Is the People's Republic of China a colonial power?

[Adi Shankara]

What do you think?

I believe so. look no further than the subjugation of the people's of East Turkestan (Uyghuristan, also known as Xinjiang) and Tibet for proof.

[Q]

I'd say it's just an imperialist power, look at their huge investments in Africa in recent years.

[Homo Songun]

look no further than the subjugation of the people's of East Turkestan

This is like asking someone when they stopped beating their wife, a loaded question that has no answer.

[Palestine]

I don't think its colonial but it is indeed a world power, and nowadays more important than the USA. but they don't fuck up governments on a worldwide scale like america.

[Animal Farm Pig]

but they don't fuck up governments on a worldwide scale like america.

Give them some time. They'll figure out how to fuck up other countries just as effectively as the USA.

[Homo Songun]

Calling western China "East Turkestan" is like calling the West Bank "Judea and Samaria", in other words it is pure ideology. Its an irredentist fantasy that only exists in the minds of militant Islamists and the US imperialists who cynically manipulate them for their own purposes. Does SEP support Turkish nationalism now?

[Invincible Summer]

Unfortunately, now I think they are verging (if not already) an imperialist power, but not colonialist.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I'd say it's just an imperialist power, look at their huge investments in Africa in recent years.

Right now China is playing a progressive role in Africa by offering slightly better terms for mineral concessions than Western countries, and giving low-interest development loans without political and IMF-esque strings attached. I suppose you could attribute this to inter-imperialist rivalry, but it's certainly had a net beneficial effect so far.

Also they're the only world power that didn't hammer Zimbabwe for attempting land reform, and they've stood against the Zionist campaign for war against Sudan.

Thumbs up on that.

[Homo Songun]

What about the Khanate of Kazan which was colonized by Tsarist Russia in 1552? Would that be North Turkestan?

[RedLaw]

Just like the USSR represented a kind of Soviet social-imperialism in the
decades before it's collapse,the People's Republic of China has also now
become a Sino social-imperialist version of the Russian model and is well
on it's way to shedding the final vestiges of it's socialist facade.

[Adi Shankara]

for those who voted "no", remember: Tibet was conquered (wasn't "assimilated" nor "joined", it was conquered, military operations, occupations, the whole nine yards) in the 1950's, and since then:

* Tibetans have become a minority in their own homeland by being forced out of their homes and pushed onto "cultural reservations"

* the Chinese are buying up all the once-publicly owned land, and commercializing it

* the Chinese occupiers are stealing it's natural resources (specifically, gold and hydroelectric power)

* Tibet is now officially the poorest part of China

* Tibet language, culture, and religion is being destroyed against the will of the majority of proletariat

* Tibetans are now landless in many aspects, visitors in their own home.

if China isn't a colonial power, then I don't know what is.

[The Guy]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a section of Africa annexed by China in the coming years. Recently on TV, there's been a fair few documentaries on China's 'move' towards the continent.

I watched one just the other day about the railway system in Eritrea (or so I think it was); they were still using Soviet trains from the 1970s along with 'new', or so they put it, 1990s models of Chinese trains which were massively insufficient.

China is very similar to the world we're shown in the film V for Vendetta. 'CCP'... tuh...

[thälmann]

china is imperialist, not because of tibet and so on, just because of their behaviour in the world, especially in africa. for example they own a geat harbour in greece...

[AK]

Give them some time. They'll figure out how to fuck up other countries just as effectively as the USA.
And then it'll be called "typical communist aggression" :lol:

Also, I think people need to realise that imperialism and colonialism are vastly different now to what they were 120 years ago. Nowadays we don't see states annexing huge portions of land in far-away continents; we see them invading countries, neutralising and effectively controlling their governments and creating the path for large companies and corporations to invest in what they want. The ruling class these days only succeeds in imperialist tactics because it has fooled the lower classes into believing that the state stands for freedom, liberty and democracy - this illusion would simply vanish if the imperialist states were to annex territory they were meant to "liberate". The imperialist state has to let other states co-exist in the shadow of it's empire, otherwise it would spoil the ideal of liberty and democracy being brought to far away lands (hence, it would also prove to the lower classes that the wars were indeed imperialist). States over a century ago did a similar thing; instead of directly annexing territory they had their own economic zones of influence lying beyond the borders of their empires.

EDIT: I change my vote to yes, having realised what I just wrote.

[Chambered Word]

Where are the cries of racism when China bans Uyghur Muslims from wearing traditional headscarves and pressures them to shave their beards?

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/hair-02202009174717.html


Authorities in China’s westernmost city of Kashgar are stepping up pressure on government employees to go clean-shaven, and the city’s large ethnic Uyghur population, whose adult males overwhelmingly sport moustaches, aren’t happy about it, residents say.
Kashgar Prefecture propaganda chief Omerjan Tohti said the tough new line against facial hair aims to make government employees look more presentable, but he acknowledged that the issue has become politicized.


Authorities appear to be enforcing a 2007 regulation from the Kashgar City Party Committee, which stipulates that employees must be secular in appearance or face penalties ranging from fines of 100-300 yuan (U.S. $15-45) to dismissal, an employee at Kashgar City No. 1 Upper School said.

Asked if there had been any protest, he cited initial resentment among Uyghurs in Kashgar, who pointed out that authorities weren’t enforcing similar regulations in Urumqi, a larger city also in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region but with a far larger Han Chinese population.

Uyghur scholars also note Kashgar’s symbolic importance as the traditional center of Uyghur culture.


Uyghurs, many of whom resent China’s often heavy-handed rule in the region, staged a large-scale protest in March 2008 against a ban on traditional Uyghur head scarves for women—which, like beards and moustaches for men, distinctly identify them as belonging to the Uyghur ethnic group.


U.S.-based Human Rights Watch says authorities in Xinjiang maintain "a multi-tiered system of surveillance, control, and suppression of religious activity aimed at Xinjiang's Uyghurs ... At a more mundane and routine level, many Uyghurs experience harassment in their daily lives."

"Celebrating religious holidays, studying religious texts, or showing one's religion through personal appearance are strictly forbidden at state schools. The Chinese government has instituted controls over who can be a cleric, what version of the Koran may be used, where religious gatherings may be held, and what may be said on religious occasions."

China has waged a campaign over the last decade against what it says are violent separatists and Islamic extremists who aim to establish an independent state in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.



It comes complete with vague accusations of terrorism and Islamic extremism, just like here in the West! :thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right now China is playing a progressive role in Africa by offering slightly better terms for mineral concessions than Western countries, and giving low-interest development loans without political and IMF-esque strings attached. I suppose you could attribute this to inter-imperialist rivalry, but it's certainly had a net beneficial effect so far.

Also they're the only world power that didn't hammer Zimbabwe for attempting land reform, and they've stood against the Zionist campaign for war against Sudan.

Thumbs up on that.

Imperialism is still imperialism. Those development loans do come with strings: mineral concession privileges.

While I think China is a net importer in relation to Africa, it has yet to do what the Soviets did in the sphere of subsidized trade: purchase African minerals and other exports at higher-than-market, sell goods to Africa at lower-than-market.

That would make me reconsider my position on their newfound imperialism.

I voted "No" because the question asked specifically about colonialism, and Tibet doesn't count.

[Animal Farm Pig]

for those who voted "no", remember: Tibet was conquered (wasn't "assimilated" nor "joined", it was conquered, military operations, occupations, the whole nine yards) in the 1950's...

Look, I'm no lover of the CCP, but in those days Tibet was a feudal theocracy. Also in those days, I think the Chinese Communist Party was at least trying to live up to its name. I have trouble being against a socialist country (at that time at least trying to be) liberating its neighbors from feudal theocracy.

The policies since the 1950's are a different story.

[maskerade]

There are both good things and bad things about China's international presence, particularly in Africa.

They send prisoners, ie slave labour, to countries like Mozambique, and thus cause massive unemployment/massive wage cuts for local Mozambicans. They also use their diplomatic leverage to secure almost all construction contracts, and as the son of an engineer, i can say that they usually rush these projects and they end up being half-assed - the irish embassy which they constructed was completely flooded after the rainy season and had to be rebuilt.

The price Mozambique pays for all this is massive deforestation, with thousands of tonnes of lumber being shipped back to China, with Mozambique not really being able to benefit from their own natural resources. But that's neocolonialism for you, which China plays their part in

[pranabjyoti]

Right now China is playing a progressive role in Africa by offering slightly better terms for mineral concessions than Western countries, and giving low-interest development loans without political and IMF-esque strings attached. I suppose you could attribute this to inter-imperialist rivalry, but it's certainly had a net beneficial effect so far.

Also they're the only world power that didn't hammer Zimbabwe for attempting land reform, and they've stood against the Zionist campaign for war against Sudan.

Thumbs up on that.
But, why they remained silent during the occupation of Iraq? What measures they have taken so far against zionist Israel for their atrocities against Palestinian people? What are their roles in the revolutionary struggles worldwide now? Recently, a representative of CPC come to India and announced that THEY DON'T SUPPORT MAOISTS. If that's not imperialist act itself, but certainly supporting the world imperialism. And those who support imperialist activities, they are certainly imperialist. And if not at present, certainly on the making.

[Barry Lyndon]

I think China today is an emerging imperialist power, esp with its expanding sphere of economic influence in Africa. I don't think its on par with the European colonial states or US imperialism, but it will be there in about a generation or two.

It's hard for me to see how the takeover of Tibet 1950-59 was imperialist, though. What economic benefit did China derive from that? Economic exploitation is the cornerstone of modern imperialism, so I don't see how that applies to Tibet, at least not in the Maoist era(the Han Chinese settlers in the last decade or two is a different story).
And yes I agree with others that the destruction of Tibet's feudal autocracy was a progressive move, I really have no patience for these Western Dalai Lama groupies who think pre-1950's Tibet was some sort of Shangri-La.

[RedStarOverChina]

for those who voted "no", remember: Tibet was conquered (wasn't "assimilated" nor "joined", it was conquered, military operations, occupations, the whole nine yards) in the 1950's, and since then:
So was the rest of China. That's what happens in civil wars.


* Tibetans have become a minority in their own homeland by being forced out of their homes and pushed onto "cultural reservations"Plain untrue. You just invented the phrase "cultural reservations", or at least took the term association with Indian reserves and applied it to the situation in Tibet. Tibetans are not minorities in TAR, and there's no such a thing called culture reservations in Tibet.


* the Chinese are buying up all the once-publicly owned land, and commercializing itCould you back it up? I'm not aware there's an significant amount of "publicly owned" land in Tibet. After 1959 much of the land in Tibet was taken from the Tibetan aristocracy and distributed to peasants, herders and serfs. Many of them still live on that land..


* the Chinese occupiers are stealing it's natural resources (specifically, gold and hydroelectric power)The exploitation of natural resources is indeed begining to take place. It remained to be seen whether the local Tibetan population would benefit from the extraction of their resources. (Judging from the experience in Xinjiang, I'm not very optimistic.)

However, on the whole the Chinese state is still pouring more money into Tibet than they are collecting in taxes and revenues.

(And stealing hydroelectric power? What does that even mean?)


* Tibet is now officially the poorest part of ChinaActually the poorest province/region in China is the Guizhou province.

However, ethnic Tibetans do have the lowest literacy rates among all other ethnicities. That is partly because of geographic reasons, partly culture reasons, and partly government neglect.



* Tibet language, culture, and religion is being destroyed against the will of the majority of proletariatAgain, plain untrue.


* Tibetans are now landless in many aspects, visitors in their own home.What aspects? Be more specific.

In some parts the government have attempted to move Tibetan herders into apartment buildings, but I have heard of no report of official land-grabs in Tibet Autonomous Region---which is a common occurance in much of the rest of China.

[Proletarian Ultra]

It's hard for me to see how the takeover of Tibet 1950-59 was imperialist, though. What economic benefit did China derive from that? Economic exploitation is the cornerstone of modern imperialism, so I don't see how that applies to Tibet, at least not in the Maoist era(the Han Chinese settlers in the last decade or two is a different story).
And yes I agree with others that the destruction of Tibet's feudal autocracy was a progressive move, I really have no patience for these Western Dalai Lama groupies who think pre-1950's Tibet was some sort of Shangri-La.

The immiseration of Tibet is also part of a larger story - of the immiseration of inland China in general during Jiang Zemin's banker-mafioso reign of terror. Some of the China critics on this board act is if Chinese history stopped in 2002. As if Jiang and the Shanghai clique hadn't been deposed in an intra-party coup. As if there hasn't been a significant effort to raise consumption and develop inner China in the 8 years intervening, against determined opposition from Jiangist holdovers.

I'm roaming off-topic a bit, but that's been bothering me a while.

[Robocommie]

Look, I'm no lover of the CCP, but in those days Tibet was a feudal theocracy. Also in those days, I think the Chinese Communist Party was at least trying to live up to its name. I have trouble being against a socialist country (at that time at least trying to be) liberating its neighbors from feudal theocracy.

But you can't impose a revolution from without, by force of arms. The only thing you do then is associate socialism with the enemy as the socialist changes become associated with an invasive foreign power.

If we take this attitude, then the only reason the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad is because the ideology supporting it is wrong. I don't think that's the right attitude to take.

In any case, the situation in Tibet is perhaps not as severe as in Xinjiang/Uyghurstan. After all, not even the Dalai Lama is pushing for independence, but wants to see increased autonomy in Tibet - and I can't see how anybody could actually oppose increased autonomy for a separate ethnic group without being a cultural imperialist. And I'd say the same exact thing for Uyghurs, Mongols, Miao, etc.

Frankly I don't quite understand the reluctance to see China as acting like an imperialist power given that nobody here sees it as particularly Marxist anymore. Since the Dengist reforms it'd seem like a simple enough thing, when prompted as to China's colonialist and imperialist actions, to merely respond, "Yeah well, that's what capitalist states do."

[Rusty Shackleford]

What is better in Tibet, the CPC or the God-King Feudal Fuck Up Dalai Lama who happens to be a running dog of American Imperialism.

EDIT: The recent wave of worker unrest may change things even in the slightest maybe.

[Robocommie]

What is better in Tibet, the CPC or the God-King Feudal Fuck Up Dalai Lama who happens to be a running dog of American Imperialism.


Well, he's not a god-king, but that's irrelevant because it implies it's only one of two choices. There can be a third option.

[Wanted Man]

It would only be a "yes" if you took some extremely loose definition of the word "colonialism". Like, say: every time a country's army (PLA) marches in to take control over a certain region (Tibet), it is colonialism. Which is very nice, but has little to do with a serious analysis of things.

Besides Sankara's posts, there's stuff like this:


But you can't impose a revolution from without, by force of arms. The only thing you do then is associate socialism with the enemy as the socialist changes become associated with an invasive foreign power.

If we take this attitude, then the only reason the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad is because the ideology supporting it is wrong. I don't think that's the right attitude to take.

As if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be compared to the Tibet situation. What was happening in Tibet was that basically medieval social relations were overthrown. I don't think most Tibetans at the time associated socialism with the "enemy", otherwise more of them would have taken up arms to maintain those relations.

What actually happened is that these serfs turned out not to be peaceful, servile types who enjoyed backbreaking labour and the fact that monks would take young boys away for lives of sexual servitude. They not only resisted, but this time, with the back-up of the PLA who helped them to victory, rather than being defeated and having their eyes gouged out.

The facts show that the ones who associated socialism with "the enemy" were largely the ones that already did: the elites that were finally losing their possessions and fled to India or wherever. A while later, armed by the CIA, they were parachuted back in to start an uprising, but failed miserably.

More recently, in 2008, extremely dangerous policies by the CCP led to social unrest, which included attempts to lynch not only Han Chinese, but also muslim inhabitants and other non-Tibetan groups. This decidedly racist element does not fall out of thin air. CCP policy may have caused resentment, but the clergy, the "Tibet movement", western powers, etc. did everything they could to fuel the flame. They are absolutely complicit in stoking racism. It even happened to the "Tibet movement" in the west, during the torch relay, when frantic "pro-Tibetans" tried to beat up a Chinese Paralympic athlete in a wheelchair to steal the flame and make some kind of "statement". The western media only covered it from the point of view of "exposing communist propaganda" and mostly just aired anti-Chinese racism. All of this is not a spontaneous thing that comes up in the minds of individuals, but has social conflict at its roots. Therefore it's extremely dumb and dangerous to refer to the events in Tibet as a "workers' movement" or to the "Free Tibet" movement as somehow representing "liberation", when actions show otherwise.

None of this exonerates the wrongs of the CCP, and there are many for sure, but it's a complete lack of perspective to compare the situation to Iraq or Afghanistan.

But wait, there's more:


In any case, the situation in Tibet is perhaps not as severe as in Xinjiang/Uyghurstan. After all, not even the Dalai Lama is pushing for independence, but wants to see increased autonomy in Tibet - and I can't see how anybody could actually oppose increased autonomy for a separate ethnic group without being a cultural imperialist. And I'd say the same exact thing for Uyghurs, Mongols, Miao, etc.

Well, there is a touching show of faith in the Dalai Lama here. We are, of course, talking about a religious leader who is propped up by the CIA and has had plenty of fascist friends throughout the years, including Augusto Pinochet whose release he called for. The man of peace who has his religious opponents harassed, beaten or worse.

But he sometimes calls himself a marxist, so I suppose that's what he is. Admittedly, he has said many admirable things, and his personal political involvement today seems limited to addressing starry-eyed western college audiences. But what he has done speaks a lot louder in my opinion.


Frankly I don't quite understand the reluctance to see China as acting like an imperialist power given that nobody here sees it as particularly Marxist anymore. Since the Dengist reforms it'd seem like a simple enough thing, when prompted as to China's colonialist and imperialist actions, to merely respond, "Yeah well, that's what capitalist states do."

I'd say this is more simplism. You take a bunch of facts that clearly reflect badly on something, and you connect a whole bunch of statements that may very well be true, but are not necessarily so. It's basically the populist concept of "calling a spade a spade", saying things like they are, but in a "connecting-the-dots" fashion. For instance:


Anyone can see that immigrants are over-represented in crime rates. Surely when an immigrant commits a crime, it'd seem like a simple enough thing to respond, "Well, that's just what they do; it's in the statistics."
We have seen what happened in the USSR, and the USSR was communist. Surely it seems simple enough to accept that communism does not work.
Working-class areas are largely voting third-way social-democrat, conservative or even far-right, and have been doing so for the last one-and-a-half decade. It seems very simple to respond by realising that there is no popular support for real socialism at all.


Clearly, it's hardly ever that simple.

[Robocommie]

As if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be compared to the Tibet situation. What was happening in Tibet was that basically medieval social relations were overthrown. I don't think most Tibetans at the time associated socialism with the "enemy", otherwise more of them would have taken up arms to maintain those relations.

What actually happened is that these serfs turned out not to be peaceful, servile types who enjoyed backbreaking labour and the fact that monks would take young boys away for lives of sexual servitude. They not only resisted, but this time, with the back-up of the PLA who helped them to victory, rather than being defeated and having their eyes gouged out.

The facts show that the ones who associated socialism with "the enemy" were largely the ones that already did: the elites that were finally losing their possessions and fled to India or wherever. A while later, armed by the CIA, they were parachuted back in to start an uprising, but failed miserably.

Similarly, Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and the United States brought democracy to Iraq, and when the US Army came in there was cheering and adulation in the streets as the dictator's statues were dramatically pulled down from their pedestals, but certain hardliners who want to see the old repression returned have become insurgents.




None of this exonerates the wrongs of the CCP, and there are many for sure, but it's a complete lack of perspective to compare the situation to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The point I'm trying to make is that justifying the invasion in the 1950s for humanitarian reasons is essentially relying on the same kind of pretext for invasion on humanitarian grounds in Iraq - that governments have the right to military intervene in other societies, and that they can in fact impose on them, from without, a new and better social order.

There also HAS been quite a bit of resentment and resistance from Tibetans, demonstrations and the like, and I don't see how it's useful to simply leap to the defense of the PRC in this matter.

Just because Tibet was a feudal, monastic state BEFORE doesn't justify everything the CCP is doing there now, and yet this is the one thing people always say when anyone expresses disapproval of what the CCP is doing. "Yeah well, the CCP has gone all neo-liberal... but Tibet used to be a feudal state!" It doesn't matter. The British also built railroads and schools in Africa.



Well, there is a touching show of faith in the Dalai Lama here. We are, of course, talking about a religious leader who is propped up by the CIA and has had plenty of fascist friends throughout the years, including Augusto Pinochet whose release he called for. The man of peace who has his religious opponents harassed, beaten or worse.

But he sometimes calls himself a marxist, so I suppose that's what he is. Admittedly, he has said many admirable things, and his personal political involvement today seems limited to addressing starry-eyed western college audiences. But what he has done speaks a lot louder in my opinion.

Well, you do have me at a loss on this one, and I'll admit I don't know the details as much as I could. If you have some kind of basis for this without a PRC bias that I could read, then I'd be willing to reconsider it. But words do matter, even in politics, and so what a person says is not entirely meaningless.



I'd say this is more simplism. You take a bunch of facts that clearly reflect badly on something, and you connect a whole bunch of statements that may very well be true, but are not necessarily so. It's basically the populist concept of "calling a spade a spade", saying things like they are, but in a "connecting-the-dots" fashion.

That's not really what I was trying to say. I merely don't understand why it is that with everything China does, people get frustrated and accuse them of capitalist roading and nobody has this impression of them being a worker's state anymore, and yet when it comes to Tibet or even Xinjiang, suddenly China are the good guys again, and people rush to their defence just as if it was Cuba or the Soviet Union being criticized by a capitalist media. I don't get it.

Furthermore, isn't it a little problematic to compare criticism of a nation-state with the size and power of the PRC, even if it IS simplistic criticism, with racist or anti-socialist oversimplification against immigrants and poor people? Earlier you had a problem with my comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan, but your comparisons aren't exactly equivalent either. The Chinese state is hardly a put-upon and repressed community of immigrants.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Frankly I don't quite understand the reluctance to see China as acting like an imperialist power given that nobody here sees it as particularly Marxist anymore.

I do. The party leadership has brought China as far down the capitalist road as they've been able, but I don't see the full restoration that happened in Russia and Eastern Europe - and not just because the party in charge is nominally communist. I mean, land and banking are still nationalized; about half of all industrial assets are still under some form of state ownership; foreign trade may no longer be a state monopoly, but access to currency for foreign trade is, etc.

China has been going in reverse for some time now but the Great Leap Backward has not been made. And I doubt full capitalist restoration could happen without the CCP toppling altogether.

[Robocommie]

I do. The party leadership has brought China as far down the capitalist road as they've been able, but I don't see the full restoration that happened in Russia and Eastern Europe - and not just because the party in charge is nominally communist. I mean, land and banking are still nationalized; about half of all industrial assets are still under some form of state ownership; foreign trade may no longer be a state monopoly, but access to currency for foreign trade is, etc.

China has been going in reverse for some time now but the Great Leap Backward has not been made. And I doubt full capitalist restoration could happen without the CCP toppling altogether.

Well, I'd like to think that's true. And certainly in the past I've defended the Vietnamese Communist's similar policies of Doi Moi as being an attempt to develop the economy using foreign money without relinquishing the long term goals of socialism. But I have to confess, sometimes I don't even believe my own arguments, because there literally has been this new bourgeois class of extremely corrupt officials established within both China and Vietnam, who are allowed to rather openly make millions and millions of dollars off of business, and once they've taken power in the state, it will be potentially impossible to drive them back out without another revolution. Not long ago I was reading about Lai Changxing, who got busted back in the '90s when it came out that he and his company, which operated out of the Xiamen special economic zone, made a shitload of cash out of smuggling and corruption.

I'm also willing to concede that I'm wrong about Tibet. Earlier I quickly went to the Wikipedia article to confirm something RedStarOverChina had said and the demographics information reports that the country is indeed still 92.8% Tibetan and predominantly practices Tibetan Buddhism or Bon. That said, RedStarOverChina, you must admit that even you have agreed, in previous threads, that there is a problem of uneven development and I don't see why we should see that as acceptable. Likewise, there are reports of torture of monks, nuns and dissidents that I am not comfortable with.

[Barry Lyndon]

I do. The party leadership has brought China as far down the capitalist road as they've been able, but I don't see the full restoration that happened in Russia and Eastern Europe - and not just because the party in charge is nominally communist. I mean, land and banking are still nationalized; about half of all industrial assets are still under some form of state ownership; foreign trade may no longer be a state monopoly, but access to currency for foreign trade is, etc.

China has been going in reverse for some time now but the Great Leap Backward has not been made. And I doubt full capitalist restoration could happen without the CCP toppling altogether.

I disagree. I see capitalism as being more or less completely restored to China at this point. China has a neo-Keynesian economy now, at best. The transition to capitalism was pretty much certian ever since the Leftist factions of the CCP were violently crushed during the Cultural Revolution.
The old horrors of feudal China: prostitution, landless peasants, child labor, etc etc have returned with a vengeance, as well as new horrors such as horrendous air and water pollution. The main difference is that China now has developed its own petty-bourgeoisie, so it is a somewhat more stable class society.

To defend the CCP in its current incarnation is to defend nothing more then state managed capitalism in its most horrendous and exploitative form, and I will have none of it. China needs a revolution just as bad as the US does, perhaps more uregently so.

[Zanthorus]

I do. The party leadership has brought China as far down the capitalist road as they've been able, but I don't see the full restoration that happened in Russia and Eastern Europe - and not just because the party in charge is nominally communist. I mean, land and banking are still nationalized; about half of all industrial assets are still under some form of state ownership; foreign trade may no longer be a state monopoly, but access to currency for foreign trade is, etc.

China is going down any kind of capitalist road and nor does it need to because it is already capitalist. Commodity production exists in China as does the law of value (Which would exist with or without planned production since the law of value is a tendency of the world-market) and wage-labour. To the extent that the state intervenes in the economy it is certainly not in the name of making "despotic inroads on the rights of property", but as Barry Lyndon notes, of managing capitalism in the same way that all states do in the epoch of Imperialism. It is quite blatantly state-capitalist even if it ever really was close to "socialism" at one point.

[Weezer]

I voted yes because colonialism is synonymous with imperialism.

For a communist to defend China in its current state would be like trying to defend America.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Well, I'd like to think that's true. And certainly in the past I've defended the Vietnamese Communist's similar policies of Doi Moi as being an attempt to develop the economy using foreign money without relinquishing the long term goals of socialism.

Oh, I'm quite sure the CCP leadership has abandoned the long-term goals of socialism. I just think there's a limit to how far they can dismantle achieved socialism without letting the entire state system go (cf. Russia).

For those of you who think China has transitioned peacefully to capitalism: why can't we transition peacefully to socialism? (Of course, if you think China was never socialist - well, there's nothing new to complain about, is there?)

[Robocommie]

For those of you who think China has transitioned peacefully to capitalism: why can't we transition peacefully to socialism? (Of course, if you think China was never socialist - well, there's nothing new to complain about, is there?)

Well, because of the nature of wealth to accumulate in the hands of whomever controls the means of production. If the state controls the means of production, then it's generally only through a continual process of redistribution that that wealth can remain diffuse throughout society. If the state goes through an ideological shift, like for instance, from Maoism to Dengism, then that redistributive mechanism simply vanishes as new policies are implemented by the state.

This is precisely why I feel democracy is so essential. It's harder to undo a socialist state from within if the state has true accountability.

[Adi Shankara]

Plain untrue. You just invented the phrase "cultural reservations", or at least took the term association with Indian reserves and applied it to the situation in Tibet. Tibetans are not minorities in TAR, and there's no such a thing called culture reservations in Tibet.

No I didn't; it's true:

http://www.uyghurnews.com/tibetan/Read.asp?TibetNews=china-forces-tibets-nomads-into-concentration-settlements&ItemID=XQ-8202009969520412930999

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5isqmoKERHJV48mzhWd6bqDayaeWQ (LOVE the excuse of "environmental protectionism" they give when China is probably the world's biggest polluter next to the USA)


Could you back it up? I'm not aware there's an significant amount of "publicly owned" land in Tibet. After 1959 much of the land in Tibet was taken from the Tibetan aristocracy and distributed to peasants, herders and serfs. Many of them still live on that land..

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/land-06032010112635.html


The exploitation of natural resources is indeed begining to take place. It remained to be seen whether the local Tibetan population would benefit from the extraction of their resources. (Judging from the experience in Xinjiang, I'm not very optimistic.)

It's been going on for quite some while, and they have yet to benefit from Chinese rule.


However, on the whole the Chinese state is still pouring more money into Tibet than they are collecting in taxes and revenues.

nice cop-out; sounds like something a capitalist would say about Detroit, or New Orleans.


(And stealing hydroelectric power? What does that even mean?)

it means the power that could be used to the benefit of all Tibetans has been privatized by Chinese consortiums and is now being used to benefit a group of wealthy elite, not the Tibetan people.

Actually the poorest province/region in China is the Guizhou province.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-14-china-tibet_N.htm

it's not like USA today is a completely credible source, but it's not like China's word should be taken on the status of Tibet, considering there is a permanent media black out there. but Tibet is China's poorest province by many measures.


However, ethnic Tibetans do have the lowest literacy rates among all other ethnicities. That is partly because of geographic reasons, partly culture reasons, and partly government neglect.

I see what you are now. you're a Sino-supremacist. you think the Chinese are bringing those "poor, culturally and ethnically impoverished Tibetans" into "civilization", which so far, has destroyed them more than helped them. I can't help but think how much brainwashing has been done on you.


Again, plain untrue.


and yet once again, you're wrong:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11595

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6792138.ece


In some parts the government have attempted to move Tibetan herders into apartment buildings, but I have heard of no report of official land-grabs in Tibet Autonomous Region---which is a common occurance in much of the rest of China.

http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?id=4687&search_url=%2Fsearch.php%3Fq%3Dmiss%26cp%3D15%26 landgrab

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/land-06032010112635.html landgrab

http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?cat=2&cp=2&&id=5387 yet another landgrab

I know you'll find some way to discredit the sources, me, the posts, or you'll try to justify China's actions...but if you agree with anything China is doing, I'm sorry, you're a capitalist in Marxist clothing.

[Adi Shankara]

For those of you who think China has transitioned peacefully to capitalism: why can't we transition peacefully to socialism? (Of course, if you think China was never socialist - well, there's nothing new to complain about, is there?)

Who said it peacefully transitioned to Anything? the Chinese civil war was one of the most violent wars in the 20th century (3 million dead), the cultural revolution was a complete failure, but succeeded in killing millions, Tibet wasn't peacefully taken, it was violently conquered, as was East Turkestan, as was China's war with India...China has done nothing good whatsoever to advance the revolutionary cause, except for make some pretty cool posters with Mao's face on them (who himself, was quite a failure as a leader, even if he had good ideas on war)

[Wanted Man]

Similarly, Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and the United States brought democracy to Iraq, and when the US Army came in there was cheering and adulation in the streets as the dictator's statues were dramatically pulled down from their pedestals, but certain hardliners who want to see the old repression returned have become insurgents.

The point I'm trying to make is that justifying the invasion in the 1950s for humanitarian reasons is essentially relying on the same kind of pretext for invasion on humanitarian grounds in Iraq - that governments have the right to military intervene in other societies, and that they can in fact impose on them, from without, a new and better social order.

Humanitarianism is not the reason why I justify the "Chinese invasion" as you call it. That is just a beneficial side-effect. The main benefit of the event is that feudal theocracy was overthrown by something infinitely more progressive, whether you want to call that socialism, state capitalism or anything else. People act as if this suddenly robbed a sovereign nation of its independence, but of course the status of Tibet was always ambiguous. It quickly turned out that the interests of the ordinary Tibetans were much more aligned with the other Chinese workers than with their feudal overlords, despite the petty nationalism (and now separatism) that they tried (and still try) to instil.

Your comparison with Iraq is wrong on all points once again, showing a major amount of shallowness. What happened in Iraq is that an actual, straight-up invasion came in, regardless of the staged pulling down of Saddam's statue. The resistance against the US and their puppet government is not a matter of a few old guard being dropped in by parachute, but of a major resistance movement from all sides, including former mortal enemies of Saddam. This was simply not the case in Tibet at all. How else can you explain that the expropriated Tibetan landlords and their mercenaries failed within a few years, while the Iraqi insurgency is currently proving unbeatable?


There also HAS been quite a bit of resentment and resistance from Tibetans, demonstrations and the like, and I don't see how it's useful to simply leap to the defense of the PRC in this matter.

Absolutely. I already told you that the CCP has failed with regards to Tibet in recent years. It is clear that the relative positions of Tibetans and non-Tibetans, real or perceived, are causing all sorts of tensions, which erupted two years ago. I already explained how all kinds of reactionaries, from the clergy to the CIA, are capitalising on these failures.

I'm glad we're in agreement on this, and I hope more people will repeat what I'm arguing. :)


Just because Tibet was a feudal, monastic state BEFORE doesn't justify everything the CCP is doing there now, and yet this is the one thing people always say when anyone expresses disapproval of what the CCP is doing. "Yeah well, the CCP has gone all neo-liberal... but Tibet used to be a feudal state!" It doesn't matter. The British also built railroads and schools in Africa.

Well, I already told you that what the CCP is doing now is not defensible, so again, I'm glad we're in agreement.

On the other hand, it does matter, and it's another poor historical parallel. The British built railroads in Africa to transport goods to the port to take them back home, and they built schools to educate the colonial elite. Meanwhile, they deliberately worsened the relations between the ethnic groups they had conquered, picking sides, pitting them against one another. They did not free them, because this was simply against their interests. The British capitalists had an interest in economically exploiting Britain's colonial subjects. Quite a difference.


Well, you do have me at a loss on this one, and I'll admit I don't know the details as much as I could. If you have some kind of basis for this without a PRC bias that I could read, then I'd be willing to reconsider it. But words do matter, even in politics, and so what a person says is not entirely meaningless.

What is a PRC bias? Maybe you have a feudal Tibet bias, and what I'm telling you is the objective truth. It most probably isn't, but it's worth thinking about. In discussions with actual hardcore fans of the old Tibet (unlike yourself, that is, since it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you), every source that you give is "pro-PRC" and the religious opposition that the Dalai Lama suppressed is said to be "communist agents".

As for the DL himself, I don't think he's the devil. He was not personally involved in the abuses of the old Tibet, and he maintains a moderate tone when it comes to Tibetan autonomy (with some exceptions). But he is still part of the clerical elite who is celebrated in western nations only because of his use as a stick to beat China with. He may be the nicest person with the best intentions in the world; perhaps he actually believes that he is a "half-marxist". I can't read his mind. But if the good man's ideas were put into practice, it would be a significant regression; not only from the current state of the Tibet Autonomous Region that exists in the PRC today, but also for the regions around it which he claims as "Greater Tibet" and wants to cleanse of non-Tibetans (one of the exceptions I mentioned).

Anyway, to answer your question, this article (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) is by Michael Parenti, a man who can probably be accused of being "anti-American" and "pro-PRC" with great ease. Not because there is any proof for that, but because it's an easy label that sticks on anyone who criticises conventional wisdom on these things. It's still a good read, and that's why I recommend it. It's not just about the Dalai Lama, but the man does get his due attention in the piece. Read it with an open mind, and see if there are any attempted refutations to it on the 'net as well.


That's not really what I was trying to say. I merely don't understand why it is that with everything China does, people get frustrated and accuse them of capitalist roading and nobody has this impression of them being a worker's state anymore, and yet when it comes to Tibet or even Xinjiang, suddenly China are the good guys again, and people rush to their defence just as if it was Cuba or the Soviet Union being criticized by a capitalist media. I don't get it.

Well, why would one want to defend the USSR from capitalist media so quickly? After all, it's common wisdom that Stalin was a tyrant who killed 100 million people!!!111 Yet people still challenge these assumptions and try to find the truth, even when some of them probably believe that it was "state capitalist" or worse.

Nobody here has ever claimed China to be "the good guys"; that is a caricature that others may want to make.


Furthermore, isn't it a little problematic to compare criticism of a nation-state with the size and power of the PRC, even if it IS simplistic criticism, with racist or anti-socialist oversimplification against immigrants and poor people? Earlier you had a problem with my comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan, but your comparisons aren't exactly equivalent either. The Chinese state is hardly a put-upon and repressed community of immigrants.

Except that I wasn't comparing those situations. I was giving examples of the type of argumentation that was used. I do not think the situations are similar in any way.

[Zanthorus]

That is just a beneficial side-effect. The main benefit of the event is that feudal theocracy was overthrown by something infinitely more progressive, whether you want to call that socialism, state capitalism or anything else.

I would question whether capitalism has been a progressive force since even 1848. Certainly when we entered "the highest stage of capitalism" it ceased to be "progressive" in any real sense. Since capitalism had already completed it's world-historic task of developing the productive forces in the majority of the world it would've be a simple task to simply export productive forces to any remaining underdeveloped countries if socialism was achieved.

This kind of rests on the assumption that you think that the social relations of production in China and Tibet after the invasion where some form of capitalism though.

[Wanted Man]

I see what you are now. you're a Sino-supremacist. you think the Chinese are bringing those "poor, culturally and ethnically impoverished Tibetans" into "civilization", which so far, has destroyed them more than helped them. I can't help but think how much brainwashing has been done on you.

(...)

I know you'll find some way to discredit the sources, me, the posts, or you'll try to justify China's actions...but if you agree with anything China is doing, I'm sorry, you're a capitalist in Marxist clothing.

If you don't want to discuss with him but just insult him, why post? To dump a bunch of links? Hmm, I'm persuaded.

Why is he a "sino-supremacist" and "brainwashed"? Because he is a Chinese person who happens to disagree with you on Tibet?

[RedStarOverChina]

In any case, the situation in Tibet is perhaps not as severe as in Xinjiang/Uyghurstan. After all, not even the Dalai Lama is pushing for independence, but wants to see increased autonomy in Tibet - and I can't see how anybody could actually oppose increased autonomy for a separate ethnic group without being a cultural imperialist. And I'd say the same exact thing for Uyghurs, Mongols, Miao, etc.

Frankly I don't quite understand the reluctance to see China as acting like an imperialist power given that nobody here sees it as particularly Marxist anymore. Since the Dengist reforms it'd seem like a simple enough thing, when prompted as to China's colonialist and imperialist actions, to merely respond, "Yeah well, that's what capitalist states do."

Whether China is an imperialist power is a slightly different question than whether or not it's colonialist.

Imperialism

To address the former, China is definitely heading towards becoming an imperialist country as it continues to accumulate capital. But at the moment, China itself is incredibly dominated by foreign capital. The more I learn about the Chinese economy the more I realize how much the domestic Bourgeoisie are subservient to foreign Bourgeoisie. From soya milk to electronic products, Western companies often control everything from supplies to product design to product pricing. The only thing that the Chinese bourgeoisie arguably controls is the manufacturing sector in the long chain of command.

As it has been pointed out, China has began to invest heavily in Africa, prompting (mostly Western) fears that it will one day colonize Africa. Of course China's involvement in Africa is exploitive in nature. But it isn't often that multi-national corporations actually have something to offer in return for Africa. Some of that infrastructure investment by the Chinese government and carried out by private enterprises are actually of some help to Africans.

Moreover, as it stands, China's combined investment in Africa is still tiny compared to that of US and Britain, and a lot more diversified, whereas American investment, for example, heavily concentrates on oil and other natural resources. It is only recently in response to China's rise that the US turned to infrastructure projects in Africa under the Millennium Challenge Account (2004?). Infrasture development was totally absent in the decades of US involvement in Africa.

Overall, China's foreign investment is eclipsed by that of foreign investment in China. Will China eventually overcome this dependence on foreign capital? Yes, but I don't think it will be in the immediate future.



Xinjiang
Regarding whether or not China is being colonialist---I think it is indeed somewhat colonialist in Xinjiang, but not so much so in Tibet. From the very beginning the Han settlers occupied tracts of fertile land in Xinjiang. There has always been Hans who traditionally lived in Xinjiang, of course, but that was a different matter.

Before the 1990s Uyghurs and other ethnicities in Xinjiang were treated fairly overall---or at least there has been strong efforts to promote ethnic equality. The Maoist government heavily persecuted the former oppressors in Xinjiang---Most of them Han landlords who mistreated people of other ethnicities; there was a genuine sense of proletariat solidarity between Han and Uyghur.

1989 was a turning point in ethnic relations, mostly due to an official change of ideology. Class struggle was no longer the central theme of policies in Xinjiang; it was replaced by so-called "economic development". It was believed that "economic development" would easy ethnic tensions and appeases ethnic minorities.

Oh how wrong they were.

In 1990, Zhou Enlai's widow Deng Yingchao visited Xinjiang and warned against Han-chauvinism. Her voice fell on deaf ears and ever since then things have deteriorated.

So today much of the private sector in Xinjiang is controlled by Han Chinese. The government offices as well as the lucrative oil businesses are mostly controlled by people from my home province, Shandong. (It's a tradition spanning from the Reconquest of Xinjiang in 1875, that the governor/premier would employ in key positions mostly people from his home region).



Tibet

Things are quite different in Tibet. First, there's no land issue. Chinese migrants in Tibet mostly live in cities and have never occupied substantial tracts of arable land. It's only recently that Han migrants started to move into Tibet Autonomous Region in considerable numbers. So really there has not been any Chinese "colonies" in Tibet. Whereas in Xinjiang, the paramilitary Jun-ken farms somewhat resemble a colony in structure. The purpose of these Jun-Ken farms, however, is not the extraction of resources, but the maintenance of military presence. On paper, it's meant to reduce the burden of local population in supporting the troops. But in reality, these farms occupy some of the more fertile lands that would otherwise have been used by local peasants.

Of course, Tibetans are victimised by China's neo-liberal economic policies just like the Uyghurs have been, but then again so are the Hans.

Also, the claim that China is waging a cultural war/genocide against Tibetan culture is entirely bogus, I have refuted this in several previous posts. Forbidding the worshipping of the Dalai Lama hardly constitute culture genocide IMO.

Speaking of the Dalai Lama, if you really believe that he is not seeking independence then I'm afraid you're being naive. Kosovar independentist didn't argue for independence openly either.

The conditions Dalai Lama offered to the Chinese government is basically total independence except in name. Besides, Dalai Lama's insurrectionist tactics and other military means to achieve independence has failed, despite heavy assistance from the CIA and the Indian government, so there's not many other options.


Western Agitation

By fuelling Tibetan and Uyghur separatism, the West is refusing to recognize China as a legitimate multi-ethnic country. The West is much more comfortable seeing China as a stereotypical, monotonous, single-faced caricature of the country whereas in reality the country has always been diverse in ethnicity and culture even in the highest levels of political power.

The racist caricturization of China is no more apparent than in the works of the "Free Tibet" people in the West, who seem to be more motivated by their hatred against China than their concern for the Tibetans. No effort was made to actually communicate with Tibetans in TAR---or God forbid, the Han Chinese---but everything was done to "rub it in China's face".

And what's scary is that this perception of China as a "nation state" has actually influenced the way Chinese people (especially Han nationalists) perceive China. Increasingly the ethnic minorities are being diminished, as Han Chinese ultra-nationalists cite the dominance of Whites in America as basis for a Han-dominated China. They also cite Western agitation among minorities as evidence that they can't be trusted. Without a doubt Western agitation has incited conflict between ethnicities in China, it was very apparent during the Olympics.

Arguably the only thing that has prevented a full out race war between Uyghurs and Hans (also Tibetans and Hans) is government censorship. Had the scale of violence been fully understood by the population, and had the Han ultra-nationalists been allowed to agitate for retaliation, the result would have been unimaginably horrific.

So in the end, it was GOVERNMENT CENSORESHIP that saved the day.

The West has really put us between a rock and a hard place.

[RedStarOverChina]

I know you'll find some way to discredit the sources, me, the posts, or you'll try to justify China's actions...but if you agree with anything China is doing, I'm sorry, you're a capitalist in Marxist clothing.
Not really. I'm not gonna dignify that with a proper response. You don't even try to form an argument of your own, do you?

So I get it, you read the news. So do I.

The next thing I know, I'm being called a "Sino-supremacist".


you think the Chinese are bringing those "poor, culturally and ethnically impoverished Tibetans" into "civilization", which so far, has destroyed them more than helped them. I can't help but think how much brainwashing has been done on you.Wow. That was a lot of random stuff you pulled out of your ass.

[Adi Shankara]

Not really. I'm not gonna dignify that with a proper response. You don't even try to form an argument of your own, do you?

What argument is there to ignore? your entire "argument" consisted of you accusing me of lying, or saying that I didn't provide sources. when I did, you resort to this tactic, when what you should be saying in actuality is "I'm not going to respond, because I really have nothing to say in my own defense for supporting a capitalist power that I hope to desperately pass off as communist".

[Adi Shankara]

If you don't want to discuss with him but just insult him, why post? To dump a bunch of links? Hmm, I'm persuaded.

Why is he a "sino-supremacist" and "brainwashed"? Because he is a Chinese person who happens to disagree with you on Tibet?

his argument was little more than "you have no sources, so what you claim never happened"

so my argument was little more than "I have sources, so how can you say I have no sources?"

[RedStarOverChina]

his argument was little more than "you have no sources, so what you claim never happened"

so my argument was little more than "I have sources, so how can you say I have no sources?"
I seriously doubt you ever wanted a real debate with me. Aggressive online behaviour is usually employed to cover up weakness or ignorance---Or both. Calling me a "sino supremicist" is probably an easy way out, saves you the effort to do genuine research beyond googling "Tibet land grab" and posting whatever that comes up without reading them.



I clicked on a few links you posted out of curiosity. Most of them either have nothing to do with our discussion or they speak of issues I have already address, or you completely misunderstood its content. Some of them are flat out wrong.

For one thing, China's poorest province per capita GDP IS Guizhou. Followed by Yunan. Followed by Gansu. Followed by Tibet. So it's the fourth poorest.

USA Today doesn't know shit. There, I said it.


http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.ph...s%26cp%3D15%26 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?id=4687&search_url=%2Fsearch.php%3Fq%3Dmiss%26cp%3D15%26) landgrab
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibe...010112635.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/land-06032010112635.html) landgrab
http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.ph...&cp=2&&id=5387 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?cat=2&cp=2&&id=5387) yet another landgrab
Read my commnet again:

In some parts the government have attempted to move Tibetan herders into apartment buildings, but I have heard of no report of official land-grabs in Tibet Autonomous Region---which is a common occurance in much of the rest of China.
And then read your links again---If you did already read them.

All three links talk about land grabs happening OUTSIDE of Tibet Autonomous Region. The first one is about one in Hebei Province, the second in Gansu province, and the third in Guangdong province.

Seriously, I'm starting to think that you don't know what you're talking about. More likely you're trying to "wing it" and hope to yourself no one read your links.

Can't believe I'm wasting all this time arguing with THIS.

[Adi Shankara]

I seriously doubt you ever wanted a real debate with me. Aggressive online behaviour is usually employed to cover up weakness or ignorance---Or both. Calling me a "sino supremicist" is probably an easy way out, saves you the effort to do genuine research beyond googling "Tibet land grab" and posting whatever that comes up without reading them.



I clicked on a few links you posted out of curiosity. Most of them either have nothing to do with our discussion or they speak of issues I have already address, or you completely misunderstood its content. Some of them are flat out wrong.

For one thing, China's poorest province per capita GDP IS Guizhou. Followed by Yunan. Followed by Gansu. Followed by Tibet. So it's the fourth poorest.

USA Today doesn't know shit. There, I said it.


Read my commnet again:

And then read your links again---If you did already read them.

All three links talk about land grabs happening OUTSIDE of Tibet Autonomous Region. The first one is about one in Hebei Province, the second in Gansu province, and the third in Guangdong province.

Seriously, I'm starting to think that you don't know what you're talking about. More likely you're trying to "wing it" and hope to yourself no one read your links.

Can't believe I'm wasting all this time arguing with THIS.

I'm not going to bother myself, for your opinion will remain the same. all I'll say is those parts of China with Tibetan populations were historically a part of greater Tibet, but were not included in the TAR.

and I don't know how any link I posted is wrong, but I doubt I'd be able to change your opinions regardless.

[Robocommie]

Humanitarianism is not the reason why I justify the "Chinese invasion" as you call it. That is just a beneficial side-effect. The main benefit of the event is that feudal theocracy was overthrown by something infinitely more progressive, whether you want to call that socialism, state capitalism or anything else. People act as if this suddenly robbed a sovereign nation of its independence, but of course the status of Tibet was always ambiguous. It quickly turned out that the interests of the ordinary Tibetans were much more aligned with the other Chinese workers than with their feudal overlords, despite the petty nationalism (and now separatism) that they tried (and still try) to instil.

The situation was always ambiguous because Tibet had at several points in the course of Chinese history been under the control of Chinese dynasties, most recently the Qing. But that doesn't mean Tibet should have to be or is somehow naturally a part of China. That's just irredentism. As to the interests of ordinary Tibetans, it's only natural that there interests would be more in line with ordinary Chinese than with feudal warlords, but I'm not arguing for a return to the old way that Tibet was structured, I'm merely stating that I don't think that the CPC is really equipped to decide what's best for Tibet for Tibet, certainly not now if it ever really was.



Your comparison with Iraq is wrong on all points once again, showing a major amount of shallowness.Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to be shallow, certainly I don't think the situation is precisely the same, because that would be ahistorical. But there are parallels in argumentation, in the philosophy of war and statecraft I think, that are concerning to me.



What happened in Iraq is that an actual, straight-up invasion came in, regardless of the staged pulling down of Saddam's statue. The resistance against the US and their puppet government is not a matter of a few old guard being dropped in by parachute, but of a major resistance movement from all sides, including former mortal enemies of Saddam. This was simply not the case in Tibet at all. How else can you explain that the expropriated Tibetan landlords and their mercenaries failed within a few years, while the Iraqi insurgency is currently proving unbeatable?Well, the current Iraqi insurgency is likely being largely funded by either Iran or Saudi Arabia, depending on where they fall on the ideological line. The reason the Tibetan guerilla insurgency was defeated was because their funding dried up. It's not quite true that the insurgency lasted only a few years - there were flare-ups of resistance for years, particularly by Tibetan nomad. Groups like Chushi Gangdruk lasted for years. Yes, the CIA did support them, but this doesn't mean the cause of the Tibetan nomads was inherently in line with the goals of the CIA - any more than the goals of UNITA was in line with the goals of the People's Republic of China when Mao supported them in Angola. It was opportunism on the part of the Tibetan guerillas and the CIA, just like the Iraq insurgency are not being supported by Iran or Saudi Arabia solely for ideological purposes.

And in fact, these Tibetan insurgencies fell apart precisely because Richard Nixon cut off the CIA funding in 1972, because of the new alignment in Sino-American relations, and also because the Dalai Lama taped a message for Tibetans to actually lay down their arms.



Well, I already told you that what the CCP is doing now is not defensible, so gain, I'm glad we're in agreement.Usually I find we are, I know in the past I've always enjoyed reading your posts.



On the other hand, it does matter, and it's another poor historical parallel. The British built railroads in Africa to transport goods to the port to take them back home, and they built schools to educate the colonial elite. Meanwhile, they deliberately worsened the relations between the ethnic groups they had conquered, picking sides, pitting them against one another. They did not free them, because this was simply against their interests. The British capitalists had an interest in economically exploiting Britain's colonial subjects. Quite a difference.Well, given the uneven economic development, and the fact that the cities are being dominated by the Han Chinese, who are SURELY benefitting primarily from this uneven economic development, how is the situation so drastically different? If the Tibetans are living in the countryside doing the agricultural and mining work and the Han Chinese and certain select Tibetans who are part of the CPC political structure are in the cities enjoying the urban infrastructure, how does that not constitute a colonial elite?



What is a PRC bias? Maybe you have a feudal Tibet bias, and what I'm telling you is the objective truth. It most probably isn't, but it's worth thinking about.Isn't a PRC bias pretty self-explanatory? It's a bias that leads one to believe more readily the claims and explanations of the People's Republic of China and dismiss other accounts. But what you say IS worth thinking about, and I assure you I am. But I don't believe that I have a pro-feudal Tibet bias, anymore than someone who resents European colonialism in Africa has romanticized notions of how wonderful things were in Africa before. Colonialism and imperial hegemony isn't just exercised by westerners, and I think this situation is particularly suspect when, for example, China in part has justified its presence in Tibet on inherited claims from the Qing dynasty. If there were a socialist revolution in the United Kingdom, I see no reason why they should retain control of Ulster, for example.

I'm glad you feel you can have a reasonable argument/discussion with me, sincerely, because as I said before I've always enjoyed reading your opinions on things.



As for the DL himself, I don't think he's the devil. He was not personally involved in the abuses of the old Tibet, and he maintains a moderate tone when it comes to Tibetan autonomy (with some exceptions). But he is still part of the clerical elite who is celebrated in western nations only because of his use as a stick to beat China with. He may be the nicest person with the best intentions in the world; perhaps he actually believes that he is a "half-marxist". I can't read his mind. But if the good man's ideas were put into practice, it would be a significant regression; not only from the current state of the Tibet Autonomous Region that exists in the PRC today, but also for the regions around it which he claims as "Greater Tibet" and wants to cleanse of non-Tibetans (one of the exceptions I mentioned).Well, China has used him just as much as others have used him. Frankly, my opinion of the Dalai Lama is that he is way over his head. He's a religious leader, inducted at a young age into a monastic life, and he's been forced into the role of a secular leader caught between the power struggles of several very large and powerful nation states. I think he'd be much happier as just a religious leader, and that's why I think in recent years he's been making statements distancing himself from politics.



Anyway, to answer your question, this article (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) is by Michael Parenti, a man who can probably be accused of being "anti-American" and "pro-PRC" with great ease. Not because there is any proof for that, but because it's an easy label that sticks on anyone who criticises conventional wisdom on these things. It's still a good read, and that's why I recommend it. It's not just about the Dalai Lama, but the man does get his due attention in the piece. Read it with an open mind, and see if there are any attempted refutations to it on the 'net as well.I've glanced at it, but I'll be honest, it doesn't seem to be that terribly revelatory. He starts off talking about Buddhist religious violence and corruption and how Buddhism is not some perfect religion, unlike other religions which are violent and awful. As a Buddhist myself, I have never thought that. Frankly, the idea that Buddhists in China, Korea, Japan or Sri Lanka would be or even COULD be somehow not at all capable of violence and corruption would be racist idealization of the Other - which is something I do feel some western Buddhists have a tendency for. I don't view religion uncritically just because I don't accept anti-religionism.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Look, I'm no lover of the CCP, but in those days Tibet was a feudal theocracy. Also in those days, I think the Chinese Communist Party was at least trying to live up to its name. I have trouble being against a socialist country (at that time at least trying to be) liberating its neighbors from feudal theocracy.

The policies since the 1950's are a different story.

Yes, I'm sure Tibet's working class is so glad it was "liberated" by the socialist paradise known as China.

[khad]

The question was: "is the People's Republic of China a colonial power akin to colonial European states?"

In the sense of being a managerial empire of expropriation and all the epistemological baggage that entails, absolutely not. Only a moron could argue that with a straight face. There are not, at least officially, extraterritoriality rules and differing gradations of citizenship rights. The Tibetans and peoples of East Turkestan are citizens, not subjects, which is an important distinction from, say, the British rule in India. You would not say that the corporate fat cats of the USA are being imperialist when they exploit USAn workers.

With regards to current developments in Africa, one could make the case for neo-colonialism, as Chinese businesses there operate very much along the lines of old imperial economic structures and methods. However, overt military domination and intervention has not appeared (not yet, at least).

A colonial power like the old European empires? Give me a fucking break.

What an utterly worthless thread.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Yes, I'm sure Tibet's working class is so glad it was "liberated" by the socialist paradise known as China.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be metaphorically enslaved and fucked in the ass by the Chinese capitalism than literally enslaved and fucked in the ass by a Buddhist monk.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be metaphorically enslaved and fucked in the ass by the Chinese capitalism than literally enslaved and fucked in the ass by a Buddhist monk.

I can't help but wonder if that is propaganda or not. I have read extensively on Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, and I'm pretty positive that the vast majority of monks weren't allowed to have recreational sex, seeing as they took vows of celibacy.

[khad]

I can't help but wonder if that is propaganda or not. I have read extensively on Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, and I'm pretty positive that the vast majority of monks weren't allowed to have recreational sex, seeing as they took vows of celibacy.
The Catholic Church has its priests take vows of celibacy. Didn't stop them from raping little boys. Sure as hell didn't stop popes from having illegitimate children.

[Adi Shankara]

The Catholic Church has its priests take vows of celibacy. Didn't stop them from raping little boys. Sure as hell didn't stop popes from having illegitimate children.

Even so, I am not trying to start anything, but I really cannot find any contemporary accounts on Tibetan clergy raping little boys anywhere...

[khad]

Even so, I am not trying to start anything, but I really cannot find any contemporary accounts on Tibetan clergy raping little boys anywhere...
They would often kidnap boys to serve as workers in the monasteries, and they would often have their way with them. When liberation came, many monasteries were gutted not by any military action but by all these young monk-lackeys voting with their feet to leave these pederast havens.

You can read about it in the autobiography of Tashi Tsering, a former monk of a peasant background, who had been kidnapped into a monastery and repeatedly raped from the age of 9.

[Adi Shankara]

You can read about it in the autobiography of Tashi Tsering, a former monk of a peasant background, who had been kidnapped into a monastery and repeatedly raped from the age of 9.

Thank you, I'll read into it, as it's definetly a topic of interest to me (lol hope that didn't sound wrong, but you know what I mean, I just never was aware of any of this)

[Die Neue Zeit]

They send prisoners, ie slave labour, to countries like Mozambique, and thus cause massive unemployment/massive wage cuts for local Mozambicans. They also use their diplomatic leverage to secure almost all construction contracts, and as the son of an engineer, i can say that they usually rush these projects and they end up being half-assed - the irish embassy which they constructed was completely flooded after the rainy season and had to be rebuilt.

The price Mozambique pays for all this is massive deforestation, with thousands of tonnes of lumber being shipped back to China, with Mozambique not really being able to benefit from their own natural resources. But that's neocolonialism for you, which China plays their part in

Source re. prisoners?