Marxist dalai-lama.

[Vincent P.]

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.

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.

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.

So why are some of you guys supporting the invasion of Tibet by capitalist, colonialist, repressive China?:sneaky:
Source:http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html

[bcbm]

Oh god, here we go again.

[GPDP]

Oh god, here we go again.

This. In before Bobkindles.

[Vincent P.]

Oh god, here we go again.
Nothing better to say?

[Poison]

I had no idea the Dalai Lama was Marxist-ish. Time to go show this to several right-wingers I know who like to say they love the Dalai Lama to appear open-minded. *snicker*

[bcbm]

Nothing better to say?

No. I don't care about the dalai-lama and this discussion has occurred before on this forum.

[BobKKKindle$]

I used to spend a lot of time typing out a long post showing that China isn't imperialist, using investment statistics to support my arguments, as well as the lack of popular support amongst the working class in favour of independence within Tibet itself. Now, when someone makes a thread with the intention of showing that the poor innocent Tibetans are being oppressed, threads which generally lack any evidence whatsoever, I just link them to these articles, in the hope that they will read up and get their facts right: Friendly Feudalism, by Michael Parenti (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html), How Repressive Is the Chinese Government in Tibet?, by UCLA International Institute (http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=2732), Is the Dalai Lama a 'religious dictator'? by Brendan O’Neill (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5170/)

Consider this extract from the first article in particular:


In 1996, the Dalai Lama issued a statement that must have had an unsettling effect on the exile community. It read in part: “Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability.” Marxism fosters “the equitable utilization of the means of production” and cares about “the fate of the working classes” and “the victims of . . . exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and . . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

(http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html#notes) But he also sent a reassuring message to “those who live in abundance”: “It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And to the poor he offers this admonition: “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.”
This isn't in any way meant to suggest that China isn't a capitalist country, or that the Chinese state isn't oppressive, but Marxists do not support movements that are intended to enhance the interests of western imperialism by undermining the territorial unity of an underdeveloped nation. The "Free Tibet" movement is overwhelmingly comprised of white liberals who have no knowledge of China's history, especially the legacy of western colonialism that China has been forced to endure.

[Invincible Summer]

So why are some of you guys supporting the invasion of Tibet by capitalist, colonialist, repressive China?:sneaky:
Source:http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html


I just posted this in another thread:


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.

He's not even for class struggle, so whatever "half" of Marxism he likes means nothing.

And really, if the PRC didn't go into Tibet all those years ago, it'd still be a medieval, feudalistic theocracy. Just because one man that every "spiritual" person creams their pants over says they're "half marxist" doesn't mean anything in regards to the Tibet-China situation.

[Vincent P.]

No. I don't care about the dalai-lama and this discussion has occurred before on this forum.
Then you're free to participate in an intelligent way to instruct newer members who weren't there "before on this forum", or to kindly piss off and let us have an intelligent debate as you "don't care about the dalai-lama".

[Poison]

He's not even for class struggle, so whatever "half" of Marxism he likes means nothing.

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read that he felt the regimes placed too much emphasis on class struggle? As opposed to being against class struggle period?

& Vincent is right. We're not allowed to resurrect dead threads, I hardly see the harm if it informs and helps new members like myself. Why's it such a big deal?

[Vincent P.]

He's not even for class struggle, so whatever "half" of Marxism he likes means nothing.
Not at all. He said that the previous commie experience put too much emphasis on class struggle, which resulted in a kind of totalitarian, repressive paranoia.
You read "he doesn't like salt" when he said "I like it with a little less salt".

And really, if the PRC didn't go into Tibet all those years ago, it'd still be a medieval, feudalistic theocracy.
First, how the hell do you know he wouldn't have brought reforms? The guys has been at the head of Tibet for less than one year when Mao popped in.
Also, what you say isn't better than Buch-bots claiming that "after all, America did free Iraq from Saddam Hussein eh?" or 18th century europeans claiming they brought civilisation to Africa.


Just because one man that every "spiritual" person creams their pants over says they're "half marxist" doesn't mean anything in regards to the Tibet-China situation.
Well it should tilt a light in your head when we're discussing about an expantionist capitalist country occupying a country that could be socialist on a lefty forum.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

So why are some of you guys supporting the invasion of Tibet by capitalist, colonialist, repressive China?:sneaky:
Source:http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html

You really like most westerners have no understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and the threat that it poses to the world.

I suggest you read this book very carefully before spouting support for this sick sexually deviant black magician.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/dalai_lama/contents.htm

It also should be pointed out that most of the violence aganist the Lamas during the cultural revolution was undertaken by native Tibetans and not chinese red guards.

[Blackscare]

I think it's interesting that the leader in exile of Tibet seems to be more Marxist these days than China :laugh:

And all debates about Chinese claims of legitimacy aside, because it is a very complicated issue with no right or wrong side, shouldn't we at least rethink our positions on him if he's actually saying that he favors some form of Marxism?


China is an authoritarian capitalist country, it is no longer Marxist/Maoist. They have about "2,000 major disturbances" a year according to Slavoj Zizek's retelling of a conversation with some government officials while visiting. These are situations where local law enforcement is not enough and the military is required to intervene. Does that sound like a happy socialist/communist society to you? To me the idea of defending the Chinese is pointless, because for one this isn't even the same China that first invaded Tibet, in terms of their fundamental ideals. I support any true socialist movement, if the Dali Llama could do that, I'm all for his return.




Also, I'm not of the mind that investing money in a country or moving in millions of Han Chinese (like the English did to Ireland) somehow makes the use of Tibet as a military buffer zone justifiable. The Chinese went in for their own reasons, there was nothing noble about it (even if the situation WAS as bad there as the Chinese would have us believe, I'm a little too cynical to believe that that was their main reason for invading).

[Vincent P.]

Friendly Feudalism, by Michael Parenti (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html), How Repressive Is the Chinese Government in Tibet?, by UCLA International Institute (http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=2732), Is the Dalai Lama a 'religious dictator'? by Brendan O’Neill (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5170/)
Thanks, I'll get through and respond as soon as I can.


The "Free Tibet" movement is overwhelmingly comprised of white liberals who have no knowledge of China's history, especially the legacy of western colonialism that China has been forced to endure.
I've been trying to instruct myself on the matter since the last few weeks, thanks. Meanwhile, all I see is that Tibet is enduring the chinese version of nazi pangermanist or Israel claiming that this land has been their in the past, so please Palestinian get out of here.

[Blackscare]

You really like most westerners have no understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and the threat that it poses to the world.


Like, Tibetan Buddhism is going to invade man!! They sacrifice goats and stuff, I read about it!


Seriously, what do you think is the bigger threat to the world, some Llamas on a mountain in Tibet, or a huge authoritarian/capitalist nation like China?

[ZeroNowhere]

He's not even for class struggle, so whatever "half" of Marxism he likes means nothing.
Um, no, the quote does not at all imply this. What it does imply is that he lives somewhere where Maoism is influential... Which he does, in fact.
As for the Free Tibet movement, while it has been a pet liberal project for ages, China's government is, it seems, going for the imperialist politicians rather than just some random liberals.
Oh, wait, China is currently at high threat of being attacked by the Western states. I somehow forgot this.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Like, Tibetan Buddhism is going to invade man!! They sacrifice goats and stuff, I read about it!


Seriously, what do you think is the bigger threat to the world, some Llamas on a mountain in Tibet, or a huge authoritarian/capitalist nation like China?

Yes I do.

Their cultural influence and particurly their influence on Hollywood in the west is much stronger. Psychological and cultural power in the long term are much more powerful than military or economnic force.

[BobKKKindle$]

China is an authoritarian capitalist country, it is no longer Marxist/Maoist.Indeed, but this is no reason to give blind support to all individuals or organizations that seek to challenge the authority of the Chinese state. There are close parallels between the situation in Tibet and that in Bolivia, because in both cases a reactionary movement is using the language of cultural autonomy and regional independence to expose an underdeveloped country to the attempts of imperialist powers to exploit its resources, and enhance their strength in a region of strategic importance - and under these conditions, however much we might condemn the Chinese state, it would not be in the interests of the Chinese proletariat, or the proletariat of any other country/region, including Tibet, for Tibet to become an independent country. The United States has consistently given material and financial support to Tibetan exiles, and even today continues to give support to the Dalai Lama, because the movement against the presence of the Chinese state in Tibet represents the most effective means by which the United States can undermine China, and maintain its hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.


Meanwhile, all I see is that Tibet is enduring the chinese version of pangermanism. I can see Hitler claiming Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer from here. Are you actually serious? The claim that the migration of Han Chinese represents the "colonization" of Tibet is an incredibly prejudiced argument because it bears a close similarity to the claims of far-right groups in western countries - that immigration poses a threat to the culture of the majority population, and that barriers to migration should be supported. Socialists have always called for the abolition of border controls in countries like the UK, so why should our position be any different for internal migration, in the case of an underdeveloped country like China?

[Blackscare]

Yes I do.

Their cultural influence and particurly their influence on Hollywood in the west is much stronger. Psychological and cultural power in the long term are much more powerful than military or economnic force.

Mainstream western culture always skims off the top of "exotic" religions/philosophies, I sincerely doubt that the more questionable aspects of Tibetan Buddhism would actually spread, because they are weird and Hollywood want's cool, not weird. Same goes for the average new-agey hipster.

And I don't particularly see Tibetan Buddhism getting a foothold anywhere, in fact I've never noticed it mentioned even by western Buddhism enthusiasts/lay people. Zen is what's popular in the west.

[Hiero]

An old quote showing the ingnorance of the Dalia Lama.

Marxism is not based on morals, infact it is an anti-moralist movement.

[Vincent P.]

Yes I do.

Their cultural influence and particurly their influence on Hollywood in the west is much stronger. Psychological and cultural power in the long term are much more powerful than military or economnic force.

What kind of influence? If your talking of their non-religious culture, you miss. As for their religion/philosophy, well I'm all for a bit more buddhism in western society, and less capitalist exploitation and internet restriction in China.

[Vincent P.]

An old quote showing the ingnorance of the Dalia Lama.

Marxism is not based on morals, infact it is an anti-moralist movement.

You misinterpret "moral". Capitalist is immoral the way it is immoral to torture for fun, not immoral as used in the utilitarian, christian or nihilist way. Or in the worse case, it meant "marxism agree with buddhist morality".

[Vincent P.]

*To-be-deleted post*

[Wanted Man]

Then you're free to participate in an intelligent way to instruct newer members who weren't there "before on this forum", or to kindly piss off and let us have an intelligent debate as you "don't care about the dalai-lama".
It's hard to have an intelligent debate about this subject. People with your position usually just want to have their cake and eat it too. Reasoning like: if the international teddy bear is a "half marxist", then a "free Tibet" would be socialist, so it's okay to support reactionary Tibetan buddhism, or the CIA-sponsored government in exile.

As for freedom of religion and Tibetan buddhism, google "Dorje Shugden controversy".

[Vincent P.]

Indeed, but this is no reason to give blind support to all individuals or organizations that seek to challenge the authority of the Chinese state.
There are close parallels between the situation in Tibet and that in Bolivia, because in both cases a reactionary movement is using the language of cultural autonomy and regional independence to expose an underdeveloped country to the attempts of imperialist powers to exploit its resources, and enhance their strength in a region of strategic importance - and under these conditions, however much we might condemn the Chinese state, it would not be in the interests of the Chinese proletariat, or the proletariat of any other country/region, including Tibet, for Tibet to become an independent country.
As a matter of fact, I wholefully support and share your prudent position on the Dalai-Lama and I greet your analysis of the situation, which I admit to be much deeper than mine for the moment. Yet, I still see the dalai lama as somewhat benevolent, and to emancipate Tibet from all the authoritarian and capitalist side of China sounds legitimate to me. Just one thing: since the late 80's, the Dalai Lama wants an autonomous government, not an independent one.


The United States has consistently given material and financial support to Tibetan exiles, and even today continues to give support to the Dalai Lama, because the movement against the presence of the Chinese state in Tibet represents the most effective means by which the United States can undermine China, and maintain its hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.
I'm perfectly aware about that, but the best way China could tackle US presence if it wanted to, which I doubt, would be to stop providing under-paid labour to US industries. Tibet is little to not industrialized, and exept for its symbolic statut, it isn't much of a strategic point. It wouldn't do much to free Tibet but good for its people.


Are you actually serious?

Actually, no, sorry about that. It's a somewhat very weak analogy I wrote when I was high on adrenaline:P. My bad on that point.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

You misinterpret "moral". Capitalist is immoral the way it is immoral to torture for fun, not immoral as used in the utilitarian, christian or nihilist way. Or in the worse case, it meant "marxism agree with buddhist morality".

I would not agree that Marxism is anti-moral....It is obvious though that Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism in particurlar is amoral. Their hatred of women is also something that I think most people should be freaked out by.

[mikelepore]

Whatever the Dalai Lama's political views, his reliance on magic is still disturbing. I saw him in a documentary video throwing dice to make an administrative decision. He called it "throwing the sacred dice." We should congratulate him for his call for ownership of the means of production by the people. We should criticize his use of magic in the process of administration.

[Hiero]

You misinterpret "moral". Capitalist is immoral the way it is immoral to torture for fun, not immoral as used in the utilitarian, christian or nihilist way. Or in the worse case, it meant "marxism agree with buddhist morality".

The Dalai Lama is religious, we can assume he means morals in a religous sense.

And Marxism doesn't agree with buddhist morality.

[Invincible Summer]

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read that he felt the regimes placed too much emphasis on class struggle? As opposed to being against class struggle period?



Not at all. He said that the previous commie experience put too much emphasis on class struggle, which resulted in a kind of totalitarian, repressive paranoia.
You read "he doesn't like salt" when he said "I like it with a little less salt".

What the hell is "less" class struggle? To aim to destroy only 60% of the capitalist system?


First, how the hell do you know he wouldn't have brought reforms? The guys has been at the head of Tibet for less than one year when Mao popped in.
Also, what you say isn't better than Buch-bots claiming that "after all, America did free Iraq from Saddam Hussein eh?" or 18th century europeans claiming they brought civilisation to Africa.

And in that one year he didn't decide that slavery was disgusting...

Also, I don't think one can really compare China-Tibet and USA-Iraq/Europe-Africa as they happened in totally different historical contexts.



Well it should tilt a light in your head when we're discussing about an expantionist capitalist country occupying a country that could be socialist on a lefty forum.

My point is that the Dalai Lama saying he's "half Marxist" doesn't seem to have any influence on the China-Tibet issue.

[brigadista]

of you dont support the present iranian state why on earth would you support the dalai llama? same shit -different religions -both theocracies

[Vincent P.]

I'd like to thank some of you guy for showing me how contradictory the Dalai Lama is in his quotes and decisions. I'm now very skeptical about him, and his superstitious nature leaves me doubtful on his ability to rule over a country. I've stated in my introduction that I'm here to learn, and I'm happy to retract my former opinion on the matter.

However, my stance on China remains the same: capitalist, expensionist, colonialist.

[Vincent P.]

of you dont support the present iranian state why on earth would you support the dalai llama? same shit -different religions -both theocracies

As a matter of fact I'm not explicitly against religion-driven "state", as long as it is non-integrist, non-expansionist and built out of the blue.
To be concrete: if some religious bozo want to make an islamic commune in the desert, building it with "volunteers" inhabitant who all agree with sharia and who are here for that purpose, and as long as they don't declare holy war to their neighbour, I can't help but support them.
But Iran, in which religious folks took the power of an non-theocratic country and told every unhappy people to go away, is far from having my approbation.

[Invincible Summer]

To be concrete: if some religious bozo want to make an islamic commune in the desert, building it with "volunteers" inhabitant who all agree with sharia and who are here for that purpose, and as long as they don't declare holy war to their neighbour, I can't help but support them..

From your phrasing, I think instead of "support," you mean you wouldn't be against them. There's a difference.

[ZeroNowhere]

What the hell is "less" class struggle? To aim to destroy only 60% of the capitalist system?
More focus on constructing socialism rather than just, "Let's take down the current system. Well, yeah. Yay. Um."

[Vincent P.]

From your phrasing, I think instead of "support," you mean you wouldn't be against them. There's a difference.
Well, in the current context, I would support their initiative as a creative alternative to the common theocratic state. On the long term, supporting them and spread the idea seems like an efficient and peaceful way of preventing and even getting rid of mistakes like Iran.

[Revy]

So why are some of you guys supporting the invasion of Tibet by capitalist, colonialist, repressive China?:sneaky:
Source:http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html
That same site has this also.



Q: You have called for the repatriation of the Chinese who now live in Tibet. Might there be a place for a Chinese population in a democratic, open Tibet?

A: I think we should differentiate the various groups of Chinese living in Tibet. There are, on the one hand, those who were already there in 1949; then all those who went there or were sent in compliance with official plans; and, finally, those who have been coming since the so-called "liberal economic policy," and who come on their own initiative, as individuals. We should also distinguish the Chinese who speak Tibetan and respect Tibetan culture--for, after all, Buddhist culture is not so foreign to them--from all those who come to Tibet merely in search of material wealth and not spiritual wealth. Those who respect Tibetan spirituality could prove themselves to be very beneficial if they stay. If there are not too many of them I see no reason why we could not work it out so that they can remain in Tibet. But as for all those who think that Tibetans are backward and barbarian, that they are dirty and smell bad (we think in turn that the Chinese smell bad, that they eat too much garlic), it would be better if they went home. Why should they stay in a place if they think it is dirty?
This is terribly reactionary, prejudiced, and bigoted. He is saying that he wants to limit the amount of Han Chinese in Tibet in order to preserve a Tibetan majority. This is just like Zionism, the parallels are actually frighteningly similar. If Tibet were to become its own state with this kind of leadership we might see something like Israel.

Some "socialist" supporters of Israel try to bring up the kibbutzim, or claim that Israel was founded by socialists (a laughable idea, but it helps to justify their support for Israel).

[YKTMX]

The exact nature of the Chinese state is not a crucial factor. If anyone can show how it should be, then I am willing to here it.

Meanwhile, it is a complete distraction to answer 'Should Tibet be given national independence?' with 'What is the nature of the Chinese state?' Or, even more evasively, 'what was the nature of Tibet before the Chinese invaded'?

The important aspect here, as in all cases of national oppression/self-determination, is this: Tibetans, who have constituted themselves as a nation and recognise themselves as such, should not be denied national rights by the government of another nation. This is the answer that should come from anyone claiming an even minimally Marxist perspective.

For those who support social progress in Tibet, it is surely clear, not only, that China can not 'bring about' social progress in Tibet, even allowing for Maoist voluntaristic fantasies, but that they are not, as we speak, doing so.

[BobKKKindle$]

Tibetans, who have constituted themselves as a nation and recognise themselves as such, should not be denied national rights by the government of another nation. This is the answer that should come from anyone claiming an even minimally Marxist perspective.I don't think it's useful to approach potential instances of national oppression from a viewpoint based on "national rights". The basic concept of a right is philosophically questionable because, regardless of whether we are concerned with a right that applies to an entire community, based on a set of shared cultural values, such as a right to self-determination, or just a specific individual, Marxists seek to provide a coherent material basis for our ethics, and to link our ethics to political struggles. The concept of a right is a historical phenomenon, and is closely tied up with the bourgeois ideology of individual liberty and the need to have restrictions on the ability of the state to interfere with commercial transactions. This is not to say that that rights, or individual liberty in general, are not important, or that Marxists have no reason to appeal to a right when we think that someone should be allowed to do something, or when we campaign against a repressive policy, but it does mean that rights do not stand independently - there must be some other ethical criterion by which we determine whether Marxists should campaign in favour of any given right. In other words, why do we recognize a right to reproductive freedom, but not a right to exploit? The nature of this criterion is actually very simple - it is whatever is in the interests of the international working class. So, the question we need to be asking is whether the position of the working class - in Tibet, in the rest of China, and in every country around the world - would be better if Tibet were independent? This, of course, also means that we need to think about what would happen to Tibet politically if it became an independent country, and what I am arguing is that, despite the repression currently suffered by Tibetans, Tibet would inevitably fall under the control of the United States, due to the close links between the Dalai Lama and the US state, and become a tool for the strengthening of US hegemony in Asia. This would self-evidently not be a good thing. It is clear that Marxists do not simply go around supporting every single secessionist movement, because we are conscious that national independence can be used by the bourgeoisie for reactionary purposes - see the case of Bolivia mentioned earlier in this thread as an example. The working-class is always at the centre of our politics.

Incidentally, it's good to see you back, and this post is meant to be comradely, not aggressive.

[YKTMX]

Incidentally, it's good to see you back, and this post is meant to be comradely, not aggressive.

I appreciate that.


The basic concept of a right is philosophically questionable because, regardless of whether we are concerned with a right that applies to an entire community, based on a set of shared cultural values, such as a right to self-determination, or just a specific individual, Marxists seek to provide a coherent material basis for our ethics, and to link our ethics to political struggles.

There is a difference between arguing for rights from a natural law position, which I'm not, and arguing for them from the 'material basis' you mention, which I am.


The concept of a right is a historical phenomenon, and is closely tied up with the bourgeois ideology of individual liberty and the need to have restrictions on the ability of the state to interfere with commercial transactions.

No, this isn't strictly accurate. The concept of an individual right is a bourgeois one, or at least it originates in bourgeois society. The concept of rights in general, and national rights specifically, has a long pre-bourgeois tradition - even allowing for the relative newness of the phenomenon of 'nationalism'. There were, for instance, 'rights' accorded in early Judaic and Roman law, but rights tended to refer to the rights of the 'people' to do such and such, not individuals.


The nature of this criterion is actually very simple - it is whatever is in the interests of the international working class.

Yes, I agree, but let's make the 'interests' of the international working class more determinate. Let's say that our 'criterion' is what position best serves the causes of 'international working class unity and the abolition of the wage system'. This begs the question of what the relationship is between the miserable mass of toilers in the Green Zones of Chinese super-exploitation and the Stalinist clique that exploits them. Your proposal would seem to suggest that, on the matter of the Tibet, the interests of the Chinese worker making 50 cence an hour working for Nike and the bureaucrat in Beijing are the same - this is correct, isn't it?


This, of course, also means that we need to think about what would happen to Tibet politically if it became an independent country, and what I am arguing is that, despite the repression currently suffered by Tibetans, Tibet would inevitably fall under the control of the United States, due to the close links between the Dalai Lama and the US state, and become a tool for the strengthening of US hegemony in Asia.

To be honest, I can't subscribe to this view. The reason the Dalai Lama has been thrown into the grip, at least to some extent, of Western imperialism is the behaviour of the Chinese government towards the question of Tibetan independence. You can't say that Tibetan independence would objectively mean such and such, if that such and such is precisely the result of a subjective intervention in Tibetan affairs by the Chinese government.

If, by some miracle, there were a change in policy amongst the ruling classes in China, there seems no objective basis why Tibet can not or would not consent to a friendly relationship with the Chinese state, or even a Federal status within the Chinese Republic.


It is clear that Marxists do not simply go around supporting every single secessionist movement, because we are conscious that national independence can be used by the bourgeoisie for reactionary purposes - see the case of Bolivia mentioned earlier in this thread as an example.

The cases are completely different. There is no history of a seperate national identity in Santa Cruz; no history of a seperation between it and the borders of contemporary Bolivia; no history of a movement galvanizing popular support amongst 'Santa Cruzans' for independence; no sense in which the people of Santa Clara have been 'oppressed' by the Bolivian state! All these things do exist, demonstrably, in the case of Tibet.

[Random Precision]

^^^ This, and I'd just like to add that any future independence or national-liberation movement in Tibet would actually have to break with the Dalai Lama and the Lamaist hierarchy, considering the current DL's commitment to negotiating for Tibetan rights within the Chinese state rather than Tibetan independence. Also as for this:


The United States has consistently given material and financial support to Tibetan exiles, and even today continues to give support to the Dalai Lama, because the movement against the presence of the Chinese state in Tibet represents the most effective means by which the United States can undermine China, and maintain its hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.

But we don't support or oppose claims to national sovereignty based on geo-political factors. Hal Draper says in The ABC of National Liberation Movements (a text which you yourself have endorsed) that revolutionary socialists support national liberation as it is a democratic demand that "facilitates the struggle for socialist democracy", since the presence of an occupying power tends to overlay the class struggle. Regardless of whether national-liberation is supported by an imperial power out of its own motives, we support the fulfillment of the goal itself. We can take the case of Kosovar independence: it was supported by the United States to reduce Serbian power in the region, nevertheless socialists recognize that Kosovars were an oppressed nation in the Serbian state and support their right to self-determination.


Are you actually serious? The claim that the migration of Han Chinese represents the "colonization" of Tibet is an incredibly prejudiced argument because it bears a close similarity to the claims of far-right groups in western countries - that immigration poses a threat to the culture of the majority population, and that barriers to migration should be supported. Socialists have always called for the abolition of border controls in countries like the UK, so why should our position be any different for internal migration, in the case of an underdeveloped country like China?

It's an entirely different situation. In Tibet, it's been the ruling class of China itself that has encouraged Han Chinese migration to increase its dominance over the province. Not only that, but Tibetans currently are second-class citizens compared to the Chinese settlers. So they're completely justified in calling for the removal of Han migrants, or at least an end to immigration, in much the same way Palestinians under the British mandate were justified in calling for an end to Jewish migration.

[RedHal]

George Bush sure loves them "half Marxists" :laugh:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/18/dalaibush1_wideweb__470x349,0.jpg

[Vincent P.]

Hehe yeah. CIA is backing him, and he lost much credit in my eyes for doing so.