china getting capitalistic

[mannetje]

how do you people see China in 50 years. will it really be the economic super power what they say it is gonna be? and what will be the consequences for communism over there? :confused:

[red cat]

how do you people see China in 50 years. will it really be the economic super power what they say it is gonna be? and what will be the consequences for communism over there? :confused:

Most probably the present Chinese state capitalist regime will be overthrown by a socialist revolution within the next two decades.

[rebelmouse]

how do you people see China in 50 years. will it really be the economic super power what they say it is gonna be? and what will be the consequences for communism over there? :confused:

watch Russia, it is China in next decades. china is just slower than Russia, that's the only difference. In any case, China is already example of failure.
and I don't think China will be super power, the same as I think that USA is not super power, at least not in that sense that people have something from it. only rulers and riches have something from it. although it is the truth that USA has one of strongest military in the world but ordinary Americans don't have anything from it, or they have just small benefits but big security risk because of wars. but it is not economic power than military power.
people forget one thing: terminology is adopted from economic (capitalist) magazines which glorify possibility for corporations in China. their "economic development" means development of business of riches, not development of life of workers.
beside it, China ruling class started to exploit oil in Africa, big business means also corruption and pollution and poverty for local inhabitants, so China adopt more and more politics of EU and USA in international relations and business.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Most probably the present Chinese state capitalist regime will be overthrown by a socialist revolution within the next two decades.
I admire your optimism.

To the OP: There's never been real communism in China. The rule of the Chinese "Communist" Party was only ever another form of capitalism. The sooner the last of these failed Stalinist regimes go, the quicker we can get on with building actual communism.

[F9]

China, never was, and of course it sure isnt a communist "state".. China has always been a capitalist state..If it become a super power, i dont think other current supper powers will "allow it".

[BobKKKindle$]

China can't be getting more capitalistic because there was never a point at which China was non-capitalist, to any degree whatsoever. The view that China was once a "socialist" country stems from the mistaken assumption that capitalism relies on private ownership. The fact of the matter is that the changes which took place in 1949 never had anything to do with the working class seizing control of the means of production and establishing its own organs of power, i.e. the criteria that Marxists use to establish whether a revolution is socialist or not, rather that year marked the conclusion of a prolonged struggle that was situated in the countryside, and had begun after the CPC was deprived of its working-class base in 1927. This was reflected in the class composition of the CPC, as, in late 1944, it was estimated that 93% of party members had joined since the outbreak of war, and 90% of the recruits were of peasant origin, whilst the leadership was comprised almost solely of intellectuals, and merchants, amongst other privileged sectors. Mao's own statements give a clear indication of the absence of working-class participation, as, in a Peking Radio broadcast on the 4th of June, 1949, Mao stated that workers should "co-operate with the capitalists, so that maximum production can be attained", and in the same year party leaders condemned the Labour Maintenance Law of October 1945 on the grounds that it had set wages too high, and introduced "excessive" welfare measures. China's revolution of 1949 marked the victory of a bourgeois-populist movement, nothing more, nothing less.

[red cat]

To the OP: I would advise you to read up on Maoist theory and China's history to find out yourself whether China was socialist earlier or not. Also, check out the websites of the communist parties which are actually making revolution. If you are not already an anarchist or Trot, I think you will be able to relate Marxist theory and practice with each other.

[bailey_187]

Peking Radio broadcast on the 4th of June, 1949, Mao stated that workers should "co-operate with the capitalists, so that maximum production can be attained", and in the same year party leaders condemned the Labour Maintenance Law of October 1945 on the grounds that it had set wages too high, and introduced "excessive" welfare measures. China's revolution of 1949 marked the victory of a bourgeois-populist movement, nothing more, nothing less.

So nothing happened after 1949 did it? Moa just made some statements in 1949 and nothing else. Great leap forward? didnt happen. Great Proletarian Cultural revolution? forget about it. all that matters is a few statements made by Mao in 1949.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So nothing happened after 1949 did it? Moa just made some statements in 1949 and nothing else. Great leap forward? didnt happen.
Causing a famine =/= communism.

Great Proletarian Cultural revolution? forget about it.
A faction fight among the ruling Chinese bureaucracy =/= a great proletarian revolution.

[mannetje]

it's very complicated for me the situation in china. I picked up here too look at russia and if i look at russia ,i don't predict very good things for china in the future. russia is now one fucked up country with too much divide in classes. from billionaires to people living in siberia eating only deermeat. And the russian mob is a pretty fucked up honourless branche of the maffia. the expensive prices in moscow and other cities what most people can't afford. so that they even drink lampoil to get drunk. russia is very tragic in my eyes. It would be fucked up if that history repeats again in china. not that there is now already very much capitalism in china. but it can be worse that's for sure.

[bailey_187]

Causing a famine =/= communism.

A faction fight among the ruling Chinese bureaucracy =/= a great proletarian revolution.

No but collectivising land and overthrowing capitalist-roaders does

[red cat]

Causing a famine =/= communism.

A faction fight among the ruling Chinese bureaucracy =/= a great proletarian revolution.

Anarchism + Trotskyism = falsification of history + counter-revolutionary activities.

[BobKKKindle$]

So nothing happened after 1949 did it? Moa just made some statements in 1949 and nothing else. Great leap forward? didnt happen. Great Proletarian Cultural revolution? forget about it. all that matters is a few statements made by Mao in 1949.Well, no, of course things happened. Things have also happened since Obama was elected. Atlee's administration did a lot of good things after 1945 in Britain as well such as founding the National Health Service and initiating a council-housing program. But none of the things that happened after 1949 had anything to do with socialism - they were all orientated towards the development of the forces of production, although at times the bureaucracy adopted policies that actually undermined that goal, due to poor judgments on the part of Mao and other sections of the leadership, such as the Great Leap Forward, which, according to Eckstein (Eckstein, Gaienson and Liu, 1968) caused China to suffer a serious decline in output, to the extent that China's GDP may not have recovered to the 1958 level even by 1965, costing the country a full decade of economic growth. A single statement from Mao doesn't "prove" that China wasn't socialist of course, we can look at other forms of evidence if you want. But when the leader of a party that claims to represent the class interests of the proletariat calls on workers not to challenge their bosses I find it hard to believe that the party in question has much to do with revolution. This shouldn't surprise us much because Mao was always willing to carry out the policy of the Comintern by making concessions to the KMT and restraining the struggles of workers and peasants in order to continue the alliance, even when the KMT had made begun the repression of the left, which culminated in the events of 1927 in Canton and Shanghai. Mao was, for example, one of the leading proponents of the Northern Expedition, and took up the post of editor of the Kuomintang journal Political Weekly, a post which he retained even after Chiang Kai-Shek, using the threat of a left-wing coup as his pretext, had carried out his first attack on the left in March 1926, when he forced the Comintern so submit a full list of all CPC members to the executive of the KMT, required the same body to submit all decisions to the KMT before they were implemented, and removed all Communists heading KMT departments. Even after the events of 1927, Mao maintained his faith in the value of the popular front on the grounds that only cooperation with the KMT would enable China to defeat Japan, and as part of this popular-frontist approach he contended that land reform should be limited to rent reductions as long as the war continued so as to avoid alienating the "patriotic" section of the landlord class. The CPC's alienation from popular struggle was such that when the new policy on land reform was published in October 1947, legitimizing the seizure of land for the first time, the CPC was quick to oppose the resulting wave of land seizures which swept across the Chinese countryside, with Mao arguing that peasants who had seized land should not follow landlords into the towns to deliver class justice, rejecting the seizure of industrial enterprises, calling for the reclassification of rich peasants and landlords as "middle peasants", and asserting that poor peasant associations should be required to admit rich peasants, landlords and the “enlightened gentry” into their ranks. Mao summed up this view and revealed his inherent class-collaboration by asserting that the "democratic government" should pay attention to the concerns of "middle peasants, the independent craftsmen, the national bourgeoisie and the intellectuals” instead of just "workers, poor peasants and farm labourers", condemning those who emphasized the class interests of these latter groups as putting forward a "poor peasant-farm labourer line", all of those quotes being taken from the document Correct the “Left” Errors in Land Reform Propaganda, 11 February 1948. These are not the signs of a revolutionary party.

[BobKKKindle$]

No replies? I was hoping for a lively debate on the Chinese Revolution.

[scarletghoul]

As Liu Shaoqi said -

"Without doubt, in the future, China will travel towards Socialism and Communism, because the outcome of the industrialisation of China will either lead China to Socialism, or turn her into an imperialist country. The latter alternative will not be allowed by the Chinese people and the peoples of the world."


http://marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1949/09/22.htm

[red cat]

...though he subsequently chose the latter option himself.:D
People change.

[scarletghoul]

China never became imperialist.

Liu was referring to when China has fully developed into a first world country like the US or UK. This hasn't happened yet, let alone under Liu. From the view of the "capitalist-roaders", the main priority was to industrialise and develop China, and they thought capitalism was the best way to do this, with socialism only being possible after China is developed enough. China is still in the capitalist stage at the moment, but eventually it will reach a crossroads of socialism or imperialism.
This is only in the future though, China is still far from completing the capitalist stage (in the liu-dengist view).
So Liu hasn't really changed

[red cat]

I don't exactly know the places where Chinese capital is acting now, but isn't it taken as granted that after the emergence of imperialism, every capitalist country will have some amount of its capital acting in some colony?

Also, I think the capitalist-roader issue is to be seen in a different light. It is not that they don't "know" how to develop their country optimally. What they actually try is to seize power, at the cost of destroying most successes achieved due to the revolution. And you will notice that the character of the Chinese Government is that of a "soft-fascist"; not yet as totalitarian as pre WW2 Italy or Germany, but far more than the modern West. This is typical of a country when it has too much surplus capital(which means a tremendous amount of exploitation among its own people) and needs colonies for the same to act. So, if China is not yet a big imperialist power, it is to become one very soon.

Let me know what you think, comrade.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

China never became imperialist.

That must come as a relief to the population of Tibet, who could be excused for thinking otherwise.

[bailey_187]

That must come as a relief to the population of Tibet, who could be excused for thinking otherwise.

freeing serfs from feudalism and a barbaric theocracy is Imperialism?

BRB of to join the Imperialist British army.

[red cat]

But you cannot compare socialist China's policies to those of the present one!
At present, most of the big companies in Tibet are owned by Hans from outside Tibet, and the condition of the local population is much worse than tha of the rest of China. Therefore, any progressive movement for national liberation in Tibet may be rather acceptable( not the one under Dalai Lama, as it will convert Tibet into a semi-colony ). Can the present Chinese policies regarding Tibet be compared to imperialism?

[bailey_187]

the condition of the local population is much worse than tha of the rest of China.

Not true. Poverty is obviously higher than in Shanghai and Beijing etc but poverty rates in the rest of rural China are higher than in Tibet.

[red cat]

Are you absolutely sure ? Please state your source.

[bailey_187]

Are you absolutely sure ? Please state your source.

I will tomorrow. We were studying Tibet in Geography today at school(where i read what i said) but my work is all still at school.

[BobKKKindle$]

China never became imperialist.

I don't think China is imperialist either, but it's absurd to characterize the early PRC as a supporter of anti-imperialism. The Chinese government enthusiastically supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, and, when participating in the Geneva Peace Talks in 1954, Zhou Enlai called on the Vietminh to accept the partition of Vietnam, and to halt hostilities, instead of seeking to drive the French out of the country once and for all. When Vietnam was finally united, the PRC asserted its claim over the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South China Sea, referring to them as her "sacred territory" - a territorial claim which persists to this day, and represents an attempt by the PRC to establish regional hegemony, at the expense of Vietnam being able to develop her economy, and exploit the oil reserves that are located beneath the islands. In the case of the Phillipines (which shoud be of interest to you, given how much you like Sison) the wife of President Marcos, who violently suppressed a prolonged Maoist insurgency in Central Luzon province, as well as a Muslim insurgency in the southern parts of the country, and constructed a repressive civilian dictatorship, was invited to China in September 1974, and was presented with a trade agreement, under whch the Phillipines would recieve Chinese oil. Marcos himself was recieved by the Chinese government on an official state visit the following year, despite being one of the closest allies of the United States in Asia. Chinese policy towards Indonesia exhibited the same lack of support for revolutionary forces, and a desire to develop diplomatic ties at any cost, as, at the time of the toppling of Sukarno's government in 1965, China did not condemn the coup, despite the execution of 200,000 PKI members, and only broke off diplomatic relations in 1967, due to an attack on the Chinese embassy in April 1966. These cases demonstrate that, in addition to seeking to assert her own interests against those of other countries, the PRC also enhanced the interests of US imperialism, by giving legitimacy to the US' key allies, and hence cannot be seen as a progressive state on the international stage.

[red cat]

First of all, we know that after the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia, it is impossible for the national bourgeoisie of any country to complete their bourgeois revolution. This is because the November revolution was an example of the almost immediate consequences of a bourgeois revolution henceforth. So, instead of completing the bourgeois revolution, to retain at least some amount of class dictatorship, the national bourgeoisie subordinates itself to imperialism and turns into a comprador class. Therefore, as China is capitalist now, and all other revolutions before 1949 were largely incomplete and based only to a few provinces at most, we can safely conclude that China did experience something far more powerful than a bourgeois revolution in 1949. Another immediate conclusion is, that China underwent a counter-revolution at some point after 1949.

Now let us take into account one by one the policy of China towards some nations mentioned by BobKKKindle$:

1) Korea: China provided economic and military support in resisting the US. About 30% of China's budget was directed towards this cause in 1950. In the same year, about 300,000 Chinese soldiers took part in the war on Korean land.

2)Indochina: China supported revolutionary movements in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos. The Vietminh started receiving direct military help right from 1946. In 1950, about 20,000 Vietminh soldiers were trained and equipped in China. Chinese military advisors went to Vietnam, and after the Korean War, large quantities of arms and ammunition from the Korean front were supplied to Vietnam.

Here it should be mentioned that a communist party can only advise and help a fraternal party. Never did the CPC force the decision of dividing Vietnam on the Vietminh. As periods of armed struggle must be accompanied periods of relative peace, to recruit and reorganize, a temporary solution in the form of a divided Vietnam might have been found by the Vietminh itself.

3)Indonesia: Relations with China were suspended as early as March 1966. After the communist massacre, China sheltered several exiled PKI members and even trained a few hundred in order to launch a peoples' war there. This plan was never put into action due to military inconveniences.

4)Philippines: I could not find a single document of PKP mentioning your claim. On the other hand, it is well known that despite the task being too troublesome and risky, the CPC had actually succeeded in shipping arms to the PKP.

As with other countries, formal trade might have occured between the two countries, but had the situation been potentially dangerous to the PKP, then I believe that PKP would have surely conveyed the message to the CPC. And as a true internationalist party, the CPC would have agreed to cut all relations with Philippines, for it is an internationalist norm that the actions of any foreign communist party in a country are subordinated to the interests of the native one.



Thus, as we see, China's policy towards these countries was far from being erroneous. Though I would never claim that each an every action of the CPC was correct, through its numerous actions in supporting revolutions worldwide the CPC has confirmed again and again its true proletarian and internationalist character. However, this is rather futile an attempt to explain this to people belonging to tendencies that have never attempted conducting a revolution anywhere, let alone leading a socialist state.

The historical glory of a party lies in the revolutionary line it continues to preach and practice, and even after its destruction, its legacy is kept alive by its fraternal parties that continue to practice and develop the same. Likewise, the proof of the fact that the pre-1976 CPC was communist indeed lies in the success of several parties including the PKP, CPI(Maoist), TKPML, PCP(Sendero Luminoso) etc who continue to apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism creatively to their own countries, leading the masses from victory to victory.

[BobKKKindle$]

First of all, we know that after the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia, it is impossible for the national bourgeoisie of any country to complete their bourgeois revolutionYou are right in saying that the weakness of the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries makes it incapable of carrying out the democratic tasks that Marx assigned to the rising bourgeoisie in France, you are also right in saying that the weakness of this class will make it take the side of imperialism whenever its interests are threatened, which is exactly what happened in China during the course of the May 30th Movement. The irony is that these ideas constitute an integral part of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, and informed Trotsky's writings on China, whereas Stalin's approach to China was based on the assumption that the revolution would proceed by stages, with the national bourgeoisie playing a progressive role during the first stage, and then being swept aside once a basic set of democratic demands had been met. In the text Questions of the Chinese Revolution, for example, Stalin asserts that "[during] the first period of the Chinese revolution [...] the national bourgeoisie (not the compradors) sided with the revolution". It was this view that supported the subordination of the CPC to the KMT for most of the 1920s, with horrific consequences. However, the weakness of the Chinese bourgeoisie does not mean that the events in 1949 constitute a socialist revolution, or had anything to do with socialism, and nor is it the case that China necessarily experienced the restoration of capitalism at some point in the 1970s, as you claim. The events of 1949 involved of a section of the petty-bourgeoisie appealing to the peasantry with populist slogans and using a mass support base and military strength to seize power from the bourgeoisie, the key aim of their coup being to develop the forces of production, and carry out national reunification. The evidence for this lies in the lack of involvement on the part of the working class in helping the CPC to come to power, as well as the anti-worker policies that have been adopted by the CPC throughout the PRC's history, and especially just after the PRC had been established. This phenomenon was not specific to China but can be applied to many underdeveloped countries, especially just after WW2. A further example is the Free Officers Movement in Egypt, which, under the leadership of Nasser, established itself as the new ruling class, having toppled the monarchy and its British supporters. The only difference between the Free Officers Movement and the CPC is that the former never bothered to obscure its class character and nationalist ideology with socialist language, whereas the CPC did this, partly in order to gain popular support, but also because it was originally a revolutionary organization, before the Comintern's flawed strategy led to it being expelled from China's cities, and losing its working-class base.


1) Korea [etc]The war in Korea was, in the view of the IST, a proxy war, conducted by the puppet states of two major power blocs, neither of which had anything to do with socialism, and so even if the PRC rendered support to North Korea, that is not evidence of the PRC having a progressive foreign policy, merely evidence that the PRC was part of the state-capitalist bloc. However, it is widely acknowledged by historians of the Korean War that what caused the PRC to intervene with such large numbers of "volunteers" was the decision of the UN forces to move beyond the 38th parallel (it had been agreed that the UN's mandate would only extend to removing North Korean forces from the territory of the ROK, and so this was widely criticized as a breach of the mandate) and approach the Yalu River, as well as MacArthur's stated desire to use the war as an opportunity to remove the CPC from power, including the use of nuclear weapons against Beijing. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the PRC's intervention in Korea involved anything more than geopolitics. I would also be interested to see a source for your allegation that the PRC devoted 30% of its state spending to the war in Korea. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the military budget constituted 30% of spending at that point, but that is not the same as saying that the government was spending that sum solely on the intervention in Korea.


2)Indochina: China supported revolutionary movements in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.I've never found any information on China's foreign relations with Myanmar or Laos, or evidence that China supported revolutionary movements in those countries, so a source would be appreciated. In the case of Thailand, however, diplomatic relations were established in 1971 (although Thailand did not normalize relations or formally recognize China until 1975, a month before Saigon fell) with both countries agreeing to stop hostile radio propaganda and open up trade. During the same year the Thai Prime Minister, Pramoj Kukrit, made a state visit, and signed an agreement with China concerning relations between the two countries, as part of which (Article 8 to be specific) Chinese nationals in Thailand were instructed to "abide by the law of the Kingdom of Thailand" and not to "make revolution". Mao was reported to have told the Thai delegation that China was not giving support to militants, or funding the clandestine radio station Voice of the Thai People, going so far as to say that the Thai government should not worry about the threat of communist revolution, as "since it [the CPT] is small, it should not be dangerous". The same promises were made by Zhou Enlai when a further visit took place in 1974, which also involved the two countries seeking to improve bilateral relations, and resulted in China being given normal trading status, marking the end of a fifteen-year ban, despite Thailand still being a member of SEATO, and allowing US forces to use the country as a base to launch air strikes against neighboring countries, especially Vietnam. These are not the signs of a revolutionary foreign policy in South-East Asia. The recent history of the Thai labour movement also demonstrates the shortcomings of Maoism from the viewpoint of revolutionary strategy and engagement with the struggles of the working class, as, when Bangkok experienced a major period of industrial unrest during 1973-6, there was no party capable of leading the struggles, due to the CPT focusing on organizing a guerrilla war in the isolated north-eastern regions of the country, away from the hubs of working-class activity.


Relations with China were suspended as early as March 1966Actually, relations were suspended in October 1967 (source (http://www.indonesianembassy-china.org/en/relations.html) from the Indonesian embassy in China) and all the evidence suggests that this had nothing to do with the massacre of the PKI, and everything to do with the attack that was carried out against the Chinese embassy in 1966, as China continued its aid program once the military government had established itself, and did not issue any public statement at the time of the coup. I've never seen any evidence to show that the PRC did help PKI militants and the practice of the PRC in other countries which have experienced right-wing coups suggests that this is unlikely to be the case, the most obvious example being the PRC's policy in Chile during the overthrow of Allende, as China was one of only three foreign legations, the others being France and Britain, that refused to offer support to militants who were being hunted by the government, and, due to its decision to give formal recognition to Pinochet, and continue the aid program that had been established under Allende, the PRC was later praised by Chile's under-secretary of foreign affairs for not isolating the regime, and lending it legitimacy.


Philippines: I could not find a single document of PKP mentioning your claimIf you google something like "1974 china marcos visit" you'll get all the documents you need - including this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2IvNFudyeA) rather charming video, seemingly produced in China for consumption in English-speaking countries, of Imelda Marcos strolling around Beijing, along with, according to the video, a delegation of "university representatives" and "private businessmen". Even if the PKP is silent, there's really no doubt that China did pursue close relations with the Philippines during the 1970s. You may also be interested to know that during the 1970s, Peru became the largest recipient of Chinese aid in Latin America, with a Sino-Peruvian trade agreement being signed in June 1971, shortly after the signing of a Soviet-Peruvian treaty. In this context it's amusing that you cite the Sendoro Luminoso as one of the examples of Maoism's internal success as that organization was established towards the end of the 1960s, such that China was giving aid to the government that a Maoist group was condemning as an American puppet and trying to overthrow. How do you account for this inconsistency?


Though I would never claim that each an every action of the CPC was correct,I'm willing to accept that a revolutionary government might make mistakes. But when the foreign policy of the PRC is analyzed from a broad perspective, looking at how the policy was executed over time, and in different continents, it becomes clear that the kind of examples you might reject as being mistakes weren't isolated instances, but part of a general trend, which involved the PRC appealing to various countries, regardless of whether they were progressive or not, even when the governments of those countries were carrying out repression against socialists.


people belonging to tendencies that have never attempted conducting a revolution anywhereThis statement demonstrates that you and other Stalinists see yourselves as a group whose role it is to bring liberation to other people. I don't understand revolutions in terms of "tendencies" taking power. I'm interested in the self-emancipation of the working class, and, using that as a criterion to establish whether an historical event constitutes a revolution or not, it is fair to say that the working class did not emancipate itself in China in 1949, and that the only time the working class has succeeded in taking a major step towards self-emancipation by establishing its own institutions of class rule, putting aside examples like the Paris Commune, is the Russian Revolution.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

freeing serfs from feudalism and a barbaric theocracy is Imperialism?

BRB of to join the Imperialist British army.
No, of course there's no reason why imperialists might want to represent their actions as being progressive. I'm sure you think that bringing democracy to Iraq and overthrowing a barbaric military dictatorship can't be imperialist either.

[manic expression]

No, of course there's no reason why imperialists might want to represent their actions as being progressive. I'm sure you think that bringing democracy to Iraq and overthrowing a barbaric military dictatorship can't be imperialist either.

But democracy hasn't been brought to Iraq, and it won't be as long as the US has something to say about it.

In contrast, the PRC did overthrow the feudal regime in Tibet, and thus did bring progress to the nation of Tibet.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

But democracy hasn't been brought to Iraq, and it won't be as long as the US has something to say about it.

In contrast, the PRC did overthrow the feudal regime in Tibet, and thus did bring progress to the nation of Tibet.
But the US did overthrow the military regime in Iraq. Thus, by your criteria, they did bring progress to the nation of Iraq.

[manic expression]

But the US did overthrow the military regime in Iraq. Thus, by your criteria, they did bring progress to the nation of Iraq.

Not when they replaced it with an imperialist occupation. This act destroyed the self-determination of the Iraqi people, and violated every imaginable definition of national sovereignty. Further, the rights of the Iraqi people (especially with regard to women's rights, but also education, ethnic and religious tolerance and other areas) have declined drastically because of the imperialist invasion.

So no, by my criteria, the US imperialist invasion was not progressive. The PRC's work in Tibet, however, has done much the opposite in almost every category.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

This act destroyed the self-determination of the Iraqi people
Because they had self-determination under Saddam?

and violated every imaginable definition of national sovereignty.
Because Tibet has national sovereignty now?

[Outinleftfield]

Not when they replaced it with an imperialist occupation. This act destroyed the self-determination of the Iraqi people, and violated every imaginable definition of national sovereignty. Further, the rights of the Iraqi people (especially with regard to women's rights, but also education, ethnic and religious tolerance and other areas) have declined drastically because of the imperialist invasion.

So no, by my criteria, the US imperialist invasion was not progressive. The PRC's work in Tibet, however, has done much the opposite in almost every category.

Right just like life in Cuba improved after the US replaced the Spanish rule with their rule.

It doesnt matter. It is irrelevant if the tyranny the Chinese government set up was better than the tyranny that existed before there. Doesnt change their motives or that the Tibetan people are still being exploited and oppressed. If Iraq by some miracle stabilizes and becomes a developed nation in the next few decades that wouldn't justify the US invasion or change the motives behind it.

I doubt China is going to become a superpower at least not under the CCP. Its economy rests on a house of cards. Its almost entirely based on foreign investment. All that has to happen is for foreign investors to invest elsewhere and its economy collapses. Looking at the reaction to Chinese economic policies in the West(such as Obama's new tariff) and the declining state of the global economy this event will probably take place in the next decade if not the next year.

There are many problems in China. There are the ethnic tensions with the Uighurs and Tibetans. Then there are dissident groups in the shadows. And then there's a growing gap between rich and poor. But the worst problem for China is that the CCP is contradicting its legitimizing ideology with its policies.

When a ruling class seizes power it starts out with few obvious contradictions to its legitimizing ideology but as time goes on and it must do things that contradict its legitimizing ideology either to keep its power or to gain more wealth and power. It has to keep inventing excuses to make it sound like there are no contradictions. But just like lying eventually it catches up to them. Eventually the contradictions are obvious and everyone sees the lies for what they are. Its easier to believe there are no contradictions when the economy is doing good. When it does bad people start questioning things. So the only thing keeping the CCP in power in China right now is its economy. Its legitimacy has too many holes in it. All it would take right now to spark revolution in China is a depression or even just a recession.

Then maybe China will be socialist, real socialism, not the fake socialism its been under. But a socialist country will not try to be a superpower or imperialist. Socialists in that country will undoubtedly want to see the revolution spread but they will not be trying to exploit other countries.

[manic expression]

Because they had self-determination under Saddam?

They had independence as a country. They don't anymore. That's the point.


Because Tibet has national sovereignty now?Yep.


It is irrelevant if the tyranny the Chinese government set up was better than the tyranny that existed before there.

I dispute the use of the word "tyranny" in that sense. Further, it is not irrelevant, even if the PRC was "oppressing" the Tibetan nation (which it isn't, really), not all oppression is equal. Here, the question is irrelevant, though, but only because the actions of the PRC liberated the nation of Tibet from feudal and potential imperialist oppression.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

They had independence as a country. They don't anymore. That's the point.
Strange. I thought Marxists were supposed to think in terms of classes, not the abstract bourgeois fictions of nations. Guess I was wrong.


Yep.

*Backs away quietly.*

[Devrim]

Because they had self-determination under Saddam? They had independence as a country. They don't anymore. That's the point.

Strange because I remember at the time all of the leftists saying Iraq was a US puppet state. National independence for small countries is impossible in the era of imperialism.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Strange. I thought Marxists were supposed to think in terms of classes, not the abstract bourgeois fictions of nations. Guess I was wrong. You and I don't agree on most aspects of the national question, especially whether it's progressive for socialists to support movements fighting against national oppression, whether offering support amounts to calling on workers to support a faction of the ruling class, and so on, but in this case I think you're absolutely right to criticize the way that ME and other Stalinists approach the national question. Their approach is characterized by an emphasis on abstract concepts and slogans like "national sovereignty" and a belief that it is possible for countries to be equal and sovereign even under the conditions of imperialism. I would reject this approach on the grounds that it ignores the political domination of ruling classes within individual countries as well as the constraints that being part of an imperialist world-system imposes on what governments are capable of doing, both in relation to their own economies, and in the way they engage with other states. The Trotskyist approach to the national question is not based on abstract slogans like "national sovereignty" but everywhere seeks to base itself on the interests of the international working class and especially the need to break down barriers that currently divide different sections of the class against each other. In other words, we oppose instances of national oppression not because we think such instances violate "national sovereignty" but because the presence of an occupying power constitutes a barrier to working-class struggle, for workers in both imperialist countries, and countries that are being subject to occupation. You may not agree that supporting national liberation struggles does help raise the confidence of the working class or forge international unity but I still feel that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between the way Stalinists consider this issue and the Trotskyist approach, as we do not accept the morality of petit-bourgeois nationalism, and therefore do not give illusory concepts like sovereignty any moral weight. It is not unlike the divide between Marxists and Liberals on political concepts like "democracy" and "equality", as Marxists always seek to show that these terms are meaningless under capitalism, and need to be understood from a materialist perspective, by analyzing how they manifest themselves in the conditions of class society, how they are used as ideological weapons to serve different class interests, and so on, whereas Liberals operate in the real of abstract morality, devoid of class content. In taking a strategic (as distinct from a moral, abstract) approach to the national question, Trotskyists stand in the tradition of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks did not show the slightest bit of respect for national sovereignty during the early years of the Soviet state as they consistently sought to interfere in the affairs of other states, i.e. to violate their "national sovereignty", including oppressed nations, by lending support to revolutionaries*, and, when necessary, using military force, as in the case of Poland in 1920, in the hope that doing so would topple the governments of these states, and further the international revolution. By cloaking themselves with the language of national sovereignty, Stalinists are obscuring Lenin and Marx's approach to the national question, which takes concrete strategic concerns as its starting-point.

* If Devrim sees this he will doubtless remind me that the Soviet government also gave support to Ataturk and other reactionary leaders. Needless to say, this was a mistake.

[manic expression]

Strange. I thought Marxists were supposed to think in terms of classes, not the abstract bourgeois fictions of nations. Guess I was wrong.

Someone forgot to tell Karl Marx that Marxists can't talk of nations. :rolleyes: Oh, and don't worry about the fact that nations are concrete realities with a consistent definition.

[red cat]

You are right in saying that the weakness of the bourgeoisie in underdeveloped countries makes it incapable of carrying out the democratic tasks that Marx assigned to the rising bourgeoisie in France, you are also right in saying that the weakness of this class will make it take the side of imperialism whenever its interests are threatened, which is exactly what happened in China during the course of the May 30th Movement. The irony is that these ideas constitute an integral part of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, and informed Trotsky's writings on China, whereas Stalin's approach to China was based on the assumption that the revolution would proceed by stages, with the national bourgeoisie playing a progressive role during the first stage, and then being swept aside once a basic set of democratic demands had been met. In the text Questions of the Chinese Revolution, for example, Stalin asserts that "[during] the first period of the Chinese revolution [...] the national bourgeoisie (not the compradors) sided with the revolution". It was this view that supported the subordination of the CPC to the KMT for most of the 1920s, with horrific consequences. However, the weakness of the Chinese bourgeoisie does not mean that the events in 1949 constitute a socialist revolution, or had anything to do with socialism, and nor is it the case that China necessarily experienced the restoration of capitalism at some point in the 1970s, as you claim. The events of 1949 involved of a section of the petty-bourgeoisie appealing to the peasantry with populist slogans and using a mass support base and military strength to seize power from the bourgeoisie, the key aim of their coup being to develop the forces of production, and carry out national reunification. The evidence for this lies in the lack of involvement on the part of the working class in helping the CPC to come to power, as well as the anti-worker policies that have been adopted by the CPC throughout the PRC's history, and especially just after the PRC had been established. This phenomenon was not specific to China but can be applied to many underdeveloped countries, especially just after WW2. A further example is the Free Officers Movement in Egypt, which, under the leadership of Nasser, established itself as the new ruling class, having toppled the monarchy and its British supporters. The only difference between the Free Officers Movement and the CPC is that the former never bothered to obscure its class character and nationalist ideology with socialist language, whereas the CPC did this, partly in order to gain popular support, but also because it was originally a revolutionary organization, before the Comintern's flawed strategy led to it being expelled from China's cities, and losing its working-class base.

I didn't claim that what China completed in 1949 was a socialist revolution. I just claimed that was more powerful than a bourgeois revolution, because otherwise, China would have gone back to a semi feudal- semi colonial state instead of being capitalist today. So, definitely, it was not as simple as the petit-bourgeoisie using peasants to seize power, as that would still result the revolution to be a bourgeois one.

And the CC members of the CPC who were actually responsible for its interests getting subordinated to those of GMD were subsequently removed. These were the people who got Trotsky's moral support.

Also, in a country like China, it is impossible to organize military offensives against the ruling class in the cities. Therefore the revolution must have its centres in the countryside. The participation of workers in the revolution was demonstrated by workers seizing power in several cities after a certain amount of the government forces were liquidated in the countryside.



The war in Korea was, in the view of the IST, a proxy war, conducted by the puppet states of two major power blocs, neither of which had anything to do with socialism, and so even if the PRC rendered support to North Korea, that is not evidence of the PRC having a progressive foreign policy, merely evidence that the PRC was part of the state-capitalist bloc. However, it is widely acknowledged by historians of the Korean War that what caused the PRC to intervene with such large numbers of "volunteers" was the decision of the UN forces to move beyond the 38th parallel (it had been agreed that the UN's mandate would only extend to removing North Korean forces from the territory of the ROK, and so this was widely criticized as a breach of the mandate) and approach the Yalu River, as well as MacArthur's stated desire to use the war as an opportunity to remove the CPC from power, including the use of nuclear weapons against Beijing. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the PRC's intervention in Korea involved anything more than geopolitics. I would also be interested to see a source for your allegation that the PRC devoted 30% of its state spending to the war in Korea. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the military budget constituted 30% of spending at that point, but that is not the same as saying that the government was spending that sum solely on the intervention in Korea.

Well, the IST's point of view can be wrong you know.




I've never found any information on China's foreign relations with Myanmar or Laos, or evidence that China supported revolutionary movements in those countries, so a source would be appreciated. In the case of Thailand, however, diplomatic relations were established in 1971 (although Thailand did not normalize relations or formally recognize China until 1975, a month before Saigon fell) with both countries agreeing to stop hostile radio propaganda and open up trade. During the same year the Thai Prime Minister, Pramoj Kukrit, made a state visit, and signed an agreement with China concerning relations between the two countries, as part of which (Article 8 to be specific) Chinese nationals in Thailand were instructed to "abide by the law of the Kingdom of Thailand" and not to "make revolution". Mao was reported to have told the Thai delegation that China was not giving support to militants, or funding the clandestine radio station Voice of the Thai People, going so far as to say that the Thai government should not worry about the threat of communist revolution, as "since it [the CPT] is small, it should not be dangerous". The same promises were made by Zhou Enlai when a further visit took place in 1974, which also involved the two countries seeking to improve bilateral relations, and resulted in China being given normal trading status, marking the end of a fifteen-year ban, despite Thailand still being a member of SEATO, and allowing US forces to use the country as a base to launch air strikes against neighboring countries, especially Vietnam. These are not the signs of a revolutionary foreign policy in South-East Asia. The recent history of the Thai labour movement also demonstrates the shortcomings of Maoism from the viewpoint of revolutionary strategy and engagement with the struggles of the working class, as, when Bangkok experienced a major period of industrial unrest during 1973-6, there was no party capable of leading the struggles, due to the CPT focusing on organizing a guerrilla war in the isolated north-eastern regions of the country, away from the hubs of working-class activity.

Actually, relations were suspended in October 1967 (source from the Indonesian embassy in China) and all the evidence suggests that this had nothing to do with the massacre of the PKI, and everything to do with the attack that was carried out against the Chinese embassy in 1966, as China continued its aid program once the military government had established itself, and did not issue any public statement at the time of the coup. I've never seen any evidence to show that the PRC did help PKI militants and the practice of the PRC in other countries which have experienced right-wing coups suggests that this is unlikely to be the case, the most obvious example being the PRC's policy in Chile during the overthrow of Allende, as China was one of only three foreign legations, the others being France and Britain, that refused to offer support to militants who were being hunted by the government, and, due to its decision to give formal recognition to Pinochet, and continue the aid program that had been established under Allende, the PRC was later praised by Chile's under-secretary of foreign affairs for not isolating the regime, and lending it legitimacy.

If you google something like "1974 china marcos visit" you'll get all the documents you need - including this rather charming video, seemingly produced in China for consumption in English-speaking countries, of Imelda Marcos strolling around Beijing, along with, according to the video, a delegation of "university representatives" and "private businessmen". Even if the PKP is silent, there's really no doubt that China did pursue close relations with the Philippines during the 1970s. You may also be interested to know that during the 1970s, Peru became the largest recipient of Chinese aid in Latin America, with a Sino-Peruvian trade agreement being signed in June 1971, shortly after the signing of a Soviet-Peruvian treaty. In this context it's amusing that you cite the Sendoro Luminoso as one of the examples of Maoism's internal success as that organization was established towards the end of the 1960s, such that China was giving aid to the government that a Maoist group was condemning as an American puppet and trying to overthrow. How do you account for this inconsistency?

I'm willing to accept that a revolutionary government might make mistakes. But when the foreign policy of the PRC is analyzed from a broad perspective, looking at how the policy was executed over time, and in different continents, it becomes clear that the kind of examples you might reject as being mistakes weren't isolated instances, but part of a general trend, which involved the PRC appealing to various countries, regardless of whether they were progressive or not, even when the governments of those countries were carrying out repression against socialists.

If your facts disagree with mine, it is impossible to have a debate.

By the way, the PCP had established its military line only at the congress held in 1979, by the time China had suffered counter-revolution. So it is not very unusual that they did not get help from China. I find it very amusing that the revolutionary communist parties of Philippines and Peru do not mention the ill-effects of these aids by China, and those who seem to be most concerned with the same have never contributed anything to the respective revolutions.





This statement demonstrates that you and other Stalinists see yourselves as a group whose role it is to bring liberation to other people. I don't understand revolutions in terms of "tendencies" taking power. I'm interested in the self-emancipation of the working class, and, using that as a criterion to establish whether an historical event constitutes a revolution or not, it is fair to say that the working class did not emancipate itself in China in 1949, and that the only time the working class has succeeded in taking a major step towards self-emancipation by establishing its own institutions of class rule, putting aside examples like the Paris Commune, is the Russian Revolution.

"Self emancipation" at present needs an organization to guide the masses. Otherwise what is the point of having a communist party? And I referred to "tendencies" because a very common tactic of the bourgeoisie to keep the masses away from the revolution is to create several seemingly communist groups, each with a pseudo-revolutionary theory of its own. These can be easily recognized due to their reluctance to participate in armed struggles, because it directly goes against their bosses.

[BobKKKindle$]

I didn't claim that what China completed in 1949 was a socialist revolutionWhen Marxists talk about a "revolution" we mean an event that involves the ruling class being overthrown and replaced with a new ruling class, marking either a new phase of class society, or the beginning of a process which leads to the end of class society, with all revolutions resulting in changes to the relations of production, so as to allow for the further development of the productive forces, which cannot take place as long as the old relations of production remain in place. Strictly speaking, it is not correct to describe any political event as a revolution unless it has this class dynamic, although, due to conventions, Marxists sometimes do describe events like the 1905 uprising in Russia as revolutions. This is relevant to China because you have yet to explain the nature of what happened in 1949, i.e. which class seized power, what the mode of production was before and after that date. It cannot be the case that the working class was the ruling class after 1949 because that date did not involve the working class seizing the means of production or establishing its own institutions of class rule, and in fact, private ownership persisted in China for some time, as, according to the government's own statistics, the number of businessmen in eight major cities had increased by twenty-seven per cent by the end of 1951, compared to 1949, and the average rate of profit was 29% in 1951 and 31% in 1953. In 1952, a third of modern industry, two-thirds of trade, and almost all of agriculture was still in private hands. Even after the state had assumed control of private industry, former capitalists continued to be payed 5% interest on their former property, much of which was turned into government bonds. Those figures are taken from the document Development of State capitalism in China’s industry, Statistical Work Bulletin, Beijing, 29 October 1956.


China would have gone back to a semi feudal- semi colonial state instead of being capitalist today.There is no reason to describe pre-1949 China as being "feudal" or "semi-feudal". Feudalism is a mode of production which involves peasants being tied to a particular landlord, having part of their produce forcibly taken away in accordance with the needs of the local elite whilst being left with the remainder, and being made to offer periodic military service to their landlord in exchange for protection during times of hardship. None of these features existed in China before 1949. In fact, Gray (Gray, OUP, 2003) points out that the free exchange of land has occurred in China for thousands of years and the distribution of land in China even during the 1930s was less unequal than that which existed in Russia, prior to the Russian Revolution. Nor has China's revolution ever been "defeated" - it was never anything more than an attempt by the petit-bourgeoisie to overcome China's backwardness by establishing state control over the country's resources and directing the entire population towards the single task of capital accumulation, which accounts for the high level of exploitation experienced by Chinese workers and peasants throughout the history of the PRC, most notably through the temporary labour system, as well as the state's emphasis on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods.


And the CC members of the CPC who were actually responsible for its interests getting subordinated to those of GMD were subsequently removedNo they weren't. Mao was a fervent supporter of the Comintern's strategy, as I explain in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1547248&postcount=9) post. He was, to put it lightly, not removed from the CPC. Chen Duxiu, on the other hand, was the most outspoken opponent of the CPC subordinating its interests to the KMT, was forced out of the CPC in the 1929, even after his own strategy - the CPC maintaining its own political independence and seeking to expand its working-class base - had been vindicated by the bloody events of 1927.

I actually made quite a few posts recently, in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/three-worlds-theory-t117599/index.html) thread, showing how the strategy of the CPC was imposed by the Comintern, how it was supported by Stalin, and how it led to the deaths of thousands of CPC militants and trade unionists, as well as the CPC losing its support in China's cities. Why don't you respond?


Also, in a country like China, it is impossible to organize military offensives against the ruling class in the cities.There is nothing inherent about China that prevents a revolutionary party from building up support in the cities. I find it odd that you characterize the role of a revolutionary party as building "military offensives" as this suggests that you concieve of a revolution simply as a military contest between two opposing forces, whereas, for Marxists at least, a revolution is more than this, it is a process by which people take control of their lives, by seizing their workplaces, and creating political institutions, commonly known as Soviets, which allow them to defend their gains, and, by interacting with their fellow workers at other enterprises, create a basis for working-class power at a national and international level. It is, in essence, an act of self-emancipation. The ability of Chinese workers to pursue self-emancipation and not just give up their struggles in favour of a war in the countryside was demonstrated by the events of the early 1920s, explained in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1548564&postcount=15) post and the first part of this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1549309&postcount=24) post, as workers in Canton did establish a Soviet, albeit for only a short period of time, despite Stalin's assertion that the revolution should limit its scope to a narrowly-defined set of bourgeois-democratic tasks, so as to avoid alienating the KMT. The CPC also experienced a dramatic increase in working-class membership during this period. The partisan war in the countryside was the outcome of a series of strategic mistakes on the part of the CPC that could have been avoided if the party had resisted the dominance of the Comintern and pursued the strategy that revolutionaries in China wanted to pursue, based on their knowledge of the country's conditions, i.e. a break with the KMT. By saying that China was only suitable for a war in the countryside, without the involvement of the working class, you, along with Stalin, are saying that you are in a better position to judge what was best for China than revolutionaries who were actually Chinese, and hence had a far better knowledge of the country's conditions than you ever will. This is, in my view, a downright chauvinist position. Finally, if you believe that there is something inherent about China which makes working-class revolution impossible, how do you account for the ultra-left strategy that was imposed on the CPC after the events of 1927, whereby the CPC was forced to create another Soviet in Canton, and to stage a series of uprisings around the country, without the initiative of the working class, and were subsequently crushed, as explained in the last part of this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1549309&postcount=24) post?

The reason I keep linking to other posts is that all of your assertions have already been dealt with, elsewhere.


The participation of workers in the revolution was demonstrated by workers seizing power in several cities after a certain amount of the government forces were liquidated in the countryside.This requires details and citation. As I noted in one of my first posts in this thread, the CPC did everything it could to restain working-class radicalism as it took over the cities, not encourage the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.


If your facts disagree with mine, it is impossible to have a debate.No it isn't, if you think something I've said is factually incorrect, then identify it, provide a source to show I'm wrong, or, if you want, I'll get multiple sources to show I'm right. Debates are frequently about contesting the course of events, especially when they're concerned with history.


"Self emancipation" at present needs an organization to guide the masses.No, the role of a revolutionary party is not to "guide" the masses ("the masses", by the way, is a vague and meaningless term, which obscures the fact that, for Marxists, the emancipation of the working class is our goal, as the working class is the only class with the power to overturn capitalism and establish a classless society) because this assumes that there is a clear distinction between the revolutionary party and "the masses", and that "the masses" are passively receiving knowledge, without taking action in pursuit of their own liberation. A revolutionary party is comprised of workers, not a bunch of intellectuals like Mao, and involves itself in mass struggles, seeking to engage with the ideas of other workers, until the working class is able to emancipate itself, as distinct from a party seeking to obtain liberation on behalf of the working class, which is what you propose.

[Outinleftfield]

I dispute the use of the word "tyranny" in that sense. Further, it is not irrelevant, even if the PRC was "oppressing" the Tibetan nation (which it isn't, really), not all oppression is equal. Here, the question is irrelevant, though, but only because the actions of the PRC liberated the nation of Tibet from feudal and potential imperialist oppression.

Its irrelevant because Tibet is not going to become feudalist again even if it becomes independent now. We live in the present, not 1949.

Not liking another country's social system isnt a justified reason to invade for China or the United States.

Even if it was the United States didn't make Iraq a territory or a state, it made a new government, and I'm sure we both agree it was still wrong, so how can you think its right for a country to invade another country and take it over when it doesn't like its government?

[UlyssesTheRed]

how do you people see China in 50 years. will it really be the economic super power what they say it is gonna be? and what will be the consequences for communism over there? :confused:

China was never a workers' state. Unlike the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, there was never a working class revolution. Don't listen to the "state capitalist" utopians in here who think anything they don't like is capitalism. Do some research and decide for yourself. In particular, I suggest checking out articles by John Chan on the World Socialist Web Site. He explains quite well how China in particular was never a deformed workers' state, but rather an autarky that became what could be termed a "deformed bourgeois state."

[manic expression]

Its irrelevant because Tibet is not going to become feudalist again even if it becomes independent now. We live in the present, not 1949.

France abolished just about every institution of feudalism in 1789-1793, and yet when 1815 rolled around, Le Roi was sitting on the throne once more. Tibet isn't going to become feudalist again because of the PRC's defense of progress.


Not liking another country's social system isnt a justified reason to invade for China or the United States.It's a justified reason for class warfare and the overthrow of a nation's oppressors.


Even if it was the United States didn't make Iraq a territory or a state, it made a new government, and I'm sure we both agree it was still wrong, so how can you think its right for a country to invade another country and take it over when it doesn't like its government?The US invaded Iraq for profit. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or a blithering idiot. That's why it was "wrong", it was a barbaric and malicious destruction of an entire country for nothing more than the "bottom line".

The PRC did not invade Tibet in the same way, as Tibet had already been part of China for centuries, far longer than Bavaria has been part of Germany, for example. Further, the PLA wasn't interested in profit or in resources, it was interested in wiping away the vestiges of a terrible feudal regime that was within the borders of China, and in so doing contributed to a revolution in that nation.

Now, to address a potential counter-example, one could say that the PRC's treatment of Tibet is the same as the UK's treatment of Ireland, but this is mistaken. The PRC has actually given legal benefits to non-Han peoples in China: they are exempt from the one-child rule, their customs and culture and traditions and languages are promoted by the PRC. The UK did the opposite to Ireland: it was happy to see native Irish speakers decline, it delighted in denying the Irish basic civil rights for centuries, it imposed colonialism and imperialism on the Irish nation for years. The PRC has done no such thing in Tibet, and the above outlines as much.