protest of Deng Xiaoping's market reforms -- that (some) insurrectionary violence took place (these people after all having a lot more to be angry about than some spoiled right-wing intellectuals). And it was here that the crackdown was much more harsh, which is why many prefer to call it the "Beijing massacre" rather than focus on the shithead liberals in Tiananmen Square who, even according to more responsible members of the bourgeois media, were never shot at.

[x359594]

... More importantly, the idea that "Tiananmen Square" was all about a reactionary student movement is, ironically, the product of Western propaganda: what violence took place during "the incident" didn't come from the students, nor did it happen in the Square; it was in the suburbs of Beijing (http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Zeitfragen/Tiananmen/tiananmen.html) -- where workers rose up at the same time as the students, but for exactly opposite reasons, namely in protest of Deng Xiaoping's market reforms...

Exactly right. The Western bourgeois narrative of democracy-loving students standing up to the CCP is false and needs to be challenged whenever it's encountered.

[Janine Melnitz]

Whoops, I take it back about student violence -- at least one molotov cocktail was thrown (albeit after the soldiers arrived) and probably rock-throwing etc. (again, when the soldiers came). My apologies!

[Matty_UK]

Re Tiananmen Square; Li Minqi has an excellent book called "The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy," explaining the impact of the rise of China on the world economy. Li was a neoliberal economics student in 89 and attended the demonstrations, and ended up a political prisoner for several years and has since become a Marxist. The introduction has an excellent account of the demonstrations that captures their nature well, I'll type up the highlights;



...At Beijing University, we were taught standard neoclassical microeconomics and macroeconomics, and what later I learned was termed "Chicago School" economics-that is, the theory that only a free market economy with clarified private property rights and "small government" can solve all economic and social problems rationally and efficiently.

We were convinced that the socialist economy was unjust, oppressive, and inefficient. It rewarded a layer of privileged, lazy workers in the state sector and "punished" (or at least undercompensated) capable and smart people such as entrepreneurs and intellectuals, who we considered to be the cream of society. Thus, for China to have any chance to catch up with the West, to be "rich and powerful," it had to follow the free market capitalist model. State-owned enterprises were by nature inefficient and should all be privatised. State-sector workers should be forced to participate in market competition and those who were incapable, too lazy, or too stupid, should just be abandoned.

...

Liberal intellectuals were all in favor of privatisation and the free market. But they disagreed among themselves regarding the political strategy of "reform" (that is, the transition to capitalism). Some continued to favor a call for "democracy." Others had moved further to the Right by advocating neo-authoritarianism, the kind of authoritarian capitalism that existed in South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, which denied the working class democratic rights but provided protection of the property right (or "liberty"). Many saw Zhao Ziyang, then the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, as the one who could carry out such an "enlightened despotism." Such were the ideological conditions in China before the emergence of the 1989 "democratic movement."

...

As the student demonstrations grew, workers in Beijing began to pour onto the streets in support of the students, who were, of course, delighted. However, being an economics student, I could not help experiencing a deep sense of irony. On the one hand, these workers were the people that we considered to be passive, obedient, ignorant, lazy, and stupid. Yet now they were coming out to support us. On the other hand, just weeks before, we were enthuisiastically advocating "reform" programs that would shut down all state factories and leave the workers unemployed. I asked myself: do these workers really know who they are supporting?

Unfortunately, the workers did not really know. In the 1980s, in terms of material living standards, the Chinese working class remained relatively well-off. There were nevertheless growing resentments on the part of the workers as the program of economic reform took a capitalist turn. Managers were given increasing power to impose capitalist-style labor disciplines (such as Taylorist "scientific management" on the workers. The reintroduction of "material incentives" had paved the way for growing income inequality and managerial corruption.

...

By mid-May 1989, the student movement became rapidly radicalised, and liberal intellectuals and student leaders lost control of events. During the "hunger strike" at Tiananmen Square, millions of workers came out to support the students. This developed into a near-revolutionary situation and a political showdown between the government and the student movement was all but inevitable. The liberal intellectuals and student leaders were confronted with a strategic decision. They could organise a general retreat, calling off the demonstrations, though this strategy would certainly be demoralising. The student leaders would probably be expelled from the universities and some liberal intellectuals might lose their jobs. But more negative, bloody consequences would be avoided.

Alternatively, the liberal intellectuals and the student leaders could strike for victory. They could build upon the existing political momentum, mobilize popular support, and take steps to seize political power. If they adopted this tactic, it was difficult to say if they would succeed but there was certainly a good chance. The Communist Party's leadership was divided. Many army commanders' and provincial governments' loyalty to the central government was in question. The student movement had the support of the great majority of urban residents thoughout the country. To pursure this option, however, the liberal intellectuals and students had to be willing and able to mobilise the full support of the urban working class. This was a route the Chinese liberal intellectuals simply would not consider.

So what they did was...nothing. The government did not wait long to act. While the students themselves peacefully left Tiananmen Square, thousands of workers died in Beijing's streets defending them. Two years later, as I read Marx's The Class Struggle in France, 1848-1850 in prison, I was struck by the similarity between the French petty-bourgeoisie in the mid-nineteenth century and the Chinese liberal intellectuals in the late twentieth century in their political ineptitude, which was ultimately a reflection of the social conditions of their lives and class interest.

[PRC-UTE]

Li's work seems formidable and useful, I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Okay, Green Apostle the "human" is clearly an idiot but:

Come on: the students were reactionary, but there's not a shred of evidence that they were violent. More importantly, the idea that "Tiananmen Square" was all about a reactionary student movement is, ironically, the product of Western propaganda: what violence took place during "the incident" didn't come from the students, nor did it happen in the Square; it was in the suburbs of Beijing (http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Zeitfragen/Tiananmen/tiananmen.html) -- where workers rose up at the same time as the students, but for exactly opposite reasons, namely in protest of Deng Xiaoping's market reforms -- that (some) insurrectionary violence took place (these people after all having a lot more to be angry about than some spoiled right-wing intellectuals). And it was here that the crackdown was much more harsh, which is why many prefer to call it the "Beijing massacre" rather than focus on the shithead liberals in Tiananmen Square who, even according to more responsible members of the bourgeois media, were never shot at.

So what if they were reactionary, everybody has the right to demonstrate.

There WAS violence in the Square. I dont deny the Beijing Massacre but what happened in Tiananmen is extremely important; public opposition to the Chinese Communist Party. Not only is that important but it showed a hopeful change, let the world know that the Chinese people arent lock-step with that dictatorship and are willing to voice their anger.

Call them spoiled right-wing intellectuals if you want but 30 years before them, spoiled left-wing intellectuals raised hell here at home and got the world thinking. The youth of China, whether left or right, have the same power and in due time will let the world hear them again. I'm counting on it.

[SocialRealist]

One question I have for so called "Socialists" and "Communists" not wanting Tibet to be independent from China. You do know that, the Dalai Lama is a Marxist correct?

Quote from the Dalai Lama.
Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism(though dissaproving of it on the whole). As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

I would hope you would mention that when it comes to economics that he supports anti-materialism and selflessness.

[Janine Melnitz]

Marxist[...]anti-materialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4KOIyBioU