How can one be called "Communist" and at the same time defend Imperialism in Tibet

[Adi Shankara]

I know this is a controversial issue, and I am really curious, and not just try to start a flame war or troll post.

But I seriously don't get it; one of the major points of modern Marxist theory is to free all people's and let them self-determine their own future, free of outside and imperialist influence.

Yet this forum is beginning to appear very ridiculous.
I see so many so-called "communists" defend the integrity the Chinese colonization of Tibet, and coming up with the most ridiculous of reasons to justify the systematic subjugation of a native people.
What makes it even more ironic is most of the excuses given (to overthrow the "oppression" at the hands of the religious clergy, to "liberate" etc.) were given by Britain to justify the colonization of India, the French to justify the colonization of Indochina, and the Belgians in Central Africa.

so Is it only colonization/imperialism if a Western/European power is the one doing the conquering? what happens if we change the name "China" to "England" and "Tibet" to Ireland? would it have been acceptable then?

where do you so-called "leftists" get off on defending the illegitimate Chinese occupation of Tibet? shouldn't the Tibetans be left to decide their own autonomy, not some party officials in Beijing?

[Adi Shankara]

I'm not naming names for purposes of decency, but it seems like most of these people who are cheerleaders for the North Korean and Chinese states are attracted to them simply because they love the bright colors of the posters, the cool "communist" music, and the sense of iconoclastic legitimacy it supposedly brings them. my personal opinion, thus I'd like to hear yours.

[GreenCommunism]

i think they do should have autonomy if the people there desire it. but the reason most communist are not very fond of the ancient buddhist regime was that it kept people illeterate and poor. they also criticize western celebrities making a big deal out of that cause when other similar cause exist in the western world and are silent about those, like ireland,quebec, catalan and basque.

it is one of the few cases where imperialism was positive. tibet was a part of china for a long time during history also. if tibet was autonomous it would be forced to align with china or the west also.for example vietnam invading cambodia to get rid of pol pot was less justified than china invading tibet because tibet was a part of china for a long time. vietnam was trying to restore it's control over the region, no matter how much we think pol pot had to go.

[Adi Shankara]

also criticize western celebrities making a big deal out of that cause when other similar cause exist in the western world and are silent about those, like ireland,quebec, catalan and basque.

Now I know you're not supporting this, but wouldn't you agree that's a ridiculous reason to oppose a very legitimate concern?


it is one of the few cases where imperialism was positive. tibet was a part of china for a long time during history also.

STRONGLY disagree. Tibet never was, and never will be, a part of China. There is VERY LITTLE record of this. most of it is Maoist propaganda created to justify the invasion of a sovereign state.


if tibet was autonomous it would be forced to align with china or the west also.for example vietnam invading cambodia to get rid of pol pot was less justified than china invading tibet because tibet was a part of china for a long time. vietnam was trying to restore it's control over the region, no matter how much we think pol pot had to go.

I guess you're right in this sense, but that still doesn't mean we should deny them the right to self-determination because we think they might go along and association themselves anyways. that's redundant.

[dutch master]

Even the people who post here aren't so stupid that they can't see through the lies of the CIA-backed God-King. The God-King is the cult representative of an old, hated class of feudal lords and their theocracy. They do not represent, and have never represented, the aspirations of the people of Tibet.

[Adi Shankara]

Even the people who post here aren't so stupid that they can't see through the lies of the CIA-backed God-King. The God-King is the cult representative of an old, hated class of feudal lords and their theocracy. They do not represent, and have never represented, the aspirations of the people of Tibet.

...You mean Mao? he's the only one who's face is plastered all over like a god-king:

http://www.ribaotechnology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/renminbi_banknotes.jpg

http://www.gardenvisit.com/assets/madge/mao_zedong_tiananmen/600x/mao_zedong_tiananmen_600x.jpg

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/09/Mao-Statue-1.jpg

[scarletghoul]

Tibet always was and always will be a part of China. The liberation of the Tibetans from theocratic serfdom was not imperialism (benevolent or otherwise), it was a rising of the Tibetan serfs with help from the Peoples Liberation Army, and subsequent reunification with the rest of China.

The only imperialism in Tibet is the CIA-backed Dalai Lama and his ilk who claim a quarter of Chinese territory (which they call "Greater Tibet").

[Adi Shankara]

Tibet always was and always will be a part of China. The liberation of the Tibetans from theocratic serfdom was not imperialism (benevolent or otherwise), it was a rising of the Tibetan serfs with help from the Peoples Liberation Army, and subsequent reunification with the rest of China.

The only imperialism in Tibet is the CIA-backed Dalai Lama and his ilk who claim a quarter of Chinese territory (which they call "Greater Tibet").

legitimate Source on any of this?

[dutch master]

marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1959/tibet/index.htm

michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

[Adi Shankara]

The liberation of the Tibetans from theocratic serfdom was not imperialism (benevolent or otherwise), it was a rising of the Tibetan serfs with help from the Peoples Liberation Army, and subsequent reunification with the rest of China.

Guess you missed this one then:


By 1957, Kham was in chaos. PLA reprisals against Khampa resistance fighters such as the Chushi Gangdruk (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chushi_Gangdruk) became increasingly brutal. They included beatings, starving prisoners, and the rape of prisoners' wives in front of them until they confessed.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-knaus134-41) Monks and nuns were forced to have sex with each other and forcibly renounce their celibacy vows. After torture, these men and women were often killed.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-knaus134-41) Numerous cases of children being forced to shoot their parents to death were reported to the International Commission of Jurists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_of_Jurists).[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-42) By the late 1950s, the number of Tibetan freedom fighters numbered in the tens of thousands.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-Roberts.2C_John-43) Kham's monastic networks came to be used by guerrilla forces to relay messages and hide rebels.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_invasion_of_Tibet#cite_note-knaus86-44)

[GreenCommunism]

Now I know you're not supporting this, but wouldn't you agree that's a ridiculous reason to oppose a very legitimate concern?
i agree, we can point out their hypocrisy but it isn't a reason to oppose it.

STRONGLY disagree. Tibet never was, and never will be, a part of China. There is VERY LITTLE record of this. most of it is Maoist propaganda created to justify the invasion of a sovereign state.
i didn't know , since you asked source for tibet being part of china can you give source that tibet was not part of china?

I guess you're right in this sense, but that still doesn't mean we should deny them the right to self-determination because we think they might go along and association themselves anyways. that's redundant.
i do agree, but the question remains that how should this happen? through a referendum? would the han chinese present there have the right to vote in it?

also the dalai lama was funded by the cia since a long time.


By 1957, Kham was in chaos. PLA reprisals against Khampa resistance fighters such as the Chushi Gangdruk became increasingly brutal. They included beatings, starving prisoners, and the rape of prisoners' wives in front of them until they confessed.[42] Monks and nuns were forced to have sex with each other and forcibly renounce their celibacy vows. After torture, these men and women were often killed.[42] Numerous cases of children being forced to shoot their parents to death were reported to the International Commission of Jurists.[43] By the late 1950s, the number of Tibetan freedom fighters numbered in the tens of thousands.[44] Kham's monastic networks came to be used by guerrilla forces to relay messages and hide rebels.[45]
i am not saying none of this is true, but you seem to quote pro-tibet website and believe it like it was the absolute truth. also there is a difference between state policy,what happened in practice and isolated incident.

[Fietsketting]

Tibet always was and always will be a part of China. The liberation of the Tibetans from theocratic serfdom was not imperialism (benevolent or otherwise), it was a rising of the Tibetan serfs with help from the Peoples Liberation Army, and subsequent reunification with the rest of China.

The only imperialism in Tibet is the CIA-backed Dalai Lama and his ilk who claim a quarter of Chinese territory (which they call "Greater Tibet").

What about the theft of raw materials and emptying it out against the will of the population? Imperialism or not?

[Adi Shankara]

i didn't know , since you asked source for tibet being part of china can you give source that tibet was not part of china?

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/02/tibet-not-always-part-of-china-chinese-historian-ge-jianxiong-eeoaaeeon/ they published this in a mainland magazine.

http://www.tpprc.org/documents/agreements/821-822.pdf this comes from a historical treaty, nearly 1300 years old, that speaks of Tibet and China as "two sovereign states".

also, while unscientific, look at the proof in differences of language, culture, cuisine, religion, and values.


i am not saying none of this is true, but you seem to quote pro-tibet website and believe it like it was the absolute truth. also there is a difference between state policy,what happened in practice and isolated incident.

Actually, that passage came from Wikipedia, which has been proven to be as accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

[Robocommie]

Tibet always was and always will be a part of China.

That's irredentism, comrade. Tibet has not "always" been a part of China, in fact it wasn't brought into a Chinese polity until the Mongol conquests, and then it was later incorporated into Kublai Khan's Yuan dynasty. However even then, the Mongols administered Tibet and China with separate administrations, the Mongols appointed one of the most respected abbots of a local Buddhist sect to act as a viceroy over Tibet. After the collapse of the Yuan and the rise of the Ming dynasty, Tibet gained a further degree of autonomy, although scholars disagree on just how much. It's kindof interesting to note that scholars from the PRC support the idea that Tibet was an actual vassal state of the Ming wheras scholars from outside the PRC, including Western historians, tend to argue that Tibet was independent and merely paid tribute to China, just as Korea and Japan did during the Ming dynasty.

There's nothing like a glowing line in the dirt that stretches along the western border that says "You are now entering China." The geographical boundaries of a state is not pre-ordained, and it's purely a political issue, subject to change. Saying Tibet has always been a part of China is like saying that Wales and Scotland have always been part of the United Kingdom.

The truth is, the PRC doesn't have a claim to Tibet just because the Qing dynasty controlled it - because the Communists did not receive any kind of "Mandate of Heaven" when they took power which transfers all the old imperial rights and claims. Left wing nationalism must be more pragmatic than that and non-compulsory or else it's just becomes quasi-imperialistic hegemony like the Austro-Hungarian Empire.



The liberation of the Tibetans from theocratic serfdom was not imperialism (benevolent or otherwise), it was a rising of the Tibetan serfs with help from the Peoples Liberation Army, and subsequent reunification with the rest of China.

That's questionable. I'd like to see non-biased sources that support this idea that the serfs rose up prior to the invasion. While the old Tibet was not a particularly just society, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a revolutionary consciousness among the serfs, though I won't discount that possibility if you have evidence for it other than Maoist narratives of what exactly went down.

In any case, the Chinese did not just invade the areas controlled by the monastic government in Lhasa. They also expropriated the land of the Tibetan nomads in Kham and Amdo, who were historically distinct from the monasteries and owned their own land. They were also the primary source of violent resistance against the PLA.



The only imperialism in Tibet is the CIA-backed Dalai Lama and his ilk who claim a quarter of Chinese territory (which they call "Greater Tibet").

The CIA stopped backing the Tibetan guerillas in 1972 when Nixon and Mao were becoming closer allies, and the Dalai Lama's position has been more complicated than simply being backed by the CIA against the Chinese. If anything, he's been caught in between the power politics of both the US and the PRC. "Greater Tibet" represents the fact that the territory that has traditionally been considered Tibet actually constitutes a larger area than has been included into the Tibet Autonomous Region.

[Uppercut]

No major state recognized de facto independent Tibet because China had a claim to sovereignty. A United States State Department spokesman noted in 1999 that since 1942 the United States has regarded Tibet as part of China, and during the 1940s, U.S. actions repeatedly affirmed that view.

There was a book published in Taiwan recently. It is an edited version of interviews with people living in Tibet, mostly Tibetans, about the Cultural Revolution. The author Wei Se is a PRC citizen of Tibetan ethnic origin who has been banned and censored by the Chinese authorities. The book is a result of several years' work and consists of a selection of 23 interviews out of more than 70 that she had conducted.

"According to the interview with her mother, Wei Se's father was very enthusiastic at the beginning of the GPCR and he loved Mao. Another interviewee states that at that time 'belief in the CCP was like belief in religion. Another interviewee says that he really believed Mao was right and many others did as well. Another Tibetan who used to be a servant of one of the religious teachers of the Dalai Lama also states that he likes Mao because Mao respects the Dalai Lama, and because Mao supports the poor. He reaffirms that at that time, medical services were very good for the poor people, and the first thing he said when he recovered from a hospital operation was 'long live Chairman Mao'."

"Many of the interviewees hold that there was not much ethnic conflict in the era of Mao. One interviewee of Hui ethnic background states that the Hans and the Tibetans were the same in making revolution. Other interviewees affirm the idea that the dominant discourse was class struggle and the words on every one's lips lips were qin bu qin jieji fen (whether one feels close to another depends on class). A Tibetan interviewee who used to be a neighborhood committee leader is very upset by the current Chinese policy of giving so much privilege to Tibetans who belonged to the former ruling class. Finally the majority of the interviewees, when questioned, affirm that it was the Tibetan activists of the neighborhood committees, not the Red Guards, who did most of the damage in religious destruction." - The Battle for China's Past, pgs. 16, 17.

[Adi Shankara]

No major state recognized de facto independent Tibet because China had a claim to sovereignty. A United States State Department spokesman noted in 1999 that since 1942 the United States has regarded Tibet as part of China, and during the 1940s, U.S. actions repeatedly affirmed that view.

There was a book published in Taiwan recently. It is an edited version of interviews with people living in Tibet, mostly Tibetans, about the Cultural Revolution. The author Wei Se is a PRC citizen of Tibetan ethnic origin who has been banned and censored by the Chinese authorities. The book is a result of several years' work and consists of a selection of 23 interviews out of more than 70 that she had conducted.

"According to the interview with her mother, Wei Se's father was very enthusiastic at the beginning of the GPCR and he loved Mao. Another interviewee states that at that time 'belief in the CCP was like belief in religion. Another interviewee says that he really believed Mao was right and many others did aas well. Another Tibetan who used to be a servant of one of the religious teachers of the Dalai Lama also states that he likes Mao because Mao respects the Dalai Lama, and because Mao supports the poor. H reaffirms that at that time, medical services were very good for the poor people, and the first thing he said when he recovered from a hospital operation was 'long live Chairman Mao'."

"Many of the interviewees hold that there was not much ethnic conflict in the era of Mao. One interviewee of Hui ethnic background states that the Hans and the Tibetans were the same in making revolution. Other interviewees affirm the idea that the dominant discourse was class struggle and the words on every one's lips lips were qin bu qin jieji fen (whether one feels close to another depends on class). A Tibetan interviewee who used to be a neighborhood committee leader is very upset by the current Chinese policy of giving so much privilege to Tibetans who belonged to the former ruling class. Finaly the majority of the interviewees, when questions, affirm that it was the Tibetan activists of the neighborhood committees, not the Red Guards, who did most of the damage in religious destruction." - The Battle for China's Past, pgs. 16, 17.

I'd have to see who wrote the book, and it sounds interesting, I'll definetly look into it--but as far as Tibet being sovereign, you have to look at the historical accounts, and by all historical accounts predating the 1700's, Tibet is about as autonomous as Ireland is to England.

[Robocommie]

No major state recognized de facto independent Tibet because China had a claim to sovereignty. A United States State Department spokesman noted in 1999 that since 1942 the United States has regarded Tibet as part of China, and during the 1940s, U.S. actions repeatedly affirmed that view.


The book you quoted sounds very interesting, so thank you for that. That said, I don't see how US recognition to claims on territory should mean anything to us as socialists.

[Uppercut]

I'd have to see who wrote the book, and it sounds interesting, I'll definetly look into it--but as far as Tibet being sovereign, you have to look at the historical accounts, and by all historical accounts predating the 1700's, Tibet is about as autonomous as Ireland is to England.

The author of the book is Mobo Gao. He and his family took part in the GPCR.

Tibet becoming independent in this day and age is a different story, especially if there is any revolutionary activity in the region that opposes the current Chinese policy. I was just clearing up that Tibet wasn't bombarded with Chinese social imperialism.

[The Red Next Door]

Who give a fuck about the liberals precious tibet, palestine is going through some big shit.

[Robocommie]

Who give a fuck about the liberals precious tibet, palestine is going through some big shit.

Uh, I would say that Tibetans give a fuck about Tibet, pal. And Palestine's struggles have nothing to do with this. Just keep in mind that "liberals" didn't invent the Tibetan plateau.

[Adi Shankara]

Who give a fuck about the liberals precious tibet, palestine is going through some big shit.

What a completely ignorant and completely retarded statement.

[redSHARP]

ease down everyone. this thread was actually going somewhere! let cool heads prevail.
----
now then back to the thread....

the Tibetan situation is tricky, but i figured that why couldn't the Chinese just install a communist government (puppet or not)? they could have their cake (tibet more or less back under chinese hegemony) and eat it to (claim they are liberators) if they installed a puppet and left it a sovereign nation then it would be "kosher".

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

umm... tbh, I consider puppet governments one of the most disgusting and demeaning things to ever occur... simply because I see puppet governments as a large, sticky label slapped onto a group of people suggesting that they are inferior to the point in which they can't even lead themselves... tbh, I consider puppet governments a form of facism...

[Robocommie]

ease down everyone. this thread was actually going somewhere! let cool heads prevail.
----
now then back to the thread....

the Tibetan situation is tricky, but i figured that why couldn't the Chinese just install a communist government (puppet or not)? they could have their cake (tibet more or less back under chinese hegemony) and eat it to (claim they are liberators) if they installed a puppet and left it a sovereign nation then it would be "kosher".

Hah, that's pretty damn cynical.

[Adi Shankara]

Personally, I think at this point, as far-fetched as it currently may be, the only hope for Tibet is complete and 100% liberation from the yoke of Chinese oppression. same goes for those in East Turkestan. then Finally, I'd like to see China itself free from the dominance of the party elite.

[Robocommie]

Personally, I think at this point, as far-fetched as it currently may be, the only hope for Tibet is complete and 100% liberation from the yoke of Chinese oppression. same goes for those in East Turkestan. then Finally, I'd like to see China itself free from the dominance of the party elite.

I wouldn't go that far. More autonomy would probably go a long way. It's quite possible to have a multi-national state, theoretically that's what China is supposed to be.

[Adi Shankara]

I wouldn't go that far. More autonomy would probably go a long way. It's quite possible to have a multi-national state, theoretically that's what China is supposed to be.

But would you want a multinational state consisting of a bunch of authoritarian states? because that's basically what the PRC promises to Tibet and East Turkestan.

[Robocommie]

But would you want a multinational state consisting of a bunch of authoritarian states? because that's basically what the PRC promises to Tibet and East Turkestan.

I am of course pro-democracy, but if I say that Tibet must be completely independent to have hope, then it's basically like saying that the entire People's Republic of China is corrupt beyond hope. I don't think that's the case. There's always hope for reform.

[Adi Shankara]

I am of course pro-democracy, but if I say that Tibet must be completely independent to have hope, then it's basically like saying that the entire People's Republic of China is corrupt beyond hope. I don't think that's the case. There's always hope for reform.


In my opinion at least, It pretty much is; I can't think of a single redeeming quality that the "People's Republic" of China has. like, except for being a challenging power to the West, that's about it.

at this point, I'd even rather see the completely bourgeoisie Republic of China (Taiwan) take control of the mainland, because at least I know (or think) that they'd back away from East Turkestan and Tibet and leave it up to those own respective areas to have a degree of self-determination, which currently isn't afforded by the mainland government.

but before someone accuses me of supporting a rightwing, capitalist administration, ask yourself this: what economic policy does Taiwan have that differs from China as far as capitalism goes?

[Saorsa]

http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/

[Saorsa]

Tibet was a feudal theocracy ruled by a caste of Buddhist landlord-monks. The peasants were forced by the monks armies to pay grain taxes which allowed the monks to live without working, studying their superstitious texts and living off the fat of the land.

After China was liberated in 1949, the Communist Party sent its cadres into Tibet to support the peasants, who were growing increasingly sick and tired of being exploited and oppressed by the monks. Peasants began seizing land, refusing to pay taxes to the monks, even fighting pitched battles with the monks and their armies.

The monks lived in fortress monasteries on the hills overlooking the peasants and their farms. With the encouragement of the Maoists, the peasants stormed these fortresses and defeated the monks in many places across Tibet.

Women began to organise and free themselves from the shackles of backward, sexist superstition about their role in society. Slaves began to demand freedom - you know Tibet was maintained by a slave economy right? And the PLA was working in Tibet building roads, hospitals, wells and so on to benefit the ordinary people.

The laamas could see they were losing control. So they and their armies launched a desperate attempt at a counter-revlution, attacking the PLA, communists, and Han chinese people in general in an attempt to restore the old order of things.

There weren't that many PLA troops in Tibet. Had the Tibetan masses joined in the counter-revolutionary uprising, the PLA would have been swept away. But the masses didn't join this uprising - they could see it for what it was, an attempt by their exploiters to maintain a system of exploitation.

After the monks realised the people were not with them, they fled over the border to India and Nepal, where the CIA constructed training camps for monks to receive weapons and bombs to go over the border and launch terrorist attacks against the civilian population and the PLA, attempting to halt the construction of a new, socialist order in Tibet. Similar to the Contras in Nicaragua.

It was from these terrorist training camps and from the propaganda of the exiled monks that the so-called 'Free Tibet' movement emerged. It was created, maintained, funded and pushed forward all the way by the CIA and Western imperialist interests. Sadly, many otherwise well meaning people on the left have gotten sucked in.

[Adi Shankara]

Tibet was a feudal theocracy ruled by a caste of Buddhist landlord-monks. The peasants were forced by the monks armies to pay grain taxes which allowed the monks to live without working, studying their superstitious texts and living off the fat of the land.

Very subjective. it doesn't even sound like you researched the role of the monks, who acted more as administrators than "studying their superstitious texts living off the fat of the land". besides, as far as studying "superstitious texts", the same can be said for those who follow Mao and read his drivel (exception: his dissertations on Guerrila warfare, which actually are quite comprehensive)


After China was liberated in 1949, the Communist Party sent its cadres into Tibet to support the peasants, who were growing increasingly sick and tired of being exploited and oppressed by the monks.

No source...made further suspect that Tibet didn't fall to China until 2 years later.


Peasants began seizing land, refusing to pay taxes to the monks, even fighting pitched battles with the monks and their armies.

That's not true, either;

1.) there was no monk armies; Tibet was unified, there wasn't a bunch of different warlords wandering around, it was uniform, led by a single figurehead.

2.) in fact, there was no fighting in Lhasa whatsoever; the only major conflict was on October 7th of 1950, where 8,5000 outnumbered troops led by Ngapoi Ngawang surrendered to the Chinese after 40,000 of the PLA killed 5000 Tibetan warriors.


The monks lived in fortress monasteries on the hills overlooking the peasants and their farms. With the encouragement of the Maoists, the peasants stormed these fortresses and defeated the monks in many places across Tibet.

Again, more fantasy; the PLA pretty much just walked into Central Tibet 200km from the capital after the initial battle outside of Lhasa on October 7th; This was the only time the PLA was really civil to Tibet, as they helped fund projects and distributed goods and food to the civilians. doesn't justify the invasion, but it was the only time they done good this entire campaign.


Women began to organise and free themselves from the shackles of backward, sexist superstition about their role in society.

Where the hell do you get this stuff, out of the pages of "Quotes by Chairman Mao"? None of this happened; the initial takeover of Lhasa in 1951 was generally peaceful; but that wasn't the problem; it was the PLA's actions in Kham and Amdo that were the real problem.


Slaves began to demand freedom - you know Tibet was maintained by a slave economy right?

No, I didn't know that, and neither does any professor, sociologist, or historian.


And the PLA was working in Tibet building roads, hospitals, wells and so on to benefit the ordinary people.

so far the only thing true you've written.


The laamas could see they were losing control. So they and their armies launched a desperate attempt at a counter-revlution, attacking the PLA, communists, and Han chinese people in general in an attempt to restore the old order of things.

...What the hell? Believe it or not, the Chinese PLA actually promised Ngapoi Ngawang that he'd be able to keep his wealth if he negotiated surrender with the Dalai Lama.


There weren't that many PLA troops in Tibet. Had the Tibetan masses joined in the counter-revolutionary uprising, the PLA would have been swept away.

There were 40,000 PLA troops in Tibet in the year 1950.


But the masses didn't join this uprising - they could see it for what it was, an attempt by their exploiters to maintain a system of exploitation.

Most of them didn't join in because, at least in Central Tibet for the year 1950, the PLA actually was doing good for the people. That, and they had the full blessing of the Dalai Lama, who's authority was more respected as a religious leader than disrespected as a politician. Look at the reverence for him today even in Tibet for proof on that.


After the monks realised the people were not with them, they fled over the border to India and Nepal, where the CIA constructed training camps for monks to receive weapons and bombs to go over the border and launch terrorist attacks against the civilian population and the PLA, attempting to halt the construction of a new, socialist order in Tibet. Similar to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Complete fabrication. that's not how things worked out at all. China signed this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_Point_Agreement_for_the_Peaceful_Liberat ion_of_Tibet

with Tibet. It was signed by the Tibetan ruling class, aka the Theocrats.



It was from these terrorist training camps and from the propaganda of the exiled monks that the so-called 'Free Tibet' movement emerged. It was created, maintained, funded and pushed forward all the way by the CIA and Western imperialist interests. Sadly, many otherwise well meaning people on the left have gotten sucked in.

I can't believe you really believe in all that crap.

Yes, the PLA wasn't bad to central Tibet during the first 5 years of occupation; by the mid 1950's, however, they began a terror campaign in Amdo and Kham States. When that spread back to Lhasa and people began to criticize the role of China in their "partnership", thats when hell began for the Tibetan people.

[Adi Shankara]

If you question me as to my source, mostly this book, which presents the "official" version of history on both sides of the coin, along with a balanced look at what really happened:

http://www.amazon.com/History-As-Propaganda-Republic-ebook/dp/B000S1L3M0/ref=sr_1_37?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1277799038&sr=8-37

this book, mostly an impartial source in favor of the Chinese view, but still a good read, as it has a good early context of history in the middle ages:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Tibet-1913-1951-Lamaist/dp/0520075900/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277799147&sr=8-11

and this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Tibet_%281950%E2%80%931951%29

so I do my best to cite my sources.

[Adi Shankara]

Also, the Dalai Lama was 14 when the Chinese invaded; I can't imagine how a 14 year old can "rule like a tyrant" and train subversive guerillas when, you know, he's 14:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/T100619002307.htm

he doesn't even want a theocracy, but a democracy. I don't see what everyone's dispute with the 14th Dalai Lama is. he barely had anything to do with anything when the Chinese invaded.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Also, the Dalai Lama was 14 when the Chinese invaded; I can't imagine how a 14 year old can "rule like a tyrant" and train subversive guerillas when, you know, he's 14:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/T100619002307.htm

he doesn't even want a theocracy, but a democracy. I don't see what everyone's dispute with the 14th Dalai Lama is. he barely had anything to do with anything when the Chinese invaded.

He's a religious wacko playing into the hands of the U.S. and other imperialist interests, what's so hard to understand about that dispute?

[Adi Shankara]

He's a religious wacko playing into the hands of the U.S. and other imperialist interests, what's so hard to understand about that dispute?

The fact that I may agree with his position in Buddhism being too political and strange for my tastes, but I don't see how he's playing into the hands of "imperialist" interests (goddamn, that word gets thrown around here more than the phrase "jewish media" gets thrown around on racist troll website stormfront)

[bailey_187]

So what about the Tibetan Red Guards in the 60s? Are they compradors and collaboraters in this "colonisation"? Silly Tibetans trying to end their backwardness imposed by Monks, dont they know they know material possesions are empty, and spiritual happyness is all that is needed?

Is the Abolitionist invasion of the Confederate States imperialism? I mean, the Abolitionist were trying to end the "southern way of life" and impose their own, wernt they?

[bailey_187]

The fact that I may agree with his position in Buddhism being too political and strange for my tastes, but I don't see how he's playing into the hands of "imperialist" interests (goddamn, that word gets thrown around here more than the phrase "jewish media" gets thrown around on racist troll website stormfront)

He is not now, hence why he gets little support. However, in the 50s and 60s he received money from the CIA to destabilise China.

[Demogorgon]

It's because Saddam was a brutal dictator and... oh sorry, wrong country.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here and the kind of double standards-and dare I say it, doublethink-going on here i the cause of exactly the sort of cognitive dissonance that leads to such perversion of what should be a progressive ideology. Trying to fool yourself is a very dangerous thing to do indeed.

Incidentally regarding some of the naive support for China in general people have. If you look at Hong Kong where a multi-party system (though an undemocratic one) has developed, there is an almost straight left/right split with the left opposing the CCP and the right supporting it. Now why might that be, I wonder?

[Chambered Word]

The debate reminds me of part of Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany by Engels and Marx:


Thus ended for the present, and most likely for ever, the attempts of the Slavonians of Germany to recover an independent national existence. Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished, and who in consequence had been obliged, for almost a thousand years, to follow in the wake of a mightier nation, their conqueror, the same as the Welsh in England, the Basques in Spain, the Bas-Bretons in France, and at a more recent period the Spanish and French Creoles in those portions of North America occupied of late by the Anglo-American race —these dying nationalities, the Bohemians, Carinthians, Dalmatians, etc., had tried to profit by the universal confusion of 1848, in order to restore their political status quo of A. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the roles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself. Certainly this is no very flattering prospect for the national ambition of the Panslavistic dreamers who succeeded in agitating a portion of the Bohemian and South Slavonian people; but can they expect that history would retrograde a thousand years in order to please a few phthisical bodies of men, who in every part of the territory they occupy are interspersed with and surrounded by Germans, who from time almost immemorial have had for all purposes of civilization no other language but the German, and who lack the very first conditions of national existence, numbers and compactness of territory? Thus, the Panslavistic rising, which everywhere in the German and Hungarian Slavonic territories was the cloak for the restoration to independence of all these numberless petty nations, everywhere clashed with the European revolutionary movements, and the Slavonians, although pretending to fight for liberty, were invariably (the Democratic portion of the Poles excepted) found on the side of despotism and reaction.

Parallels can be drawn between the Slavonian nationalist uprisings and the Free Tibet movement. The way I understand it, rather than allow the Tibetan peasantry to develop alongside the Chinese proletariat into a working class which could later overthrow the bourgeoisie, the liberals appeal to nationalism and call for the reinstatement of a reactionary feudal theocratic regime in Tibet - under which there was little development and living conditions were much worse than in China.

Make no mistake, I do not support China in the very least. But it's easy to see that this is the lesser of two evils.

[4 Leaf Clover]

there is no single reason why would we support creating an independent state based on clericalism , some woodoo shamanism , whose main supporter is who else but USA. We support developing of socialism , not developing of buddhism. Second , there is no imperialism. Tibetans are equal with other Chinese citizens , they just dont want to allow them to create independent state ,

[GreenCommunism]

the literacy rate in tibet were absolutly abysmal before china came in. though there are reports that tibetans face discrimination in china when it comes to education.

[Gustav HK]

Well probably Tibet was de jure part of China before 1949, it only was de facto independent because of the chaotic Chinese civil war, so the invasion/liberation of Tibet 1950-1951 probably wasn´t imperialistic.

But that doesn´t exclude an imperialistic behavior against the Tibetan people from China.

As Enver Hoxha wrote in his critique of Mao´s "On the ten major relationships":
"In point six Mao talks about the relationships between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities that lives in China. Say what you want about the equality between the nations, the fact is, that the Han nationality is rulilng in China.
In the relationships between the nationalities the Han people had and the maintain the leading position, the dominate the other nationalities and bully them, without regard to the trite demagogic formulas they use. [...] In China democracy and equality between the nationalities is something that doesn´t exist. As before it is a millitary dictatorship. That fraction of that nationality that had the army with it forced it´s will on the people and the broad masses of the party. [...] - Enver Hoxha "Some thoughts about Mao Tse Tungs ballistic "Decalogue"" in "Reflections on China part II". My own translation from Danish.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_51.htm

The writing of Mao that is critiqued by Hoxha (point 6).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

To start with i will say that im for decentralization, the decisions should be done by thoose who affects of them, workers council and genrall meetings is the shit.
But when it commes to Tibet the choice isnt about explotation and freedom, in reallity the choice is betwen living under Chineese ruling and at least get some things that will make your living conditions a little bit higher, ore being ruled by some religeous fundamentalits that will throw back the whole country to the pre-middel ages. During Maos ruling time the average living age doubbled in China and that includes Tibet, thanks to the communists (and the good people of Tibet) they got roads hospitals, schools and goods frome the north, womens position where also strenghthen. Comparing that with Tibets neighbours like Nepal and Buthan where the monarchy and the religeous leaders have capt their position, you can se that life is pretty much better in manny cases in Tibet.

One of the moost established myths is that about Tibet being some sort of Shangri-La, the lost paradise on earth, before the communist rule, that the land was formed of peace and equality, when infact the nazis sended a expedition to Tibet in the 30s to look for the origin of the aryan race. The expedition raported back to Himmler about the tibetan society as a good example of how things should be organized with hughe class-differences evryone knew there position and so on. Liberals and right-wingers in the west have really made Tibet to their little "thing" and Dalai lama as their puppet, and allways saying things like "he is so kind and tolerant" (when he really wants the totall power over a whole nation and he have made homophobic claims) "loock how good his books is" (so what, that doesnt make him a good leader) and its being confirmed all the time by hollywood in form of "Seven years in Tibet" and "Kudun" its just silly.

[Raúl Duke]

All I see in this thread are double standards.

[Robocommie]

there is no single reason why would we support creating an independent state based on clericalism , some woodoo shamanism

Alright, this is the fucking limit right here. "Woodoo shamanism"? Why the fuck don't you make some kind of comment about witch doctors with bones through their noses?

Sooner or later it seems a lot of radical anti-religious sentiment turns into some kind of insufferable chauvinism, and mirrors the same kind of racist condescension of religious beliefs that the old European colonialists used to engage in (lawl, Hindoos and their silly superstitions). The only fucking thing that can be said is that you guys at least don't discriminate and spew your intolerance towards everyone, Christians included.

[4 Leaf Clover]

come on , dont squeal , joga fanatics :lol:

im anti-theist generaly , your failing atempt to pronounce me chauvinist only makes me laugh

[Robocommie]

come on , dont squeal , joga fanatics :lol:

im anti-theist generaly , your failing atempt to pronounce me chauvinist only makes me laugh

It's not my attempt to cast you as chauvinist, you did it yourself when you made an idiotic comment about "woodoo shamanism." That's idiotic, and like I said, you might as well make some kind of comment about witch doctors and bones through the nose. GTFO with your condescending characterizations.

[Barry Lyndon]

All I see in this thread are double standards.

Their not double-standards because its not the same situation, and its not the same historical circumstances.

[4 Leaf Clover]

It's not my attempt to cast you as chauvinist, you did it yourself when you made an idiotic comment about "woodoo shamanism." That's idiotic, and like I said, you might as well make some kind of comment about witch doctors and bones through the nose. GTFO with your condescending characterizations.

dude , just admit you have fetish on transcedental meditation , and felt offended by this post for no reason :lol:

[Robocommie]

Their not double-standards because its not the same situation, and its not the same historical circumstances.

The historical circumstances are not the same, but that doesn't mean the situation is acceptable. There is a genuine lack of autonomy and uneven development. For all the talk of the Chinese modernization of Tibet, to this day most Tibetans live in the impoverished rural regions doing subsistence agriculture while Han Chinese migrants or permanent settlers live in the cities, with all the income disparities that that would entail. After the 2008 riots in Tibet, the PRC announced intentions to develop the rural regions of China, but we'll see just see how successful that is with the PRC's Dengism and neo-liberalism.

Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama's "fake" government in Dharamsala administrates a very REAL population of 100,000 Tibetans, which increases each year by about 1000 as Tibetan refugees make their way into India, mostly through Nepal.

All of this is handwaved by repeated assertions about feudal backwardness and glorious liberation, and frustrated denouncements of strawman arguments about hailing pre-1950 Tibet as some kind of beautiful utopic Shangri-La, which nobody ever actually claims (and if they did, I'd correct them myself)

[Robocommie]

dude , just admit you have fetish on transcedental meditation , and felt offended by this post for no reason :lol:

You can pretty much dismiss anyone's views or beliefs by calling it a "fetish" and it's awesome, because then you also get to evoke imagery of the other person being a sexual deviant.

"lawl, Buddha-fag"

But no, I was offended by this post for the same reason I get irritated by all idiotic prejudiced comments against Muslims, Christians, Hindus or Buddhist, because it's really just a form of elitism by people who think they're personally smarter than religious folks. "Shamanism" isn't a fucking pejorative, Cecil Rhodes, and your use of it as such is a perfect demonstration of what I mean.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I'm not naming names for purposes of decency, but it seems like most of these people who are cheerleaders for the North Korean and Chinese states are attracted to them simply because they love the bright colors of the posters, the cool "communist" music, and the sense of iconoclastic legitimacy it supposedly brings them. my personal opinion, thus I'd like to hear yours.

Why is like every single one of the threads you start devoted to slagging off communist parties in Asia? And why do you post so fucking many of them? How bout this: switch things up and find another continent to troll about for the next week.

[4 Leaf Clover]

You can pretty much dismiss anyone's views or beliefs by calling it a "fetish" and it's awesome, because then you also get to evoke imagery of the other person being a sexual deviant.

"lawl, Buddha-fag"

ok , i admit , it's all my sexual fantasies :thumbup1:

[Robocommie]

ok , i admit , it's all my sexual fantasies :thumbup1:

...How's your reading comprehension?

[Barry Lyndon]

The historical circumstances are not the same, but that doesn't mean the situation is acceptable. There is a genuine lack of autonomy and uneven development. For all the talk of the Chinese modernization of Tibet, to this day most Tibetans live in the impoverished rural regions doing subsistence agriculture while Han Chinese migrants or permanent settlers live in the cities, with all the income disparities that that would entail. After the 2008 riots in Tibet, the PRC announced intentions to develop the rural regions of China, but we'll see just see how successful that is with the PRC's Dengism and neo-liberalism.

Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama's "fake" government in Dharamsala administrates a very REAL population of 100,000 Tibetans, which increases each year by about 1000 as Tibetan refugees make their way into India, mostly through Nepal.

All of this is handwaved by repeated assertions about feudal backwardness and glorious liberation, and frustrated denouncements of strawman arguments about hailing pre-1950 Tibet as some kind of beautiful utopic Shangri-La, which nobody ever actually claims (and if they did, I'd correct them myself)

Well, personally I do not defend the PRC's present-day behavior in Tibet, I think in the present-day it is certainly behaving in an imperialist manner. I just think that the PRC's initial act of helping liberate the Tibetan serfs in the 1950's was justified. I think there is a fair amount of confusion on this thread between defending that and defending the PRC's current policies.

[4 Leaf Clover]

...How's your reading comprehension?

im smoking caffe creme , and enjoying smoke , bit distracted

[Robocommie]

im smoking caffe creme , and enjoying smoke , bit distracted

Alright well, enjoy that. :thumbup1:

[Robocommie]

Well, personally I do not defend the PRC's present-day behavior in Tibet, I think in the present-day it is certainly behaving in an imperialist manner. I just think that the PRC's initial act of helping liberate the Tibetan serfs in the 1950's was justified. I think there is a fair amount of confusion on this thread between defending that and defending the PRC's current policies.

I think the problem is, the way the invasion went down laid the groundwork for this shit happening now. If there had been genuine democracy and genuine autonomy, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[it_ain't_me]

''imperialist'' interests (goddamn, that word gets thrown around here more than the phrase ''jewish media'' gets thrown around on racist troll website stormfront)

yeah, like in the title of this thread that you made.

[gorillafuck]

Tibet always was and always will be a part of China.
That's a pretty bizarre argument to hear coming from an internationalist.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Robocomie, you must be a buddhist, because your acting like a catholic who supports the IRA, or a loyalist who supports the UK GOV, simply because of religeous convictions, even though, it is completely nothing to do with the conflict.

You seem to support it out of some loyalty to buddhists, it may just be me, but thats how it seems.

If they were not Buddhist, you would have another outlook on it you think?

do not mean to be rude or anything, i am just curious as to see if you would say you have another way of looking at it, due to your religeous perspective?

I mean, i bet alot of Buddhists are pro chinese in Tibet.

[Robocommie]

Robocomie, you must be a buddhist, because your acting like a catholic who supports the IRA, or a loyalist who supports the UK GOV, simply because of religeous convictions, even though, it is completely nothing to do with the conflict.

You seem to support it out of some loyalty to buddhists, it may just be me, but thats how it seems.

If they were not Buddhist, you would have another outlook on it you think?

do not mean to be rude or anything, i am just curious as to see if you would say you have another way of looking at it, due to your religeous perspective?

I mean, i bet alot of Buddhists are pro chinese in Tibet.

I am a Buddhist, though not of the Gelugpa sect, if anything I'm a Zen Buddhist, which is actually more common among Han Chinese. So if you want to take that approach, it'd be more like a Protestant supporting the IRA out of religious conviction. Which doesn't in and of itself work.

And no, I don't think I really would have another outlook on it, because my approach to nationalism calls for the self-determination of peoples. I am not calling for a return to the old Tibet, anymore than I would like to see Afghanistan return to the Barakzai dynasty and have Ahmad Shah Khan crowned king.

I mean, I could point out that many of the strongest supporters of the PRC in Tibet are actually Maoists, and therefore have an ideological incentive to support the PRC in this situation. It's natural to tend to be more sympathetic to causes or groups that you personally identify with. That's a natural part of bias. However, I am trying to be as objective as I can be by being consciously aware of my bias and keeping open to other perspectives.

[Spanishleft]

The people of Tibet need freedom, but so do all Chinese people! It is pointless to get engaged in imperialistic arguments of "18XX the Emperor of Blaah decided that it belongs to his empire, thus ..."

The history of Tibet, or any other country/region, is filled with oppression and thus totally invalid to determine the deserved status in the future. Tibetans and Han-Chinese should both have their right of self-determination!

I just get offended by people claiming to be leftist, then demanding Han-Chinese to leave Tibet because they otherwise mix with the 'pure culture' of Tibet, effectively demanding ethnic cleaning. Sadly, I do not see any kind of institution that might guarantee the safety of ethnic Han Chinese in Tibet besides the PRC. Somebody disagree on that? I'm curious!

[bailey_187]

That's a pretty bizarre argument to hear coming from an internationalist.

Not as bizare as those who cry about Han migration to the area, yet go and shout "Nazi scum off our streets" to the EDL......(not directed at you, if that sounds like it is, i dont know what you do)

[Robocommie]

Not as bizare as those who cry about Han migration to the area, yet go and shout "Nazi scum off our streets" to the EDL......(not directed at you, if that sounds like it is, i dont know what you do)

There's a difference between white supremacism, which represents the militarization of a culturally dominant group against cultural minorities, and the recognition of neo-colonialist economic policies. If Chinese enterprises in the urban areas of Tibet are being staffed by workers from Sichuan while the countryside remains largely undeveloped, then it serves to create an ethnic class divide where the Tibetans remain farmers trying to eke out a living with subsistence agriculture in the underdeveloped rural countryside while the Han Chinese benefit primarily from Tibet's resources.

The recognition of ethnicity as a social force is not equivalent to ethnic supremacism, it can also be a recognition of the way in which racism and class warfare intersect.

[Spanishleft]

There's a difference between white supremacism, which represents the militarization of a culturally dominant group against cultural minorities, and the recognition of neo-colonialist economic policies. If Chinese enterprises in the urban areas of Tibet are being staffed by workers from Sichuan while the countryside remains largely undeveloped, then it serves to create an ethnic class divide where the Tibetans remain farmers trying to eke out a living with subsistence agriculture in the underdeveloped rural countryside while the Han Chinese benefit primarily from Tibet's resources.

The recognition of ethnicity as a social force is not equivalent to ethnic supremacism, it can also be a recognition of the way in which racism and class warfare intersect.

We fight against class division, not against ethnicies! Can't you admit people in Tibet deserve freedom no matter their ethnicy? Even if they're Han Chinese? Talk like that '"the Han Chinese benefit primarily from Tibet's resources"' is just good to incite ethnic clashes, as opposed to class warfare!

[Starport]

I think that the originator of this post is not the slightest bit concerned about the 'people' of Tibet and that the whole point of the post is to provoke a debate about ‘the record on democracy and ‘human rights’ in China’ which, even with its glaring revisionist idiocies, remains a major threat to imperialism and is constantly targeted for ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ hypocritical propaganda-especially effective when it is slyly delivered from the ‘left’, allegedly! Like this in the OP:



But I seriously don't get it; one of the major points of modern Marxist theory is to free all people's and let them self-determine their own future, free of outside and imperialist influence.


From a contributor who claims to be “really curious and not just try to start a flame war or troll post.” and also claims to support posts with evidence can you explain:

1) What do you mean by “modern Marxist theory”?
2) What is meant by “all people's” in this “modern Marxist theory”?

[Robocommie]

We fight against class division, not against ethnicies! Can't you admit people in Tibet deserve freedom no matter their ethnicy? Even if they're Han Chinese? Talk like that '"the Han Chinese benefit primarily from Tibet's resources"' is just good to incite ethnic clashes, as opposed to class warfare!

I fight to liberate white workers as well as black and Latino workers, but it'd be pure foolishness to suggest that white workers in the United States face the same situation as blacks and Latinos. The disparities of income in the TAR between rural workers, who are largely Tibetan, and urban workers, who are largely Han, is significant. Rural workers make about a quarter of what urban workers make.

In effect, ethnic divides have the potential to be actual class divides, which is why national self-determination actually means something.

[Robocommie]

I think that the originator of this post is not the slightest bit concerned about the 'people' of Tibet

Just out of curiosity, why did you put "people" in scare quotes?

[Spanishleft]

I fight to liberate white workers as well as black and Latino workers, but it'd be pure foolishness to suggest that white workers in the United States face the same situation as blacks and Latinos. The disparities of income in the TAR between rural workers, who are largely Tibetan, and urban workers, who are largely Han, is significant. Rural workers make about a quarter of what urban workers make.

In effect, ethnic divides have the potential to be actual class divides, which is why national self-determination actually means something.

Oh, how convenient for you that ALL Han-Chinese must be capitalist oppressors since they are urban workers and their slave-wage is higher...Just out of curiousity, what you think of Uighurs and other minorites in Tibet? Do they need to get expelled too, or are they unimportant enough to be allowed to stay? Han and Tibetans must be united in their struggle for freedom and communism, not divided. So, does national self-determination apply to all people in Tibet, or only to Tibetans?

[Robocommie]

Oh, how convenient for you that ALL Han-Chinese must be capitalist oppressors since they are urban workers and their slave-wage is higher...

That's a complete mischaracterization of what I was saying. I think the Han Chinese in the cities are just workers who are trying to make their own way in life like anyone else. The problem is that without more autonomy and national representation, Tibet will not be able to be developed for Tibetans. It will become a self-perpetuating cycle as usually happens under capitalism - if native Tibetans lack the ability to gain technical skills and know-how, Chinese enterprises will be forced to recruit workers from other parts of China, like Sichuan province. But this will only have the result of creating a technocratic elite which will also be characterized by an ethnic divide.


Just out of curiousity, what you think of Uighurs and other minorites in Tibet? Do they need to get expelled too, or are they unimportant enough to be allowed to stay? Han and Tibetans must be united in their struggle for freedom and communism, not divided.I think you made a mistake, you wrote this argument for someone who actually thinks the Han Chinese should be expelled from Tibet, not for me.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the Black Panthers who tried to obtain autonomy for black communities within the US?


So, does national self-determination apply to all people in Tibet, or only to Tibetans?I know you got all excited because you thought you saw something obviously racist and right-wing nationalist that you could jump on, but I'm sorry, it's not here. I'm not a Tibetan supremacist. :rolleyes:

[Raúl Duke]

The historical circumstances are not the same, but that doesn't mean the situation is acceptable. There is a genuine lack of autonomy and uneven development. For all the talk of the Chinese modernization of Tibet, to this day most Tibetans live in the impoverished rural regions doing subsistence agriculture while Han Chinese migrants or permanent settlers live in the cities, with all the income disparities that that would entail. After the 2008 riots in Tibet, the PRC announced intentions to develop the rural regions of China, but we'll see just see how successful that is with the PRC's Dengism and neo-liberalism.

Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama's "fake" government in Dharamsala administrates a very REAL population of 100,000 Tibetans, which increases each year by about 1000 as Tibetan refugees make their way into India, mostly through Nepal.

All of this is handwaved by repeated assertions about feudal backwardness and glorious liberation, and frustrated denouncements of strawman arguments about hailing pre-1950 Tibet as some kind of beautiful utopic Shangri-La, which nobody ever actually claims (and if they did, I'd correct them myself)

QFT

I don't understand how bringing up the past is any real argument, yet I keep seeing people mentioning that story as if it was an ultimate rebuttal. No one here holds the illusion that Tibet was great for the people back than. The issue is right now, and obviously the PRC is no good for the people of Tibet either. Also, virtually no one here supports the Delai Lama's western back movement so people should stop throwing that strawman around.

Personally, I don't give a shit about Tibet. But I find it ironic that a bunch of supporters of national liberation (maybe only for specific countries with cool and seemingly "radical-looking" {even some reactionary ones can apply!} movements I guess) are "OK" with the Deng-ist neo-liberal PRC holding on to Tibet.

Increasingly I'm starting to agree more with the left communists' position on the national liberation and the anti-imperialist concept held by segments of the left.

[GreenCommunism]

I just get offended by people claiming to be leftist, then demanding Han-Chinese to leave Tibet because they otherwise mix with the 'pure culture' of Tibet, effectively demanding ethnic cleaning. Sadly, I do not see any kind of institution that might guarantee the safety of ethnic Han Chinese in Tibet besides the PRC. Somebody disagree on that? I'm curious!

settler states sucks no matter what.

In effect, ethnic divides have the potential to be actual class divides, which is why national self-determination actually means something.
OMFG it smells like mtw!

[Robocommie]

OMFG it smells like mtw!

Maoist Third Worldism takes a fairly workable idea and then it extends it to a ridiculous level until it's very nearly batshit insane.

The thing is, the reason why I as an independent socialist tend to be so sympathetic to Marxist-Leninism in general is because of the way it addresses the realities of the national question, and doesn't fall into what I feel is the ultra-leftist mistake of viewing ethnicity as being completely and utterly irrelevant compared to class issues. There are multiple lines of struggle.

[Adi Shankara]

Why is like every single one of the threads you start devoted to slagging off communist parties in Asia? And why do you post so fucking many of them? How bout this: switch things up and find another continent to troll about for the next week.

I have nothing against the Maoists in Nepal and followers of Prachandapath--why? because they're actually getting somewhere with their revolution, and they're not eliminating the rights of the peasantry nor are Newar Majority subjugating the Dzongkha speaking and Buddhist minorities in the high Himalayas.

tl;dr: in Nepal, The Maoists and Prachandapath followers are actually fighting for freedom against oppression, not just replacing one dictatorship with another.


From a contributor who claims to be “really curious and not just try to start a flame war or troll post.” and also claims to support posts with evidence can you explain:

1) What do you mean by “modern Marxist theory”?
2) What is meant by “all people's” in this “modern Marxist theory”?

Modern Marxist theory, as in the contributions contributed by Mao (as much as I dislike him in practice, his theory on people's war was pretty sound), Prachanda, the EZLN, and Lenin.

Marx himself, in reference to the situation of oppression against the native Irish, said

""It is a precondition of the emancipation of the English working class," he argued, "to transform the present forced union (i.e. the enslavement of Ireland) into equal and free confederation if possible, into complete separation if need be."

That sounds like a very blatant advocation of self-determination.

[Adi Shankara]

Let's not lie to ourselves any longer; If the "People's Republic" of China was Great Britain, the entire Revleft community would be SCREAMING for the British to be overthrown or forceably removed in Tibet for "opposing self-determination and imposing western ways of thinking on the native populace".

So why the extreme double standard when it comes to Tibet and PRC? Because Mao looks cool dressed in a general suit? because he called himself, even though he was Communist in name only? Why is it okay China can create an imperialist state in Tibet, and impose Chinese ways of thinking on the Tibetans? isn't it up to the Tibetans to find their own way?

I'm a Marxist, yes--but I believe in self-determination and liberation from occupying, imperialist (the literal definition of the term, not the
"thrown around" variety) forces, before I believe in anything else, as that is the root of all righteous revolution.


Also, virtually no one here supports the Delai Lama's western back movement so people should stop throwing that strawman around.what makes that Strawman even more worthless is the fact that the Dalai Lama has retired from politics completely. he even says he'll recognize and give his blessing to any politician the Tibetan Central Administration chooses, even if the Tibetan people elect a Sino-nationalist who wants closer ties to the PRC.

[Starport]

Just out of curiosity, why did you put "people" in scare quotes?

I didn't. I put "all people's" in quotes because the original Poster said that.

So who are "all people's"? Are they all classes
This common use of "the people", "all people" clouds a lot of reactionary intent. I am checking it out, OK?

[Adi Shankara]

I didn't. I put "all people's" in quotes because the original Poster said that.

So who are "all people's"? Are they all classes
This common use of "the people", "all people" clouds a lot of reactionary intent. I am checking it out, OK?

"Peoples" means exactly what it means; a group of individual belonging to an individual nation or culture.

Marx was for internationalism; but he sure as hell didn't intend for that to be a justification for the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

[GreenCommunism]

what makes that Strawman even more worthless is the fact that the Dalai Lama has retired from politics completely. he even says he'll recognize and give his blessing to any politician the Tibetan Central Administration chooses, even if the Tibetan people elect a Sino-nationalist who wants closer ties to the PRC.


since when? i doubt he actually did, retiring from politics is shutting the fuck up completly. you say he prefers any politician that the tibetan central administration choose? that's politics right there.

i think tibetans need real autonomy, and if such autonomy can't be achieved they need outright independance. i am not asking for the same thing for what i consider my country ( Quebec) and i feel a bit hypocrit. but i guess i would support their right to independance. does tibet want a seat at the UN or something like that? if not i don't see what they can't achieve through real autonomy.

Let's not lie to ourselves any longer; If the "People's Republic" of China was Great Britain, the entire Revleft community would be SCREAMING for the British to be overthrown or forceably removed in Tibet for "opposing self-determination and imposing western ways of thinking on the native populace".

alot of people here are against the irish nationalist because nationalism is inherently evil and genocidal. but i do agree with this point.

[The Red Next Door]

Uh, I would say that Tibetans give a fuck about Tibet, pal. And Palestine's struggles have nothing to do with this. Just keep in mind that "liberals" didn't invent the Tibetan plateau.

Don't get me wrong brother, I think China is doing some fuck up things to the Tibetans now. but we should not let, this issue be the main one.

Btw read this people. http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/

[Robocommie]

Don't get me wrong brother, I think China is doing some fuck up things to the Tibetans now. but we should not let, this issue be the main one.

Btw read this people. http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/

It's not like this is on the top of my to-do list, it's just that it came up.

[Barry Lyndon]

It's not that I think the PRC is right to do what its doing in Tibet-in fact, I find it quite despicable. My problem, and many others, is that Tibet is such a 'hip' cause among American liberals, who cry about the violation of the rights of the Tibetans while their own government occupies, slaughters, and brutalizes hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, and supports the slaughter of Palestinians and Colombians, among countless other people. Leftists tend to have a negative reaction-probably a overly negative reaction- to the fact that this seems to be the one national liberation cause that its okay to be totally gung-ho for, because it just happens to be a case of national oppression that US imperialism has no role in.

And yes, Tibet's history as a feudal theocracy is still relevant because the 'Free Tibet' crowd continues to uphold the Dalai Lama, former leader of a slave society, as this great symbol of moral courage and humble piety, and he still has political fellatio performed on him by Hollywood stars and Western heads of state alike.

[The Red Next Door]

It's not that I think the PRC is right to do what its doing in Tibet-in fact, I find it quite despicable. My problem, and many others, is that Tibet is such a 'hip' cause among American liberals, who cry about the violation of the rights of the Tibetans while their own government occupies, slaughters, and brutalizes hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, and supports the slaughter of Palestinians and Colombians, among countless other people. Leftists tend to have a negative reaction-probably a overly negative reaction- to the fact that this seems to be the one national liberation cause that its okay to be totally gung-ho for, because it just happens to be a case of national oppression that US imperialism has no role in.

And yes, Tibet's history as a feudal theocracy is still relevant because the 'Free Tibet' crowd continues to uphold the Dalai Lama, former leader of a slave society, as this great symbol of moral courage and humble piety, and he still has political fellatio performed on him by Hollywood stars and Western heads of state alike.

Exactly :thumbup1:

[Robocommie]

It's not that I think the PRC is right to do what its doing in Tibet-in fact, I find it quite despicable. My problem, and many others, is that Tibet is such a 'hip' cause among American liberals, who cry about the violation of the rights of the Tibetans while their own government occupies, slaughters, and brutalizes hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, and supports the slaughter of Palestinians and Colombians, among countless other people. Leftists tend to have a negative reaction-probably a overly negative reaction- to the fact that this seems to be the one national liberation cause that its okay to be totally gung-ho for, because it just happens to be a case of national oppression that US imperialism has no role in.

And yes, Tibet's history as a feudal theocracy is still relevant because the 'Free Tibet' crowd continues to uphold the Dalai Lama, former leader of a slave society, as this great symbol of moral courage and humble piety, and he still has political fellatio performed on him by Hollywood stars and Western heads of state alike.

At the same time though, I think it's wrong to let one's resentment of vapid-heaed Hollywood stars and clueless liberals be a major influence on what side you take on an issue.

[The Red Next Door]

I support the tibetan maoist instead, of the those who like the milk of imperialism.

[Starport]

I have nothing against the Maoists in Nepal and followers of Prachandapath--why? because they're actually getting somewhere with their revolution, and they're not eliminating the rights of the peasantry nor are Newar Majority subjugating the Dzongkha speaking and Buddhist minorities in the high Himalayas.

tl;dr: in Nepal, The Maoists and Prachandapath followers are actually fighting for freedom against oppression, not just replacing one dictatorship with another.



Modern Marxist theory, as in the contributions contributed by Mao (as much as I dislike him in practice, his theory on people's war was pretty sound), Prachanda, the EZLN, and Lenin.

Marx himself, in reference to the situation of oppression against the native Irish, said

""It is a precondition of the emancipation of the English working class," he argued, "to transform the present forced union (i.e. the enslavement of Ireland) into equal and free confederation if possible, into complete separation if need be."

That sounds like a very blatant advocation of self-determination.

Bluff and Bollocks and you know it. Now answer the questions properly if you can.

[blake 3:17]

Who give a fuck about the liberals precious tibet, palestine is going through some big shit.

And the Tibetans are going through big shit. You don't have to like the reactionary Dalia Lama to support Tibetan self determination. You don't have to support Hamas or the PA to support Palestinian self determination.

[Starport]

[QUOTE=blake 3:17;1788343]And the Tibetans are going through big shit. You don't have to like the reactionary Dalia Lama to support Tibetan self determination. You don't have to support Hamas or the PA to support Palestinian self determination.[/QUOTE

What do you have to do then?

[Adi Shankara]

How was the current Dalai Lama a "leader of a slave society"? he never even ruled, seeing as he was 14 years old when the Chinese came in 1950.

[Revy]

Tibet was part of China for many centuries. Of course, after the Xinhai Revolution, Tibet like other Chinese provinces sought independence. Mongolia was the only one able to gain that independence, though. They were also part of China.

[Sir Comradical]

So China is to Tibet what Britain is to India? In terms of objective indicators like living standards, the Communist overthrow of Tibetan feudalism improved the lives of the people living there, when the British gained control India, they de-industrialised it through crippling taxes on local goods, pushed people back on the land to grow cash-crop resulting in famine - on the whole the result was obvious. Before colonialism, India was very much on par with Europe in terms of living standards (this doesn't say much about the standard of living), after colonialism, India was reduced to a beggar poor country miles apart from Great Britain in social indicators. I don't think it's fair to equate the two.

Ohh yeah, the Dalai Lama was on the CIA payroll at one point. Poor holy man, he wants his kingdom back...

[4 Leaf Clover]

what i wanted to say before but didnt sound serious is , i feel like many of you are advocating tibet independance becasue "it is cool to support them , peacefull , cheerfull , relaxed tibetans" without rather analyzing situation

[∞]

Well I as an Anarchist am Nuetral on this issue, for I don't want to choose between Theocracy and Expansionalism. I especially felt this when I read Parrenti's work on this stuff.

[Robocommie]

what i wanted to say before but didnt sound serious is , i feel like many of you are advocating tibet independance becasue "it is cool to support them , peacefull , cheerfull , relaxed tibetans" without rather analyzing situation

That's total bullshit. I made several posts addressing the uneven development of the economy and the urban-rural divide which threatens to become even more severe over time, and not once have I ever said anything about Tibetans being inherently peaceful and cheerful. Nobody here is arguing that Tibetans are fucking Smurfs. You pulled this out of thin air.

[Revy]

Another thing to note about Mongolia. Not only was Mongolia a province of China under the Qing dynasty, but the main religion in Mongolia is Tibetan Buddhism. When Mongolia declared its independence in 1911, the Bogd Khan, the leader of Mongolia's Tibetan Buddhism, was enthroned as Emperor of Mongolia.

In 1919 China invaded Mongolia and forced the Bogd Khan to sign an edict incorporating Mongolia into the newly formed Republic of China. Under this Chinese occupation, the Mongolian People's Party was formed to fight for Mongolia's independence, and this led to the creation of the Mongolian People's Republic.

So Mongolia could have stayed part of China, and maybe there would be threads about "Free Mongolia". But I don't see anyone saying that Mongolia is part of China. I mean, it's not like there is anything more legitimate about China's claim to Tibet than its previous claims to Mongolia or Tuva, except for the fact that Tibet is part of China right now and has been for decades.

The Chinese nationalists in the Republic of China (Taiwan) still claim Mongolia as part of China. Although there is a strong Taiwanese independence movement, the Kuomintang supports a Republic of China reunified after a hypothetical PRC collapse.

[Adi Shankara]

what i wanted to say before but didnt sound serious is , i feel like many of you are advocating tibet independance becasue "it is cool to support them , peacefull , cheerfull , relaxed tibetans" without rather analyzing situation

I advocate Tibetan independence because their culture. language, and in some cases, nomadic way of life is under threat from rules imposed by Beijing...that, and I believe that people have the right to self-determine their own future.

Would you like it if the Brazilians or British just waltzed right into your country (unless you're british or brazilian mind you, but you get my point) and decided how you would live, speak, worship, etc.? shouldn't that be decided only by the natives of and rightful citizens of Tibet?

[GreenCommunism]

i think religion is respected in tibet, but i agree that culture,preservation of language and lifestyle is not. arguing that it can be respected within china would be hypocritical of me who support quebec independance since we often argue that our culture and language cannot be respected within canada. i could imagine that such a confederation could work , but china always has the ability to come back later and attack tibetan culture unless they have a state for themselves.

[Saorsa]

It's not that I think the PRC is right to do what its doing in Tibet-in fact, I find it quite despicable. My problem, and many others, is that Tibet is such a 'hip' cause among American liberals, who cry about the violation of the rights of the Tibetans while their own government occupies, slaughters, and brutalizes hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, and supports the slaughter of Palestinians and Colombians, among countless other people. Leftists tend to have a negative reaction-probably a overly negative reaction- to the fact that this seems to be the one national liberation cause that its okay to be totally gung-ho for, because it just happens to be a case of national oppression that US imperialism has no role in.

And yes, Tibet's history as a feudal theocracy is still relevant because the 'Free Tibet' crowd continues to uphold the Dalai Lama, former leader of a slave society, as this great symbol of moral courage and humble piety, and he still has political fellatio performed on him by Hollywood stars and Western heads of state alike.

This. I oppose the oppression of the Tibetan people by the reactionary Chinese ruling class today, just like I oppose the oppression of all the men and women who suffer under the rule of the Beijing regime.

However, I'm not prepared to tail-end imperialism and swallow the lies and distortions spread by the CIA about what Tibet used to be like before the Tibetan people, with PLA backing, overthrew the monk-landlord regime. I'm not prepared to tail-end imperialism and swallow the lies and distortions about the entry of the PLA into Tibet being a 'colonial' act, an act of 'conquest'.

Tibet was a part of China before the revolution, and the only reason the revolution took longer to spread to and achieve decisive victory in Tibet was because of its geographic isolation. Marxists whinge all the time about socialism in one country, they whinge all the time about the need to spread revolution... but the Chinese Communist Party did that, it unified the Tibetan workers and peasants with the workers and peasants throughout China in one great revolutionary project, and how is this now portrayed? As an act of imperialism.

Screw your heads on straight people. The People's Republic was not an imperialist state, it was a nation of revolutionary people led by a revolutionary party and a revolutionary government, struggling to advance China down the socialist road towards communism. The revolution spread to Tibet, and the slaves and serfs overthrew the monks and established a republican society where they were free to practice whatever religion they chose, including none at all. Women were freed from religious patriarchal oppression. Ordinary people were involved in the administration of the state from top to bottom, regardless of their religious credentials.

The people of Tibet, with backing from the Chinese revolutionary government and its Red Army, freed themselves.

Which side are you on?

[Adi Shankara]

The people of Tibet, with backing from the Chinese revolutionary government and its Red Army, freed themselves.

How did they free themselves if, by 1959, Tibet was under tight military dictatorship and the people were tightly controlled and by 1966, the cultural revolution began?

I'm all against the traditional Lamaist governments, don't think for a minute I advocate the Lamaist governments, as the class divisions were really strict and the theocracy had a monopoly on power...but I do still think they were much better than the Chinese occupation, and what it turned into, because back then, Tibetan culture and language still thrived, and they weren't being kicked off their lands or forced to give up their traditional way of life (contrary to popular opinion, one can still be a communist and hold on to one's traditional culture)

[Robocommie]

Indeed, the Tibetan people freed themselves, the PLA merely helped, and now years later, the Tibetans are free to work in subsistence agriculture.

And they truly possess a free and democratic republic.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=B0641B4B43873B66802569A600601F21&lang=e



Torture and ill-treatment of political detainees have been systematically used against detainees in Tibet, particularly in periods of heightened tension such as during the period when martial law was in force in Lhasa from March 1989 to May 1990. Methods of torture and ill-treatment have included prodding with electric shock truncheons, suspending prisoners from the ceiling of cells and keeping prisoners shackled by their hands and feet for long periods. Former prisoners have reported that imprisonment in small windowless cells and deprivation of adequate food are used as methods of punishment. Children and young women are among those who have been tortured and ill-treated.

Cases of death in custody as well as deaths of former detainees within days of their release, allegedly as a result of ill-treatment in detention have been reported. Other prisoners have reportedly had to undergo weeks of medical treatment after their release because of ill-treatment suffered in detention.

At least 200 civilians were killed by security forces in successive incidents, including violent riots, between 1987 and 1990, when police and army units fired on demonstrators calling for Tibetan independence from China. These demonstrations in some cases ended as violent riots, but in two instances demonstrators were killed when security forces opened fire on peaceful protests. To Amnesty International's knowledge, no independent or impartial inquiries have been initiated by the authorities into these killings, some of which may have been extra-judicial executions.


In the evening of 5 March 1989, after a riot erupted in Lhasa following a demonstration around noon on that day where peaceful demonstrators appear to have been shot at by police, several saw a Tibetan man being severely beaten and taken into custody by People's Armed Police or Public Security officers. The subsequent fate of the man and his identity are not known. An eye-witness reported:
"The soldiers came, they grabbed a well-dressed man, who was about 45 or 50, out of an alley. He did not look like he was part of the demonstration but it is possible he was involved. He was pulled by about eight soldiers to right in front of our windows and thrown to the ground. Then several of them started kicking him in the head from which much blood flowed. About 40 soldiers from the People's Armed Police stood around and watched as two soldiers picked him up and one soldier took a two-feet long metal pipe and, swinging it like a baseball bat, smashed his left knee."

The same incident was described by another witness who said:
"Once he was down on the ground they continued to hit him, kick him... After about half a minute they dragged him to his feet and smashed his knee caps again."

Amnesty International has not been able to identify the victim of this incident, or to establish his fate.

Sonam Dolkar, 24, from Lhasa, was interviewed in Kathmandu, Nepal, on 16 September 1991. She had left Tibet clandestinely a few days earlier. Sonam Dolkar told her interviewer that she had been regularly tortured over a six-month period while held incommunicado in a cell in Seitru Detention Centre in Lhasa. She said her interrogators attached live electric wires to parts of her body, causing convulsions strong enough to render her unconscious. She also alleged that she received electrical shocks from an electric police baton applied to her body. She indicated that the baton had been introduced into her vagina. She showed her interviewer a large scar on her chest, which she indicated was caused by the boot of a guard who kicked her. She claimed that she was tortured every two days for several months. She said she was kept in manacles and feet shackles throughout her detention.

[Saorsa]

I've been clear - I do not support the modern day oppression of the Tibetan people. Today Tibetans are oppressed by a state infused with and tolerant of Han chauvinism, and they are oppressed like people throughout China by a state that serves the interests of the ruling capitalist class.

My point is this - the reason the Tibetan people are today oppressed in the way that they are is not that in the 1950s China annexed the 'nation' (it wasn't a nation) of Tibet as an act of imperialist conquest.

The reason the Tibetan people are today oppressed is because in the late 1970s, there was a counter-revolution in China that led to the defeat of revolutionary forces throughout the country, including in Tibet, and allowed for the restoration of capitalism.

I'll second the question raised by another person in this thread - how do the Free Tibet Shangri-la brigade explain the Red Guard movement in Tibet? How do they explain the young revolutionary men and women, born and raised in Tibet, who put on the red armband and went to war against backward superstitions, corrupt party officials and the emerging new bourgeoisie?

Were they paid agents of Chinese imperialism? Treacherous quislings working to destroy their friends and comrades, the monks and their allies?

Or were they revolutionary communists fighting to defend and create a new world?

[Saorsa]

How did they free themselves if, by 1959, Tibet was under tight military dictatorship

Um... it wasn't.


and the people were tightly controlled

The people were themselves engaged in the process of wiping out centuries of control by the monk-landlord exploiters. I take the side of the poor peasants and workers in this fight - you take the side of imperialism and feudal reaction. And you refuse to read any accounts, whether by Mike Ely (http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/) or Michael Parenti (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html), that challenge the liberal imperialist lies you've so blindly swallowed.


and by 1966, the cultural revolution began?

Perhaps you should explain this comment more clearly. The Dalai Lama himself admits that the Tibetan Red Guards were just that - Tibetan. Young men and women in Lhasa and the countryside rose up against the capitalist roaders and the feudal, theocratic elements the corrupt party officials had allied themselves with. It was a revolution within the revolution, and it rocked China from North to South. Tibet was not exempt from this struggle.


I'm all against the traditional Lamaist governments, don't think for a minute I advocate the Lamaist governments, as the class divisions were really strict and the theocracy had a monopoly on power...

Well that's good. And as for your strange comments about how "class divisions were really strict"... class divisions are not imposed by 'strict' members of the establishment. They are imposed by concrete reality, by one's relation to the means of production. In Tibet before the revolution spread there, the primary class division was between the peasants and the landlord-monks who exploited them and maintained this exploitation with private armies based in a network of fortress-monasteries. Many of these were burned down and torn to pieces by the masses themselves during the revolutionary decades, and this should be cause for celebration. Genuine communists do celebrate it - pro-imperialist liberals do not. Which side are you on?


but I do still think they were much better than the Chinese occupation, and what it turned into,

Ah. :rolleyes:

So. You think that a system of slavery, serfdom and theocracy, backed up by feudal armies based in fortress-monasteries, is preferable to a republic in which women have equality, slavery is abolished and the peasants owned the land they worked on? And throughout the countryside joined together in collectives and communes to more effectively produce and live in equality?

That says a lot about your politics.


because back then, Tibetan culture and language still thrived,


The abolitionist Yankee invasion of the American South did terrible damage to Southern Culture and the Southern way of life. It was an act of imperialism, a colonial conquest that destroyed the noble system of plantations in which Southern culture thrived.

Why the fuck would a communist defend the preservation of backward, superstitions culture that oppresses women, enforces caste-like divisions in society and is based on slavery and serfdom? And the entry of the PLA into Tibet, in support of a homegrown Tibetan revolutionary movement, did nothing to harm the Tibetan language. The Chinese government under Mao built schools in Tibet to educate the people of the area in their own language. You're defending a liberal myth about friendly feudalism, spread as part of the CIA's efforts to undermine and attack China.


and they weren't being kicked off their lands

lolwut

In years where there were bad crops, Tibetan peasants (like peasants throughout China) had to sell their children into slavery just to stay alive. Why did they do this? Because the landlord-monks demanded their grain tax whether or not the peasants concerned could afford it. Do you honestly think Christianity made the landlords of feudal Europe act in a more forgiving manner during a famine year? And if not (I'll assume you dont...), why do you assume that Buddhism made the landlords in feudal Tibet act any more kindly?

You have an Orientalist fetish for Buddhism and the Shangri-la myth. This soft spot for the ruling classes of Asian history is deeply racist, and deeply contemptuous of the struggle waged by the Tibetan people to free themselves from these parasitic scum.


or forced to give up their traditional way of life (contrary to popular opinion, one can still be a communist and hold on to one's traditional culture)

Contrary to popular opinion, this poor oppressed woman and her class could have held onto her traditional culture and still been a nice progressive lady. The evil Yankee colonialists took Tara away from her and destroyed her culture! They taught the niggers to read and gave them the right to vote! This is an outrage, and while I don't defend ALL aspects of the Old South, at least they had their culture and their language and their way of life.

It was *better* before the Yankees invaded and forced their way of life onto the South. It was an act of aggression! And I know this because I've read the versions of history that these brave and noble scholars (http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml) put out.

http://rachelchitra.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/scarlett2.jpg

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Robocommie]

I've been clear - I do not support the modern day oppression of the Tibetan people. Today Tibetans are oppressed by a state infused with and tolerant of Han chauvinism, and they are oppressed like people throughout China by a state that serves the interests of the ruling capitalist class.

Good to see Mao's revolution got rid of those folks, then.



My point is this - the reason the Tibetan people are today oppressed in the way that they are is not that in the 1950s China annexed the 'nation' (it wasn't a nation) of Tibet as an act of imperialist conquest.Bit bold, isn't it, as a non-Tibetan, an outsider and a westerner from New Zealand exercising power for the Tibetans and defining them as "not a nation" for them? You should read Edward Said.



The reason the Tibetan people are today oppressed is because in the late 1970s, there was a counter-revolution in China that led to the defeat of revolutionary forces throughout the country, including in Tibet, and allowed for the restoration of capitalism.Well as I said, if the revolution had been truly democratic and progressive, it should have been a lot fucking harder to impose this counter-revolution on Tibet, and indeed, on all of the rest of the PRC.



I'll second the question raised by another person in this thread - how do the Free Tibet Shangri-la brigade explain the Red Guard movement in Tibet? How do they explain the young revolutionary men and women, born and raised in Tibet, who put on the red armband and went to war against backward superstitions, corrupt party officials and the emerging new bourgeoisie?I specifically mentioned why talking about Shangri-La is a strawman. So it's not like I have anything to dispute on this. To the extent that Tibetans did in fact participate in the Red Guard and did in fact rise up can easily be explained by the fact that their old social order was fucking rough. Doesn't mean the shit that went down to solve it was actually a solution, and I think I'll retain my skepticism about that really, given how Tibet's economy is still dominated by subsistence agriculture. It's not like the Soviets didn't develop Kazakhstan. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Saorsa]

Good to see Mao's revolution got rid of those folks, then.

A revolution is not a single act. It isn't like you wipe out the capitalists 100% and they never come back. In an isolated country attempting to build socialism in a mostly capitalist world, the bourgeoisie will continually reemerge both within and outside of the communist party. This requires permanent revolutionary struggle and permanent cultural revolution to combat it. And even then, sometimes you lose, as in China and every other country that has ever attempted to construct socialism.

The bourgeoisie reemerged and fought a bitter and protracted struggle with the proletariat for decades, fighting for control over the Chinese state and China itself. Both sides won many victories and suffered many defeats along the way, and there's plenty we can learn from it now. Eventually the masses lost and the bourgeoisie regained power.

The Paris Commune was defeated too - was that because of internal errors? Because it wasn't democratic enough? The Russian revolution failed as well, eventually. All revolutions so far have been defeated, and all we can do is learn from the mistakes while attempting to build on the successes.

Mao's revolution could never have just 'got rid of those folks' and merrily went on it's way to communism. Life isn't as simple as that.


Bit bold, isn't it, as a non-Tibetan, an outsider and a westerner from New Zealand exercising power for the Tibetans and defining them as "not a nation" for them? You should read Edward Said.

The Tibetans, other than a handful of warlords and theocratic officials when it was useful for them, didn't see themselves or refer to themselves as a nation. There were an ethnic group within an ethnically diverse region, that became pulled together within the national project known as China.

And as a Western fetishist of Buddhism, that nice gentle peaceful religion for nice gentle peaceful people like the monks who administered paradise in Tibet, you have a few Orientalist tendencies of your own that deserve looking into.


Well as I said, if the revolution had been truly democratic and progressive, it should have been a lot fucking harder to impose this counter-revolution on Tibet, and indeed, on all of the rest of the PRC.

It took decades of political, cultural, social and economic struggle. It eventually required an outright military coup de'tat resulting in the deaths of thousands and a nationwide wave of White Terror against the Maoist forces. It was resisted bitterly and the resistance is ongoing.

It is grossly offensive to imply that the counter-revolution in China was 'easy'. There are countless graves whose inhabitants would kinda disagree with you.


To the extent that Tibetans did in fact participate in the Red Guard and did in fact rise up can easily be explained by the fact that their old social order was fucking rough.

Yet you defend it.


Doesn't mean the shit that went down to solve it was actually a solution, and I think I'll retain my skepticism about that really, given how Tibet's economy is still dominated by subsistence agriculture.

What on earth does that prove? If China had a 'real' revolution I suppose they'd all be driving flying cars now? :confused:

A revolution is about much more than just the development of productive forces... but even in that regard, Tibet made great advances. Literacy, women's rights, roads, schools, hospitals, you name it... the revolution delivered all of these in a way the theocracy never did and never could have.


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Tibetans who fought and died in the Cultural Revolution, the Tibetans who participated in agricultural communes and fought to defend them against state imposed dissolution after the counter-revolution, the slaves who were freed, the women who gained equality, the youth who found a voice and a society that gave them respect... I suspect these people would kinda disagree with you.

But whatever. I suppose it fills your orientalist Buddhist heart with a lot more satisfaction to believe the lies of the landlord-monks and their descendants.

Out of curiosity, do you and Thomas Sankara get involved with the Cuban exile movement? Considering the damage done to traditional Cuban culture and the grave human rights abuses and attacks on democracy in Cuba, wouldn't this be just your kind of cause? Castro locks up dissidents, he does all kind of nasty things. Why don't we see you and your kind in Miami helping out with the Cuban exile crowd?

[Adi Shankara]

Why the fuck would a communist defend the preservation of backward, superstitions culture that oppresses women, enforces caste-like divisions in society and is based on slavery and serfdom? And the entry of the PLA into Tibet, in support of a homegrown Tibetan revolutionary movement, did nothing to harm the Tibetan language. The Chinese government under Mao built schools in Tibet to educate the people of the area in their own language.

Well, that was racist as hell. Glad to know you support imperialism. pray tell, do you agree that things were dandy with the Dutch down in South Africa? because it seems like you'd think they were just trying to "civilize those backwards Xhosa and Zulu" tribesmen, because their culture was a superstitious and backwards culture :rolleyes:

I'm not even sure the rest of your babble warrants a response. You have proven quite clearly you know ZERO about Tibetan culture.

are you sure you're on the right forum? cultural genocide isn't appreciated here. eliminating the bourgeousie elements from culture, yes, replacing a native culture with that of a more dominant nation, absolutely fucking not!


You literally just advocated the complete destruction of a native culture in favor of the Chinese one. that's disgusting.

[Adi Shankara]

Just answer me this, judging from your above racist rant: do you think that the Dutch colonizing the Xhosa and Zulu peoples in South Africa was okay? afterall, they were just "destroying a superstitious and backward culture" :rolleyes:

or do you only think it's right when a non-white nation oppresses a nation?

I'm still disgusted by what you said above. that was completely uncalled for, and chauvinistic as hell. You would've fit in perfectly with Cecil Rhodes and the gang.

[GreenCommunism]

he states that invading the south in the usa destroyed southern culture and it was acceptable. personally i think we should ask the question, did the infrastructure built by the han chinese truly benefit the tibetan people? it seems like a common accusation that those are built only for the new settlers.

[Robocommie]

And as a Western fetishist of Buddhism, that nice gentle peaceful religion for nice gentle peaceful people like the monks who administered paradise in Tibet, you have a few Orientalist tendencies of your own that deserve looking into.

That's fucking dumb, Alastair. It's a low blow and you're better than that. It's apparently evident that you haven't actually been reading what I've been posting thus far, or else you'd have seen by now that I already stated that I don't think Tibet was paradise pre-1950, and that that's a strawman argument being used to ward off criticism. You'd have seen that I don't think Tibetans are like Smurfs, all happy and naturally care free. It's fucking absurd to accuse me of such things when I specifically stated against them. It's also completely ridiculous and insulting to suggest that I'm a "western fetishist" of Buddhism, which is rather along the lines of suggesting that an American born Muslim is a terrorist sympathizer or that a Chinese Christian is a pro-western sellout. And as I said before, it's always nice to deride your opponent as a "fetishist" since then you get to invoke your opponent as a sexual deviant as well. It's not that mature. And frankly, being a Kiwi yourself, accusations could be made of you - that you're a Maoist because your Orientalist heart is stirred by images of Red Guards and Mao Tse Tung and PLA military strength - except I wouldn't say that because I at least respect you enough to give you the benefit of the doubt as to the sincerity of your convictions.

But since you're repeating the same things I've already categorically stated I was NOT arguing for, including the use of the term "Shangri-La" and "happy peaceful monks ruling over paradise" then I can only feel that arguing against you is totally futile.



Yet you defend it.
One more example of how you're just sticking your fingers in your ears as to what I'm actually saying.



What on earth does that prove? If China had a 'real' revolution I suppose they'd all be driving flying cars now? :confused:Well I cited Kazakhstan under the Soviet Union as an example, and I cited the uneven development in Tibet between rural Tibetans and the Han Chinese living in the cities. I suppose it's easier to respond to criticism with incredulity.



But whatever. I suppose it fills your orientalist Buddhist heart with a lot more satisfaction to believe the lies of the landlord-monks and their descendants.:rolleyes:

In my defense, it wasn't the monks who told me these lies, it was Dr. Fu Manchu.



Out of curiosity, do you and Thomas Sankara get involved with the Cuban exile movement? Considering the damage done to traditional Cuban culture and the grave human rights abuses and attacks on democracy in Cuba, wouldn't this be just your kind of cause? Castro locks up dissidents, he does all kind of nasty things. Why don't we see you and your kind in Miami helping out with the Cuban exile crowd?Oh you know it. I blow up a hotel in Havana at least once a month. :rolleyes: It's only natural that I do so, since the situation in Tibet and Cuba is exactly the same.

Since this is the kind of bullshit I have to argue against, tired strawmen and ad-hominems, I see no reason to keep it up.

[Adi Shankara]

1.) I'm pro-castro

2.) I've decided not to respond to your arguments anymore. as proven by your comments on the Tibetan culture and your wish for them to be colonized, I have come to believe you're a racist and are in favor of imperialism (as long as the imperialists aren't white).
anyone who can see your comments that I highlighted above that you obviously have a condescending attitude towards Tibet, the kind've attitude that led to the colonization of Africa.

[Sendo]

...You mean Mao? he's the only one who's face is plastered all over like a god-king:

I have Chinese currency which features a cast of ethnic minorities. The money has 5 languages printed on it. They got rid of it because Chairman Mao is more recognizable and it's harder to counterfeit his face. There was a huge counterfeiting problem.

Also check out Parenti's "Tibet: Friendly Feudalis?" essay.

[Sendo]

1.) I'm pro-castro

2.) I've decided not to respond to your arguments anymore. as proven by your comments on the Tibetan culture and your wish for them to be colonized, I have come to believe you're a racist and are in favor of imperialism (as long as the imperialists aren't white).
anyone who can see your comments that I highlighted above that you obviously have a condescending attitude towards Tibet, the kind've attitude that led to the colonization of Africa.

Real imperialism can be seen in Indonesia's control of East Timor. Neither party is white. Military control of an area does not equal imperialism. Especially when you free slaves and build roads and have its native population spearhead the Cultural Revolution in Tibet, ruining the parasitic monasteries.

Or maybe you argue that every ethnic group should have its own country. In that case, let's break off Inner Mongolia, let Taiwan and Mongolia drift away diplomatically, cut off the Zhuang areas, and Manchuria. Oh wait! The Manchus have assimilated into the Han and vice versa (look at Chinese fashion for example during the days of the Republic and Civil War) Oh wait again! The Chinese minorities get far more recognition from the governemnt than Indians get in America.

Maybe we should break up Yugoslavia? Already did that....how about making North Manhattan it's own principality since the population is a different race than the rest of most of New York State.

In any case, I haven't heard of any Tibetan independence movement outside of the Dalai Llama, exiles, and white, Hollywood liberals. IF there were any independence parties the Western media would leap on it.

[RedStarOverChina]

he states that invading the south in the usa destroyed southern culture and it was acceptable. personally i think we should ask the question, did the infrastructure built by the han chinese truly benefit the tibetan people? it seems like a common accusation that those are built only for the new settlers.

People keep repeating these demonstrably false, easily falsified information, it's getting really annoying.

There are no settlers in Tibet! The migrants do not drive away Tibetans from their own land. They do not live in colonies. They do not enjoy rights deprived to the locals.

[Adi Shankara]

People keep repeating these demonstrably false, easily falsified information, it's getting really annoying.

There are no settlers in Tibet! The migrants do not drive away Tibetans from their own land. They do not live in colonies. They do not enjoy rights deprived to the locals.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1908969,00.html

considering China's track record with East Turkestan, why should anyone believe that?

Han Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) comprised 6.1% of the population. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#cite_note-10) However, the region has seen further Han migration beginning early in the decade, especially since the 2006 completion of a railway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai%E2%80%93Tibet_railway) line linking Tibet with the rest of China. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#cite_note-11)


That at least proves that your claim about "no settlers in Tibet" was wrong, so why should anything else you say be believed in?

Face the facts: Tibet never was, and never will be, a part of China, anymore than Kenya was a part of Britain. it was an illegitimate, illegal occupation. nothing more, nothing less.

[Adi Shankara]

I have Chinese currency which features a cast of ethnic minorities. The money has 5 languages printed on it. They got rid of it because Chairman Mao is more recognizable and it's harder to counterfeit his face. There was a huge counterfeiting problem.

such an excuse. Why not put Sun Yat Sen's face on it? his face is very recognizable in the PRC, and the PRC (along with Taiwan) consider him a hero.

answer: because Mao is a cult of personality.

[RedStarOverChina]

Han Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese)comprised 6.1% of the population. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#cite_note-10) However, the region has seen further Han migration beginning early in the decade, especially since the 2006 completion of a railway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai%E2%80%93Tibet_railway) line linking Tibet with the rest of China. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region#cite_note-11)


That at least proves that your claim about "no settlers in Tibet" was wrong, so why should anything else you say be believed in?So migrants=settlers? What kind of a fucked-up, crack-head, racist anti-immigrantionist bullshit is that?

You haven't proved anything beyond the fact that you're an ignorant attention-craving bigot.

Face the facts: Tibet never was, and never will be, a part of China, anymore than Kenya was a part of Britain. it was an illegitimate, illegal occupation. nothing more, nothing less.I've already faced up to the fact that you're completely ignorant of the history of the region and that you're just rage trolling.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Asien_Bd1.jpg

[Adi Shankara]

Fucked up, Crackheadback up this claim, or I may have to report you :) even if you're a mod, you're not above forum rules. Besides, if I was to be banned for criticizing what would be an obviously one-sided enforcement of the rules, I guess that means I should just get migrating to Soviet-Empire while I'm at it :)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to start a flame war...once again, I'll have to be the bigger man and just let the baby have it's bottle.

believe what you want; afterall, anyone who believes the PRC is a force for good in Tibet is already believing one of the most delusional religions in the history of mankind.

P.S: Love the fact that you post a colonial map, (I guess that also means you recognize India as an inseperable part of Britain? :P )which leads me to this question: Since Britain thought they were "liberating" Africa from a backwards, degenerate culture, do you agree with the British colonization of Africa? afterall, the results are pretty much the same as what happened in Tibet...

[Adi Shankara]

So migrants=settlers? What kind of a fucked-up, crack-head, racist anti-immigrantionist bullshit is that?So I guess that means you thought the complete colonization of Africa was okay...afterall, to think otherwise would be fucked up, racist, anti-immigrant...(and crack head, of which you've yet to prove) :rolleyes:

That's the problem with PRC nationalists--they often get their hypocritical panties in a twist

[Adi Shankara]

Lost 'passport' proves Tibet's independence: exiles
AFP[Sunday, January 15, 2006 22:05]

NEW DELHI - A passport issued to a Tibetan official before Chinese forces occupied the region in 1950 has been found in Nepal and provides proof of Tibet's former independence, a Tibetan exile group has said.

The passport was issued by the Tibetan government in 1947, Tenzin Tsundue, general secretary of the Friends of Tibet group, said in a statement.

He told AFP the group knew of no other Tibetan passport that had survived.

The passport -- a large sheet of traditional Tibetan paper -- was given to then Tibetan Finance Secretary Tsepong Wangchuk Dedhen Shakabpa, who was leading a trade delegation to China, the United States and Britain, it said.

"This document stands as an important proof of the independent status of Tibet, legally recognised by other countries before China's invasion of Tibet," he said.

Tsundue said the document had visas issued by a slew of nations such as the United Sates, Britain, India, France, Italy, Switzerland and Egypt.

The passport contains in the centre the Tibetan government seal surrounded by seals of different governments that issued visas to the official, he said.

China says its occupation of Tibet liberated it from feudal oppression.

But Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama who fled Tibet in 1959 during a failed uprising against China's rule and now lives in exile in northern India says Tibet's six million people still suffer repression.

Beijing formally established a Tibetan Autonomous Region in 1965 but the Dalai Lama complains there is no genuine autonomy and has been waging a peaceful campaign to press China to provide greater rights to Tibetans.

The passport had been given by Shakabpa to an Indian friend in 1992 and ended up with an antique dealer in Kathmandu, said Tsundue. It was not known how it found its way into the antique dealer's hands.

It was bought back for 10,000 dollars using money borrowed from a Tibetan monastery in 2004.

Tsundue said some 850 Tibetans -- living in exile in India and Nepal -- contributed donations to repay the monastery. After the target was met, "we decided to inform the people of the recovery of the passport," he said.

The group plans to include the passport in an exhibition "Story of a Nation: Independent, Occupied and Exiled Tibet," in India this year aimed at proving Tibet's former independent status, Tsundue said.

While the Dalai Lama has dropped a call for Tibetan independence, Tsundue said that objects showing it once was independent would "add more weight" to the spiritual leader's push for greater autonomy for the region.

Articles that will be on display include "postage stamps of independent Tibet, Tibetan currency -- notes and silver coins -- (and) old photographs of the Tibetan army," taken in the 1920s, Tsundue said.

but let me guess, they didn't issue those passports...the phantom Tibetan government of China did :rolleyes:

[Starport]

back up this claim, or I may have to report you :) even if you're a mod, you're not above forum rules. Besides, if I was to be banned for criticizing what would be an obviously one-sided enforcement of the rules, I guess that means I should just get migrating to Soviet-Empire while I'm at it :)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to start a flame war...once again, I'll have to be the bigger man and just let the baby have it's bottle.

believe what you want; afterall, anyone who believes the PRC is a force for good in Tibet is already believing one of the most delusional religions in the history of mankind.

P.S: Love the fact that you post a colonial map, (I guess that also means you recognize India as an inseperable part of Britain? :P )which leads me to this question: Since Britain thought they were "liberating" Africa from a backwards, degenerate culture, do you agree with the British colonization of Africa? afterall, the results are pretty much the same as what happened in Tibet...

Please tell us what reactionary anti-communist bourgeois nationalist literature influences are colonising your brain cells. Then maybe we can really help you with your original question.

[RedStarOverChina]

back up this claim, or I may have to report you :) even if you're a mod, you're not above forum rules.
In your twisted imagination, you equate migration with colonialism. That is fucked up, and if you keep saying asinine shit like that you should expect to have shit thrown at you.


If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to start a flame war...once again, I'll have to be the bigger man and just let the baby have it's bottle.Before you do that, stop running around the argument in circles to prevent serious debate. We've had hundreds of debates on Tibet in this forum, most of which are respectful and productive until you came along.


believe what you want; afterall, anyone who believes the PRC is a force for good in Tibet is already believing one of the most delusional religions in the history of mankind.
Says the guy who rely on the honesty and good nature of theocrats:

P.S: notice it says the Monks had celibacy vows. that's how you know the reports of Monks raping little boys are simply not true;
:rolleyes:

P.S: Love the fact that you post a colonial map, which leads me to this question:What a surprise.

Since Britain thought they were "liberating" Africa from a backwards, degenerate culture, do you agree with the British colonization of Africa? Love the fact that you're once again trying to divert the discussion, which leads me to this question:
Do you still beat your wife?

Counter factual evidence with a loaded question---Any halfwit can see through it. You're severely underestimating people's level of intelligence if you think you can get by like that.

We had a whole discussion on this before. There is no colonialism in Tibet.

[Starport]

The first line of this debate is a clue to the thinking of the original poster. He is an anti-communist claiming to be a concerned citizen of the planet and bothered about the plight of the downtrodden. He is only a run-of-the -mill idealist at best.


I know this is a controversial issue, and I am really curious, and not just try to start a flame war or troll post.

[Adi Shankara]

In your twisted imagination, you equate migration with colonialism. That is fucked up, and if you keep saying asinine shit like that you should expect to have shit thrown at you.

then in your own words, tell me when settling and exploiting a territory is colonialism, and when it isn't.



Says the guy who rely on the honesty and good nature of theocrats:

Ridiculous strawman. No where did I ever say that the rule of the Lamaists was "benevolent" or "good nature". I just said the rule of the Lamaists was better than the rule by PRC, because at least they got to keep their culture...which made another user launch into a racist tirade against Tibetan culture as "backwards". I don't see you calling him out though. wonder why.




Counter factual evidence with a loaded question---Any halfwit can see through it. You're severely underestimating people's level of intelligence if you think you can get by like that.

a colonial map isn't factual evidence, as that is subjective from a eurocentric point of view...yet, this treaty between China and Tibet, (the two parties in question) from the 800's that recognizes Tibet as a separate nation, is:

http://www.tpprc.org/documents/agreements/821-822.pdf


We had a whole discussion on this before. There is no colonialism in Tibet.

1.) you didn't prove that as fact, neither did anyone else, if you're referring to the last thread. it's disputed, and subject to opinion. What is not opinion, but fact, is the treaty between Tibet and China dating from the 800's.

2.) There is zero consensus on this question even in Academic circles, much less online forums. Regardless, you support illegal occupation in Tibet, yet you oppose colonization of Africa (or maybe you don't, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't).

[Barry Lyndon]

Thomas Sankara:

The Tibetan monks didn't rape boys because they took celibacy vows? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ooooo hooo heee heee haa haha haha haaa!!!! That's a good one! :lol::laugh:
Yeah just like another celibate organization, the Catholic Church.

Wow, you are so naive.

[Adi Shankara]

The first line of this debate is a clue to the thinking of the original poster. He is an anti-communist claiming to be a concerned citizen of the planet and bothered about the plight of the downtrodden. He is only a run-of-the -mill idealist at best.

care to prove your baseless hypothesis? because I personally believe anyone who supports basis of the invasion of Tibet is a colonist, imperialist, and thus, an anti-communist. but that's my opinion.

just like your opinion is yours.

[Adi Shankara]

Thomas Sankara:

The Tibetan monks didn't rape boys because they took celibacy vows? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ooooo hooo heee heee haa haha haha haaa!!!! That's a good one! :lol::laugh:
Yeah just like another celibate organization, the Catholic Church.

Wow, you are so naive.

Do you have any proof that they did rape anyone? or is that just a baseless, wild assertion? come on, It seems like people will do anything to bash religion given the chance. I don't bash atheism. I don't bash religion.

but to say that there was widespread rape amongst the clergy...that'd have to be proven, and with more than one anecdotal account.

[Starport]

care to prove your baseless hypothesis? because I personally believe anyone who supports basis of the invasion of Tibet is a colonist, imperialist, and thus, an anti-communist. but that's my opinion.

just like your opinion is yours.

Please tell us what anti-communist literature is colonising your brain and the maybe we can help you with your problem.

[Adi Shankara]

Please tell us what anti-communist literature is colonising your brain and the maybe we can help you with your problem.

um..."Thomas Sankara Speaks", "Revolution betrayed" by Trotsky, "God and the state" by Bakunin, "Das Kapital Vol 1" by Marx, various works by Immanuel Kant and Sartre...

does that answer your question? you ready to give up the fucking witch hunt now?

now why don't you tell me what capitalist, pro-imperialist brainwashing you're being subjected to?

[Invincible Summer]

Do you have any proof that they did rape anyone? or is that just a baseless, wild assertion? come on, It seems like people will do anything to bash religion given the chance.
Not without reason.



I don't bash atheism. I don't bash religion.
All that fence-sitting must explain why you're acting so butthurt




EDIT: I'm beginning to see that this site isn't intellectual at all. that's too bad I had high expectations =(
Not everyone has time to write anecdotal footnotes for all their posts

[Adi Shankara]

All that fence-sitting must explain why you're acting so butthurt

How am I acting "butthurt"? I see other users who blow a gasket when I say that Tibet is colonized. look at all the posts accusing me of being "anti-communist" to get that point across.

I'm more just surprised by the amount of support PRC nationalists/colonialists get (because I thought Communists were supposed to be opposed to imperialism and colonization, and in the case of Tibet and China, it's one of those), and how people seem to imply that atheism is synonymous with communism, when it's not.





Not everyone has time to write anecdotal footnotes for all their posts

oh come on, that's a copout. that's why people shouldn't say things they can't back up. Why should someone be able to say anything they want that isn't common knowledge without source or proof?
Does that mean I can say the Chinese are launching a genocidal campaign against Tibetans, and not have to back it up? (I'd hope someone would ask me for a source)

[GreenCommunism]

Do you have any proof that they did rape anyone? or is that just a baseless, wild assertion? come on, It seems like people will do anything to bash religion given the chance. I don't bash atheism. I don't bash religion.

but to say that there was widespread rape amongst the clergy...that'd have to be proven, and with more than one anecdotal account.
there is not widespread rape among the clergy but i do think celibacy vows certainly have this effect. the buddhist however, do not think sexuality is a sin and that you must fight your attraction to a girl or that kind of crap, so that's why there is not as much abuse in the buddhist religion.

care to prove your baseless hypothesis? because I personally believe anyone who supports basis of the invasion of Tibet is a colonist, imperialist, and thus, an anti-communist. but that's my opinion.

just like your opinion is yours.
please stop throwing scary terms around

People keep repeating these demonstrably false, easily falsified information, it's getting really annoying.

There are no settlers in Tibet! The migrants do not drive away Tibetans from their own land. They do not live in colonies. They do not enjoy rights deprived to the locals.
well you sorta crushed me, i guess the only problem are the rural tibetans, the inner city tibetans enjoy the same thing as the han chinese.

[t.shonku]

Ever since China liberated Tibet from age old feudal system China did a lot of development there standard of living for an average people there has increased.On the other hand look at China's neighbour India and its imperialist persue in Kashmir,Assam etc,India has practically done no development there,human rights violation there are daily incidents.But the west says nothing against India and always points finger at China.

[Saorsa]

That's fucking dumb, Alastair. It's a low blow and you're better than that. It's apparently evident that you haven't actually been reading what I've been posting thus far, or else you'd have seen by now that I already stated that I don't think Tibet was paradise pre-1950, and that that's a strawman argument being used to ward off criticism. You'd have seen that I don't think Tibetans are like Smurfs, all happy and naturally care free. It's fucking absurd to accuse me of such things when I specifically stated against them. It's also completely ridiculous and insulting to suggest that I'm a "western fetishist" of Buddhism, which is rather along the lines of suggesting that an American born Muslim is a terrorist sympathizer or that a Chinese Christian is a pro-western sellout. And as I said before, it's always nice to deride your opponent as a "fetishist" since then you get to invoke your opponent as a sexual deviant as well. It's not that mature. And frankly, being a Kiwi yourself, accusations could be made of you - that you're a Maoist because your Orientalist heart is stirred by images of Red Guards and Mao Tse Tung and PLA military strength - except I wouldn't say that because I at least respect you enough to give you the benefit of the doubt as to the sincerity of your convictions.

Fair call, I was out of line. You're no Orientalist and you deserve the benefit of the doubt for your convictions. 90% of the time I agree with what you have to say - my apologies.

I think I might bow out of this debate too. Sankara doesn't debate in an honest way, he doesn't respond to evidence and concrete arguments, he just makes emotional rants and ad hominem attacks. I'm out.

[Adi Shankara]

I think I might bow out of this debate too. Sankara doesn't debate in an honest way, he doesn't respond to evidence and concrete arguments, he just makes emotional rants and ad hominem attacks. I'm out.

I respond to evidence and concrete arguments; what I don't respond to is hateful, racist rants (your attack on Tibetan culture was disgusting), unsourced arguments (you have yet to provide me a legitimate source on anything you've said yet) and propaganda meant to pander to emotion (telling me "Tibetan monks raised armies" was complete bullshit, even if it does sound good).

you have yet to respond to my other posts as well. read back, respond to my posts, and I just might respond to yours.

But I won't respond to hate filled rants. just warning.

[Revy]

interesting...


"The Soviet government of China recognizes the right of self-determination of the national minorities in China, their right to complete separation from China, and to the formation of an independent state for each national minority. All Mongolians, Tibetans, Miao, Yao, Koreans, and others living on the territory of China shall enjoy the full right to self-determination, i.e. they may either join the Union of Chinese Soviets or secede from it and form their own state as they may prefer. The Soviet régime of China will do its utmost to assist the national minorities in liberating themselves from the yoke of imperialists, the KMT militarists, t’u-ssu [tribal headmen], the princes, lamas, and others, and in achieving complete freedom and autonomy. The Soviet régime must encourage the development of the national cultures and of the respective national languages of these peoples."

Tibet was a de facto independent state for decades after the fall of the Qing dynasty.

Tibet was invaded by the PRC. Of course they call this a "liberation" (defenders of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan say the same thing) or imply that the Tibetans liberated themselves and chose to be part of China. I am strictly interested in the facts, and I don't consider PRC propaganda to be factual.

Use all the strawmen you want, but you're eventually going to run out of straw....

[Adi Shankara]

interesting...



Tibet was a de facto independent state for decades after the fall of the Qing dynasty.

Tibet was invaded by the PRC. Of course they call this a "liberation" (defenders of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan say the same thing) or imply that the Tibetans liberated themselves and chose to be part of China. I am strictly interested in the facts, and I don't consider PRC propaganda to be factual.

Use all the strawmen you want, but you're eventually going to run out of straw....

And to suppliment that, I found this treaty: http://www.tpprc.org/documents/agreements/821-822.pdf from the 800's that proves Tibet was recognized as a separate nation from the Chinese.

[Blackscare]

We've had hundreds of debates on Tibet in this forum, most of which are respectful and productive until you came along.


Bullshit.

[Adi Shankara]

Bullshit.

Careful, or he'll label you a racist, an anti-communist, a reactionary, a capitalist, a crack-head...:rolleyes:

[RedStarOverChina]

i guess the only problem are the rural tibetans, the inner city tibetans enjoy the same thing as the han chinese.You see that in all of China. The problems are exacerbated due to Tibet's geography. Because the mass majority of Tibetans live in rural areas; Tibet's small population is spread thinly across an area the size of a mountainous France. So it has been extremly difficult to provide Tibetans with public services.

Consequently, Tibetans have the lowest level of literacy among all other ethnicities (at only 50%). If this is allowed to continue, China risks being further divided as the gap in level of education would surely exacerbated the Tibetans' economic woes.



Tibet was a de facto independent state for decades after the fall of the Qing dynasty. So were the southern US states during the American Civil War.

Since the late 1800s it has been part of the British Foreign policy to agitate for Tibetan independence (the Great Game) in order to divide China. The phrase "Tibetan independence" did not exist in the Tibetan language before a British agent sent to Tibet published a book encouraging Tibetan independence. It was in that book that the phrase "Tibetan Independence" first appear in any language.

After launching two successive wars against Tibet, Britain convinced the Tibetan ruling class that Qing China was no longer able to provide the protection that it once did.

This has been from the beginning, an imperialist pet project.



Bullshit.I'm sorry you didn't get much out of it. I, however, used to be able to learn a great deal from these discussions while remaining respectful towards most other participants.




I think I might bow out of this debate too. Sankara doesn't debate in an honest way, he doesn't respond to evidence and concrete arguments, he just makes emotional rants and ad hominem attacks. I'm out.Let's not allow a single troll ruin it for the rest of us. :)

Just ignore him and debate only with more respectable members.

[Adi Shankara]

Since the late 1800s it has been part of the British Foreign policy to agitate for Tibetan independence (the Great Game) in order to divide China. The phrase "Tibetan independence" did not exist in the Tibetan language before a British agent sent to Tibet published a book encouraging Tibetan independence. It was in that book that the phrase "Tibetan Independence" first appear in any language.

except that Tibet has been an independent state for at least 800 years before the Mongol empire dominated Tibet; I noticed you still have yet to comment on the treaty between the Chinese and Tibetan Kingdoms from the 800's found at Jokhang that I posted. Here it is again for you to peruse at your pleasure: http://www.tpprc.org/documents/agreements/821-822.pdf

You see that in all of China. The problems are exacerbated due to Tibet's geography. Because the mass majority of Tibetans live in rural areas; Tibet's small population is spread thinly across an area the size of a mountainous France. So it has been extremly difficult to provide Tibetans with public services.

That is a very weak argument, further made weak by the fact that Canadians living in the rural arctic don't have vastly lower rates of literacy or substandard education than Urban Canadians; you can justify it by saying that the urban areas are more wealthier, but then that proves a problem in itself; the wealth of the urban Chinese should be spread to the people of Tibet if that is the case.

Will that happen? of course not, because the PRC is about as communist as Tibet is a historical part of China.

[Sendo]

Thomas Sankara, you should examine some reactionary beliefs you hold, namely that "at least they got to keep their culture" under the Lamas. Really? You put a hierarchical theocracy above basic human rights and needs like to not be sold in debt slavery.

[Adi Shankara]

You put a hierarchical theocracy above basic human rights and needs like to not be sold in debt slavery.

I'd agree with you, except: Its the exact same thing in the People's Republic of China.

Hence why I said I was against the Lamaists. I already said that. but the Lamaists are still the lesser of the two evils, in my opinion.

Again: would you advocate the overthrow of African empires or traditional societies by the English if they masqueraded under the guises of progress and "revolutionizing society" and "destroying the oppressive cultures"?

The English did that in Sudan, where they took small scale slavery (which of course, was evil) but then they conquered Sudan, and instituted large scale slavery.

the Chinese have done the exact same thing to Tibet.

Culture is important. You can also take out bourgeois elements away from culture, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[GreenCommunism]

You see that in all of China. The problems are exacerbated due to Tibet's geography. Because the mass majority of Tibetans live in rural areas; Tibet's small population is spread thinly across an area the size of a mountainous France. So it has been extremly difficult to provide Tibetans with public services.

Consequently, Tibetans have the lowest level of literacy among all other ethnicities (at only 50%). If this is allowed to continue, China risks being further divided as the gap in level of education would surely exacerbated the Tibetans' economic woes.

That is a very weak argument, further made weak by the fact that Canadians living in the rural arctic don't have vastly lower rates of literacy or substandard education than Urban Canadians; you can justify it by saying that the urban areas are more wealthier, but then that proves a problem in itself; the wealth of the urban Chinese should be spread to the people of Tibet if that is the case.
i was about to say sankara beat me to it but in the native american reserves in the north there is alot of problems with infrastructure or so. it was a humanitarian problem that was often overlooked as canada tried to showoff his image as an internationalist country while some of it's own people lived in third world conditions. i don't think the distance is an excuse, i can understand extra cost but there is a limit to this, they work and pay taxes like the rest of canadian resident, they live on land which the government readily sells to the bourgeois, the money to give them a decent standard of living is still there. also tibet is kinda small compared to canada. china may not be that rich and there might be geographical problems such as mountain, but i believe it is not doing enough when it comes to literacy. as a sidenote, what ressources are present in tibet?

except that Tibet has been an independent state for at least 800 years before the Mongol empire dominated Tibet; I noticed you still have yet to comment on the treaty between the Chinese and Tibetan Kingdoms from the 800's found at Jokhang that I posted. Here it is again for you to peruse at your pleasure: http://www.tpprc.org/documents/agreements/821-822.pdf

tibet at that time was much more larger than it is nowdays. in the last 2000 years how much time was it under china and how much time was it not?

[Adi Shankara]

as a side-note, what resources are present in tibet?

Tibet's most valuable asset and resource is hydroelectric power, and precious metals. otherwise, Tibet is lacking in many traditional resources (although I'd say hydroelectric power is more valuable than gold)

[4 Leaf Clover]

then in your own words, tell me when settling and exploiting a territory is colonialism, and when it isn't.




Ridiculous strawman. No where did I ever say that the rule of the Lamaists was "benevolent" or "good nature". I just said the rule of the Lamaists was better than the rule by PRC, because at least they got to keep their culture...which made another user launch into a racist tirade against Tibetan culture as "backwards". I don't see you calling him out though. wonder why.





a colonial map isn't factual evidence, as that is subjective from a eurocentric point of view...yet, this treaty between China and Tibet, (the two parties in question) from the 800's that recognizes Tibet as a separate nation, is:

http://www.tpprc.org/documents/agreements/821-822.pdf



1.) you didn't prove that as fact, neither did anyone else, if you're referring to the last thread. it's disputed, and subject to opinion. What is not opinion, but fact, is the treaty between Tibet and China dating from the 800's.

2.) There is zero consensus on this question even in Academic circles, much less online forums. Regardless, you support illegal occupation in Tibet, yet you oppose colonization of Africa (or maybe you don't, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't).

culture ? you mean this "culture"

http://mir.it/servizi/radiopopolare/carabanda/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ku_klux_klan1.png

i think we really shouldnt support "cultures" but support progressive and revolutionary forces around globe

tibetan theocrat culture doesnt deserver support of communists , esspecially because its based on nothing but on insisting on a nation and different "culture". If we really start supporting any ridiculous separation and "culture" cult world wide , noone will take communists seriously anymore

and why the hell are you posting as arguments , historical agreements between chinese and british imperialists ? and similar ? why would agreements and decissions of 19 century empires serve to us as argument ? It is like lenin and communists in Russia accepted and obeyed all agreements which Tzar made in past

[Adi Shankara]

culture ? you mean this "culture"

http://mir.it/servizi/radiopopolare/carabanda/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ku_klux_klan1.png



:blink: What the Fuck? what does that picture have to do with anything?

Like seriously, I'm laughing now, I don't even know what this non-sequitur is supposed to mean. How is this even remotely related?

[bailey_187]

I advocate Tibetan independence because their culture. language, and in some cases, nomadic way of life is under threat from rules imposed by Beijing...that, and I believe that people have the right to self-determine their own future.

Would you like it if the Brazilians or British just waltzed right into your country (unless you're british or brazilian mind you, but you get my point) and decided how you would live, speak, worship, etc.? shouldn't that be decided only by the natives of and rightful citizens of Tibet?

Since when was serfdom "nomadic"?

What is good about a "nomadic way of life"?

[bailey_187]

Again: would you advocate the overthrow of African empires or traditional societies by the English if they masqueraded under the guises of progress and "revolutionizing society" and "destroying the oppressive cultures"?

Is this not "permanent revolution"?

You, as a Trotskyist surely would advocate the Red Army under the leadership of Trotsky marching over the world to spread the revolution and "revolutionise society", and destroy traditional feudalist societies, capitalism and all empires?

[Starport]

:blink: What the Fuck? what does that picture have to do with anything?

Like seriously, I'm laughing now, I don't even know what this non-sequitur is supposed to mean. How is this even remotely related?

With regard to the latest phase of descussion, I think serious heads will fine this extract from Lenin relevant and very interesting.

From:THE 1903 PROGRAMME AND ITS LIQUIDATORS
By Lenin
“The reader will see that at the Second Congress of the Party, which adopted the programme, it was unanimously understood that self-determination meant “only” the right to secession. Even the Bundists grasped this truth at the time, and it is only in our own deplorable times of continued counter-revolution and all sorts of “apostasy” that we can find people who, bold in their ignorance, declare that the programme is “vague”. But before devoting time to these sorry would-be Social-Democrats, let us first finish with the attitude of the Poles to the programme.
They came to the Second Congress (1903) declaring that unity was necessary and imperative. But they left the Congress after their “reverses” in the Programme Commission, and their last word was a written statement, printed in the Minutes of the Congress, containing the above-mentioned proposal to substitute cultural-national autonomy for self-determination.
In 1906 the Polish Marxists joined the Party; neither upon joining nor afterwards (at the Congress of 1907, the conferences of 1907 and 1908, or the plenum of 1910) did they introduce a single proposal to amend §9 of the Russian Programme!
That is a fact.
And, despite all utterances and assurances, this fact definitely proves that Rosa Luxemburg’s friends regarded the question as having been settled by the debate at the Programme Commission of the Second Congress, as well as by the decision of that Congress, and that they tacitly acknowledged their mistake and corrected it by joining the Party in 1906, after they had left the Congress in 1903, without a single attempt to raise the question of amending §9 of the Programme through Party channels.
Rosa Luxemburg’s article appeared over her signature in 1908—of course, it never entered anyone’s head to deny Party publicists the right to criticise the programme—and, since the Writing of this article, not a single official body of the Polish Marxists has raised the question of revising §9.
Trotsky was therefore: rendering a great disservice to certain admirers of Rosa Luxemburg when he wrote, on behalf of the editors of Borba, in issue No. 2 of that publication (March 1914):
“The Polish Marxists consider that ‘the right to national self-determination’ is entirely devoid of political content and should be deleted from the programme” (p. 25).
The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof, except “private conversations” (i. e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), for classifying “Polish Marxists” in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg. Trotsky presented the “Polish Marxists” as people devoid of honour and conscience, incapable of respecting even their own convictions and the programme of their Party. How obliging Trotsky is!
When, in 1903, the representatives of the Polish Marxists walked out of the Second Congress over the right to self-determination, Trotsky could have said at the time that they regarded this right as devoid of content and subject to deletion from the programme.
But after that the Polish Marxists joined the Party whose programme this was, and they have never introduced a motion to amend it.[1]
Why did Trotsky withhold these facts from the readers of his journal? Only because it pays him to speculate on fomenting differences between the Polish and the Russian opponents of liquidationism and to deceive the Russian workers on the question of the programme.
Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.” (Ed: Bold Added)

[Pavlov's House Party]

If the Tibetan workers want seperation from China, then all power to them. The decision of national liberation is that of the people who are oppressed, not of first world liberals.

[Starport]

And this from Trtosky:

"The grim experience of the civil war demonstrated to us the necessity of disarming peasant detachments immediately after the Red Army occupied provinces which had been cleared of the White Guards. In these cases the best, the most class-conscious and disciplined elements were absorbed into the ranks of the Red Army. But a considerable portion of the partisans strived to maintain an independent existence and often came into direct armed conflict with the Soviet power. Such was the case with the anarchist army of Makhno, entirely kulak in spirit. But that was not the sole instance; many peasant detachments, which fought splendidly enough against the restoration of the landlords, became transformed after victory into instruments of counter-revolution.

Regardless of their origin in each isolated instance—whether caused by conscious provocation of the White Guards, or by tactlessness of the Communists, or by an unfavourable combination of circumstances—the conflicts between armed peasants and workers were rooted in one and the same social soil: the difference between the class position and training of the workers and of the peasants. The worker approaches questions from the socialist standpoint; the peasant’s viewpoint is petty bourgeois. The worker strives to socialize the property that is taken away from the exploiters; the peasant seeks to divide it up. The worker desires to put palaces and parks to common use; the peasant, insofar as he cannot divide them, inclines to burning the palaces and cutting down the parks. The worker strives to solve problems on a national scale and in accordance with a plan; the peasant, on the other hand, approaches all problems on a local scale and takes a hostile attitude to centralized planning, etc."

Ed: Oh, by the way this is Trotsky on China!!!

[Starport]

um..."Thomas Sankara Speaks", "Revolution betrayed" by Trotsky, "God and the state" by Bakunin, "Das Kapital Vol 1" by Marx, various works by Immanuel Kant and Sartre...

does that answer your question? you ready to give up the fucking witch hunt now?

now why don't you tell me what capitalist, pro-imperialist brainwashing you're being subjected to?

I said you were an idealist I didn’t say you were a witch. So stop y crying and playing-up to the gallery pretending your being victimised when it was you who started this with the clear intention of spewing out your anti-China propaganda which is no different to the routine red baiting found in any capitalist media outlet.

It’s exactly the same in fact, but with an added smokescreen of phony ‘left’ Trotsky-Mao credentials.

Imperialism loves this from you.

It serves its purpose perfectly, helping demonise revisionist workers states in the eyes of Western working class and readies them for another round of war propaganda (lyingly) in defence of idealist “human rights”, “democracy”, “free enterprise”, and of course your favourite “self determination”, which for imperialism means the domination of the capitalist class and the suppression and exploitation of the working class and peasants for no other reason than to extract the maximum profit from their labour. That is what your reactionary idealist nonsense supports – war against China, North Korea, Cuba and others.

Whether you claim you don’t intend that outcome or not, makes not one jot of difference! You are a mouthpiece for imperialism, plain and simple.

But let’s look at how you attempt this ‘left’ cover for your reactionary bile.
You present yourself as a freedom loving individual who fights for the rights
of all downtrodden people. (The name you nicked makes the point perfectly).This plays well to an audience who have been brought up on stories of chivalrous champions of the underdog. Popular entertainment pours out this romantic trash morning and night while the reality is that the vicious exploitation nature of the imperialist hyena system never changes its spots.

Next comes the declaring oneself a ‘real’ radical, even a Marxist, or a Maoist or Trotskyite and better still, so that you can’t be pined down to any one theoretical tradition and have to defend or expand it, you eclectically borrow from here- there- and- everywhere. It’s a method used by opportunist scoundrels around the workers movements the world over.

Now from this eclectic mix of half understood half digested theories you set about making your mark on the world and what better way of than to join the liberal crusade against the mightiest demon in imperialist mythology – China, which is allegedly potentially even more threatening than the Islamic “evil”. You are........... ordinary and nothing of importance.

[Adi Shankara]

I said you were an idealist I didn’t say you were a witch. So stop y crying and playing-up to the gallery pretending your being victimised when it was you who started this with the clear intention of spewing out your anti-China propaganda which is no different to the routine red baiting found in any capitalist media outlet.

It’s exactly the same in fact, but with an added smokescreen of phony ‘left’ Trotsky-Mao credentials.

Imperialism loves this from you.

It serves its purpose perfectly, helping demonise revisionist workers states in the eyes of Western working class and readies them for another round of war propaganda (lyingly) in defence of idealist “human rights”, “democracy”, “free enterprise”, and of course your favourite “self determination”, which for imperialism means the domination of the capitalist class and the suppression and exploitation of the working class and peasants for no other reason than to extract the maximum profit from their labour. That is what your reactionary idealist nonsense supports – war against China, North Korea, Cuba and others.

Whether you claim you don’t intend that outcome or not, makes not one jot of difference! You are a mouthpiece for imperialism, plain and simple.

But let’s look at how you attempt this ‘left’ cover for your reactionary bile.
You present yourself as a freedom loving individual who fights for the rights
of all downtrodden people. (The name you nicked makes the point perfectly).This plays well to an audience who have been brought up on stories of chivalrous champions of the underdog. Popular entertainment pours out this romantic trash morning and night while the reality is that the vicious exploitation nature of the imperialist hyena system never changes its spots.

Next comes the declaring oneself a ‘real’ radical, even a Marxist, or a Maoist or Trotskyite and better still, so that you can’t be pined down to any one theoretical tradition and have to defend or expand it, you eclectically borrow from here- there- and- everywhere. It’s a method used by opportunist scoundrels around the workers movements the world over.

Now from this eclectic mix of half understood half digested theories you set about making your mark on the world and what better way of than to join the liberal crusade against the mightiest demon in imperialist mythology – China, which is allegedly potentially even more threatening than the Islamic “evil”. You are........... ordinary and nothing of importance.


cool story bro

[Starport]

cool story bro


Now answer bro.

[Coggeh]

Is this not "permanent revolution"?

You, as a Trotskyist surely would advocate the Red Army under the leadership of Trotsky marching over the world to spread the revolution and "revolutionise society", and destroy traditional feudalist societies, capitalism and all empires?
While trotsky's position on the Ukraine and Poland during and following on from the civil war was quite naive your idea of permanent revolution is quite misguided.

When a revolution or a huge struggle occurs it is not an isolated incident following on from Russia the revolution had many chances to spread, Germany being the key example. This is why the theory of socialism in one country fails because it simply makes no sense whatsoever. To simply resort to "defending the revolution" by not struggling and agitating revolution in other countries is as good as isolating yourself from any possibility of spreading socialism and therfore the revolution is doomed to fail as Trotsky quite rightly pointed out in the revolution betrayed and other books and articles.

On topic: The situation in Tibet is not black and white its not support tibet or support China users here are throwing the same arguments at each other that one another are supporting imperialism when both are wrong but in a way right.

As marxists we must support the right for self determination of Tibet as a soverign nation with its own independant govt and what have ya, however we should never resort to the petit liberal position of supporting the return of serfdom and feudalism in Tibet where the Dalai lama rules with nothing describile as other than simple brutality. We should put forward the postion of complete independance of Tibet however with a socialist democracy for Tibetian workers to fight against chinese military occupation but against a return to slavery.

[Sir Comradical]

Thomas Sankara, you should examine some reactionary beliefs you hold, namely that "at least they got to keep their culture" under the Lamas. Really? You put a hierarchical theocracy above basic human rights and needs like to not be sold in debt slavery.

Exactly. In India, the caste system is justified by upper-castes by using the same excuse, that the upper castes MUST be allowed to "preserve their culture", for example, prohibiting people from the lower castes to enter religious places, treating them as outcasts and beating them up to keep them in line. In theory, these practices are all part of their "culture". Should we preserve them? The answer is blatantly obvious. Why should culture be fetishized as if it's set in stone? In my part of India, low-caste women were banned from wearing tops just to degrade and humiliate them. No one supports this nonsense anymore even though it's "a part of our culture".

[Adi Shankara]

I'll answer all this when I'm done Mourning the Ghana team's loss. (aka give me a few hours--and no, it's not a cop out, it's just you and clover or whatever gave me like 5 or 6 posts to respond too, and I think you all deserve a decent response)

except your last post, Starport; you didn't really give me anything to answer--just a massive flame post where you criticize my character and tell me how reactionary I am, and how I pretend to be leftist--all of which, is completely baseless, might I add.

you're not automatically non-leftist just because you recognize the PRC for what it is.

[Sendo]

Exactly. In India, the caste system is justified by upper-castes by using the same excuse, that the upper castes MUST be allowed to "preserve their culture", for example, prohibiting people from the lower castes to enter religious places, treating them as outcasts and beating them up to keep them in line. In theory, these practices are all part of their "culture". Should we preserve them? The answer is blatantly obvious. Why should culture be fetishized as if it's set in stone? In my part of India, low-caste women were banned from wearing tops just to degrade and humiliate them. No one supports this nonsense anymore even though it's "a part of our culture".

Word, it's a big part of counter-recruitment in India against the Maoists. Arundhati Roy's Article "Walking with the Maoists" talks about how Hindu chauvinism is encouraged when the elites of remote villages are given monetary and political support when they convert. They also use their new ideology to justify their standing in society.

[Adi Shankara]

Word, it's a big part of counter-recruitment in India against the Maoists. Arundhati Roy's Article "Walking with the Maoists" talks about how Hindu chauvinism is encouraged when the elites of remote villages are given monetary and political support when they convert. They also use their new ideology to justify their standing in society.

While it's not India, most of the Nepali maoists, including the leader, Prachanda, aren't atheists by his own admission.

[Adi Shankara]

I said you were an idealist I didn’t say you were a witch. So stop y crying and playing-up to the gallery pretending your being victimised when it was you who started this with the clear intention of spewing out your anti-China propaganda which is no different to the routine red baiting found in any capitalist media outlet.

It’s exactly the same in fact, but with an added smokescreen of phony ‘left’ Trotsky-Mao credentials.

Imperialism loves this from you.

It serves its purpose perfectly, helping demonise revisionist workers states in the eyes of Western working class and readies them for another round of war propaganda (lyingly) in defence of idealist “human rights”, “democracy”, “free enterprise”, and of course your favourite “self determination”, which for imperialism means the domination of the capitalist class and the suppression and exploitation of the working class and peasants for no other reason than to extract the maximum profit from their labour. That is what your reactionary idealist nonsense supports – war against China, North Korea, Cuba and others.

Whether you claim you don’t intend that outcome or not, makes not one jot of difference! You are a mouthpiece for imperialism, plain and simple.

But let’s look at how you attempt this ‘left’ cover for your reactionary bile.
You present yourself as a freedom loving individual who fights for the rights
of all downtrodden people. (The name you nicked makes the point perfectly).This plays well to an audience who have been brought up on stories of chivalrous champions of the underdog. Popular entertainment pours out this romantic trash morning and night while the reality is that the vicious exploitation nature of the imperialist hyena system never changes its spots.

Next comes the declaring oneself a ‘real’ radical, even a Marxist, or a Maoist or Trotskyite and better still, so that you can’t be pined down to any one theoretical tradition and have to defend or expand it, you eclectically borrow from here- there- and- everywhere. It’s a method used by opportunist scoundrels around the workers movements the world over.

Now from this eclectic mix of half understood half digested theories you set about making your mark on the world and what better way of than to join the liberal crusade against the mightiest demon in imperialist mythology – China, which is allegedly potentially even more threatening than the Islamic “evil”. You are........... ordinary and nothing of importance.


Okay. this is what you wanted me to respond to? all you do is insult me for 5 paragraphs! you say how I'm a subversive, not a real communist, half digested theories, etc.

I call troll/flamer. There is nothing here for me to answer. so what is it you wanted me to answer? I am not going to defend myself against baseless allegations. you don't even know me or my character.

[Sir Comradical]

Word, it's a big part of counter-recruitment in India against the Maoists. Arundhati Roy's Article "Walking with the Maoists" talks about how Hindu chauvinism is encouraged when the elites of remote villages are given monetary and political support when they convert. They also use their new ideology to justify their standing in society.

The right-wing death squads are responsible for far worse crimes than anything the Maoists are even being accused of. Look up the 'Ranvir Sena'.

[Adi Shankara]

The right-wing death squads are responsible for far worse crimes than anything the Maoists are even being accused of. Look up the 'Ranvir Sena'.

the Maoists in China ARE right wing. You or anyone else wouldn't be able to find one thing that's "leftist" about the People's Republic of China; it's a capitalist dictatorship.

[Sir Comradical]

the Maoists in China ARE right wing. You or anyone else wouldn't be able to find one thing that's "leftist" about the People's Republic of China; it's a capitalist dictatorship.

Errr, we're talking about the Indian Maoists.

[Adi Shankara]

Errr, we're talking about the Indian Maoists.

I think you're in the wrong thread.

[bailey_187]

the Maoists in China ARE right wing. You or anyone else wouldn't be able to find one thing that's "leftist" about the People's Republic of China; it's a capitalist dictatorship.

"Maoism" is not recognised as a proper ideology by the CCP.

[Saorsa]

While it's not India, most of the Nepali maoists, including the leader, Prachanda, aren't atheists by his own admission.

Most of the Maoist leaders are atheists. And frankly I'd suspect Prachanda was muddying the waters a bit with that comment to try and alleviate the fears of Hindus who thought the Maoists were going to raze all their temples or something.

The Maoists support a secular Nepal and subscribe to Marxism and dialectical materialism. They're not religious.

[Adi Shankara]

Most of the Maoist leaders are atheists. And frankly I'd suspect Prachanda was muddying the waters a bit with that comment to try and alleviate the fears of Hindus who thought the Maoists were going to raze all their temples or something.

The Maoists support a secular Nepal and subscribe to Marxism and dialectical materialism. They're not religious.

If Prachanda said he wasn't an atheist, he isn't an atheist. If, (as chairman of the party) he says the party isn't atheist, it isn't atheist. So why do you say this? do you have any proof to what you say? because in Nepal, 80% of the population are practicing Hindus, and the support of Maoists is higher than 20% (doesn't include Buddhism and muslims, either).

Prachanda and other top Maoist leaders also participate in religious festivals. doesn't that tell you something?


"If Maoism meets yoga and its spirituality, it would facilitate peace and prosperity," Ramdev said at the session, where Prachanda remained for around half an hour and preformed various 'asanas' like 'Pranayam' and 'Kapalvati'.
Participating in a yoga session at Dhulikhel near here, Prachanda said, "yoga not only cures your body but has an effect on mind as well." "It also helps in social transformation". http://www.indianexpress.com/news/prachanda-does-a-ramdev-uturn-on-yoga/596996/

and you know what? that's the reason why the Nepali maoist party will be successful; they don't alienate the religious proletariat that constitutes their base.

http://www.bestcyberzone.com/entertainment/Football_g52-Maoist_Chairman_Prachanda_attends_the_Kirati_festi val_of_Unbhauli_at_Tundikhel_p435.html

seems pretty religious to me.

[Adi Shankara]

The Maoists support a secular Nepal and subscribe to Marxism and dialectical materialism. They're not religious.


http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nepal_maoist_women.jpg

these are Maoist men and women soldiers from the revolutionary days, and they have on their foreheads a Tilaka, of which the significance is:


The tilaka symbolize the third eye, or mind's eye, that is associated with many Hindu gods and the idea of meditation and spiritual enlightenment. In the past, tilakas were usually worn by gods, priests, ascetics, or worshippers, but is now a common practice for most Hindus. It can express which Hindu tradition one follows. It may be made with sandalwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandalwood) paste, ashes (vibhuti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhuti)), kumkum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumkum), sindhoor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhoor), clay, or other substances. The pastes are applied to the forehead and in some cases to the upper part of the head.

[bailey_187]

Point? Many workers in the Red Army in the civil war probably had private religious beleifs. Does that make the Bolsheviks a Christian group?

[Adi Shankara]

Point? Many workers in the Red Army in the civil war probably had private religious beleifs. Does that make the Bolsheviks a Christian group?

It doesn't. but what he was saying was that Marxists/Maoism "didn't believe in religion", and I begged to differ.

[maskerade]

It doesn't. but what he was saying was that Marxists/Maoism "didn't believe in religion", and I begged to differ.

There is a difference between not believing and letting people practice their religion. Besides, there are more important matters for the Maoists in Nepal to focus on.

[4 Leaf Clover]

:blink: What the Fuck? what does that picture have to do with anything?

Like seriously, I'm laughing now, I don't even know what this non-sequitur is supposed to mean. How is this even remotely related?

because if we support tibetan independance with the stance "at least they can keep their culture" , than we can support CSA independance with stance "at least they can keep their culture".

[Adi Shankara]

because if we support tibetan independance with the stance "at least they can keep their culture" , than we can support CSA independance with stance "at least they can keep their culture".

They're not even closely related. the Ku Klux Klan was never a part of southern culture; they were only invented post-bellum after the Civil war as a way to keep blacks in check; they never had universal participation, and always remained somewhat fringe.

therefore, I fail to see any relevance.

[Sendo]

They're not even closely related. the Ku Klux Klan was never a part of southern culture; they were only invented anti-bellum after the Civil war as a way to keep blacks in check; they never had universal participation, and always remained somewhat fringe.

therefore, I fail to see any relevance.

"Antebellum" means "before war", dumbass. Don't pretend to be smarter than you are. Anti = against and ante = before as in "antecedent".

Quit the bold. Quit the italics. Quit the religiosity. You are naive and you need to learn some humility and learn more about the world. To say that you think that Tibetan monks were celibate because of vows, in the face of a world where the Catholics have been exposed for the very same hypocrisy illustrates your naivete.

[Robocommie]

"Antebellum" means "before war", dumbass. Don't pretend to be smarter than you are. Anti = against and ante = before as in "antecedent".

He's wrong on that note, but you can't teach through force and hostility. Calling someone a dumbass while correcting them makes a correction too bitter to swallow.

[bailey_187]

They're not even closely related. the Ku Klux Klan was never a part of southern culture; they were only invented anti-bellum after the Civil war as a way to keep blacks in check; they never had universal participation, and always remained somewhat fringe.

therefore, I fail to see any relevance.

Thats not the point. It was the culture of the South to keep blacks as slaves. Was it wrong to deprive the white Southerners of their culture?

[Adi Shankara]

"Antebellum" means "before war", dumbass. Don't pretend to be smarter than you are. Anti = against and ante = before as in "antecedent".

Quit the bold. Quit the italics. Quit the religiosity. You are naive and you need to learn some humility and learn more about the world. To say that you think that Tibetan monks were celibate because of vows, in the face of a world where the Catholics have been exposed for the very same hypocrisy illustrates your naivete.

I made a mistake at 3AM in the morning (for some reason, the clock measures what time it is in Europe though it says this site is registered in the USA) with a single word. if that is all you have to criticize me, then I'm pretty confident my argument is solid and your rage just reflects that.:D


Thats not the point. It was the culture of the South to keep blacks as slaves. Was it wrong to deprive the white Southerners of their culture?

The difference is, the culture of Tibet, contrary to popular propaganda, wasn't based on slavery, and the Chinese government has done much worse to the people of Tibet than the monks ever had. I stand by that statement.

[Adi Shankara]

just for the record: can someone tell me how Tibetan culture and Southern US culture are even remotely similar?

P.S: also tell me, does this mean you support the Conquering of Xhosa and Zulu tribes by the Boers and English? afterall, using your logic, they were just trying to "get rid of a backwards African culture". (I notice many of you conveniently ignored this analogy last time)

[Hiratsuka]

So what about the Tibetan Red Guards in the 60s? Are they compradors and collaboraters in this "colonisation"? Silly Tibetans trying to end their backwardness imposed by Monks, dont they know they know material possesions are empty, and spiritual happyness is all that is needed?

Is the Abolitionist invasion of the Confederate States imperialism? I mean, the Abolitionist were trying to end the "southern way of life" and impose their own, wernt they?

Well it's not as if the Union waged war against the CSU out of some sincere desire to alleviate blacks of their hardships. Lincoln was a moderate abolitionist in 1860 (as far as we know... Lincoln was a genius at politics and often hid his real views, so it's hard to calculate what he actually believed), and while he grew intellectually as the war continued , he and the Congress went to war to preserve the nation's sovereign interest.

So if the Union's war against the South was not all that beneign, it follows that China possibly had its own ulterior motives.

[manic expression]

just for the record: can someone tell me how Tibetan culture and Southern US culture are even remotely similar?
Serfdom is certainly a form of slavery, just as chattel slavery (the type used by the US south) is a specific form of slavery.

The comparison was that opposing the CSA because of its defense of slavery doesn't mean you hate southern culture, it's simply a progressive political stance that pushed for liberation from oppression. The same goes for Tibet.


The difference is, the culture of Tibet, contrary to popular propaganda, wasn't based on slavery, and the Chinese government has done much worse to the people of Tibet than the monks ever had. I stand by that statement.It's not about culture. Tibetan culture has been respected by the PRC. Tibetans, like other minority nationalities, enjoy privileges that Han Chinese citizens do not. This isn't about working against Tibetan culture, it's about working against the feudalist reactionaries who think Tibetan culture means nothing but their own personal power.

By the way, on the tilak, it's not always religious. You can see people wearing them at weddings and such, it doesn't necessarily mean they're into Hinduism, it's a cultural thing, too. Plus, the red style tilak, if it's religious, is mostly used by Shakti Hindus IIRC, who are devotees of the goddess(es). I doubt that's what those Maoists were up to, although I could be wrong.

And also, you can be religious while supporting a secular socialist society (just as much as you can be non-religious and defend the right to worship). It just means you want religion to be a personal matter and not something you bandy about in the public realm.

[khad]

It's not about culture. Tibetan culture has been respected by the PRC. Tibetans, like other minority nationalities, enjoy privileges that Han Chinese citizens do not. This isn't about working against Tibetan culture, it's about working against the feudalist reactionaries who think Tibetan culture means nothing but their own personal power.
Tibetans, like other national minorities, are exempted from the one-child policy.

All this talk of genocide just shows that people don't even know what the word means.

[Adi Shankara]

Serfdom is certainly a form of slavery, just as chattel slavery (the type used by the US south) is a specific form of slavery.

my contention is, while most of Tibetan society was very stratified by class, (as was Germany, as is the USA today, as was any society), the claims of serfdom have almost been certainly exagerrated by the People's Liberation Army to justify the conquering of a legitimate state. I'm not going to get into whether or not the society was majority serfdom or not, however; even Academics don't know, and it's hard to find any records that support one view and completely refute the other.


The comparison was that opposing the CSA because of its defense of slavery doesn't mean you hate southern culture, it's simply a progressive political stance that pushed for liberation from oppression. The same goes for Tibet.

But who's oppressing who? The Chinese certainly aren't saviors for the Tibetan Plateau.


It's not about culture. Tibetan culture has been respected by the PRC.

Completely bogus:


Educational, legal, and propaganda channels are used to pressure Tibetan Buddhists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhists) to change their religious beliefs into a doctrine that promotes government positions and policy. This has resulted instead in continuing Tibetan demands for freedom of religion and the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#cite_note-24)

and this:


The official response to continued criticism of CCP policy from Tibetans includes "aggressive campaigns" of “patriotic education” (“love the country, love religion”) and legal education. Patriotic education sessions require monks and nuns to pass examinations on political texts, affirm that "Tibet is historically a part of China," accept the legitimacy of the Panchen Lama installed by the Chinese government, and denounce the Dalai Lama.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#cite_note-CECC33-34-28)


Tibetans, like other minority nationalities, enjoy privileges that Han Chinese citizens do not.

If that's the case, why are ethnic Tibetans the poorest and most undereducated ethnic group in the Tibetan Plateau Region?


The challenges that rural Tibetan communities face are great. Literacy rates hover at 25%, and education levels for women remain starkly lower than those for men. Language differences limit Tibetan access to economic opportunities in a globalized world and also threaten the survival of their own local dialects. In these uncertain times, villages like Chungba struggle to achieve an economic vitality that also sustains their environment and their cultural heritage.

also, this:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/beijing-vows-to-tackle-inequality-of-ethnic-tibetans-20100630-zmpv.html

if China only creates affirmative action after 60 YEARS of Chinese rule...isn't it time to admit the Chinese have failed for their original purpose in Tibet anyways?


This isn't about working against Tibetan culture, it's about working against the feudalist reactionaries who think Tibetan culture means nothing but their own personal power.

there is very little left in the ways who want to return the Lamaists to power. even the Dalai Lama and the prime minister of the Tibetan government in Exile want to have full democracy in Tibet.


By the way, on the tilak, it's not always religious. You can see people wearing them at weddings and such, it doesn't necessarily mean they're into Hinduism, it's a cultural thing, too. Plus, the red style tilak, if it's religious, is mostly used by Shakti Hindus IIRC, who are devotees of the goddess(es). I doubt that's what those Maoists were up to, although I could be wrong.

oh come on, you don't know that. there is no evidence they were secular, and with Prachanda saying that most of the Maoists (including himself) aren't atheist, there is no reason to believe that they're just secularists (of which secularism while maintaining religious traditions is mostly a western concept to begin with)


And also, you can be religious while supporting a secular socialist society (just as much as you can be non-religious and defend the right to worship). It just means you want religion to be a personal matter and not something you bandy about in the public realm.

Exactly, and I agree with this 100%. I am glad that today's Communists allow individuals to embrace personal beliefs without being Dogmatic.

[Adi Shankara]

Tibetans, like other national minorities, are exempted from the one-child policy.

All this talk of genocide just shows that people don't even know what the word means.

I'd agree with this. I certainly don't see any "genocide" in the literal sense, and it's not like Chinese officials are killing Tibetans indiscriminately.

[manic expression]

my contention is, while most of Tibetan society was very stratified by class, (as was Germany, as is the USA today, as was any society), the claims of serfdom have almost been certainly exagerrated by the People's Liberation Army to justify the conquering of a legitimate state. I'm not going to get into whether or not the society was majority serfdom or not, however; even Academics don't know, and it's hard to find any records that support one view and completely refute the other.
It's not that Tibet was stratified by class, the Paris Commune was stratified by class, it's that Tibet was a feudal society that depended upon enslaved labor. That is a basic fact and can hardly be exaggerated no more than the claim that the southern US was dependent on chattel slavery.


But who's oppressing who? The Chinese certainly aren't saviors for the Tibetan Plateau.
"The Chinese" include Tibetans who used to be serfs. Look up Sitar.


Completely bogus:

and this:
First of all, post the source you're getting this from. Second, what the PRC is doing is no different than what every modern, secular society has asked of its religious clergy for centuries. The French Republic does almost the exact same thing in terms of civil examinations for priests.


If that's the case, why are ethnic Tibetans the poorest and most undereducated ethnic group in the Tibetan Plateau Region?
Because those communities are still recovering from centuries of neglect and impoverishment.


also, this:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/beijing-vows-to-tackle-inequality-of-ethnic-tibetans-20100630-zmpv.html

if China only creates affirmative action after 60 YEARS of Chinese rule...isn't it time to admit the Chinese have failed for their original purpose in Tibet anyways?
"Their" original purpose was to defeat the theocratic monarchy, and they did that. It wasn't just their purpose but also the purpose of the Tibetan masses as well. Further, vowing to tackle inequality simply means what it means. If the PRC wanted to deprive Tibetans they wouldn't never launched such programs in the first place.


there is very little left in the ways who want to return the Lamaists to power. even the Dalai Lama and the prime minister of the Tibetan government in Exile want to have full democracy in Tibet.
The Tibetan government in exile will do anything for good PR. I trust them as far as I can throw them.


oh come on, you don't know that. there is no evidence they were secular, and with Prachanda saying that most of the Maoists (including himself) aren't atheist, there is no reason to believe that they're just secularists (of which secularism while maintaining religious traditions is mostly a western concept to begin with)
I admitted I didn't know exactly what the tilaks were for, but there are plenty of social events in which non-Hindus and non-religious people will wear them. If you go to an Indian party tomorrow someone might just smear one on your forehead and say something about Shanti...it doesn't mean you're a Hindu.


Exactly, and I agree with this 100%. I am glad that today's Communists allow individuals to embrace personal beliefs without being Dogmatic.
Yes, agreed.

[Adi Shankara]

It's not that Tibet was stratified by class, the Paris Commune was stratified by class, it's that Tibet was a feudal society that depended upon enslaved labor. That is a basic fact and can hardly be exaggerated no more than the claim that the southern US was dependent on chattel slavery.

then surely a 3rd party account not aligned with either the Tibetans or the Chinese have written of this...I have yet to see anything of it.



"The Chinese" include Tibetans who used to be serfs. Look up Sitar.

There were no Tibetans involved in the original fall of Lhasa. after the PLA defeated the Tibetan forces outside of Lhasa, there were almost no other major skirmishes. the Chinese might as well have walked into Tibet after the Lamas signed a peace treaty with the Chinese.


First of all, post the source you're getting this from. Second, what the PRC is doing is no different than what every modern, secular society has asked of its religious clergy for centuries. The French Republic does almost the exact same thing in terms of civil examinations for priests.

I think we'd all disagree that when the government gets itself involved in religion, that's never right.


Because those communities are still recovering from centuries of neglect and impoverishment.

But Mainland China had a rapid rise in wealth for the bourgeousie, many of which were former proletarians with centuries of discrimination agianst themselves as well; why couldn't this benefit the Tibetans in the same way?




"Their" original purpose was to defeat the theocratic monarchy, and they did that.

Their original purpose was to found a communist society in the regions of Central Tibet, Amdo, and Kham, of which they failed to do.


It wasn't just their purpose but also the purpose of the Tibetan masses as well. Further, vowing to tackle inequality simply means what it means. If the PRC wanted to deprive Tibetans they wouldn't never launched such programs in the first place.

as you know very well I'm certain, many programs are simply done for show, such as the "welfare" we have here in the United States. The PRC would never want to economically and socially empower Tibetans, because they know the minute that happens, China gets the boot out of Tibet.



The Tibetan government in exile will do anything for good PR. I trust them as far as I can throw them.

That's not fair at all though, because exactly the same thing can be said regarding the PRC; at that instance, we're back to square one.



I admitted I didn't know exactly what the tilaks were for, but there are plenty of social events in which non-Hindus and non-religious people will wear them. If you go to an Indian party tomorrow someone might just smear one on your forehead and say something about Shanti...it doesn't mean you're a Hindu.

Yes, there are such things as goodluck tilaks, tilaks wishing favorable rebirth, etc. that could have no connection to Hinduism...but even so, the administrator is almost surely a priest or dignified person, and I'm not sure superstition is really what many of the die-hard atheists had in mind.

[Adi Shankara]

As far as sources go, mostly wikipedia, this NGO:

http://www.actionatlas.org/humanitarian/education/chungba-schools/summary/paa1065F691C6965F73B

and this book: http://www.amazon.com/History-As-Propaganda-Republic-ebook/dp/B000S1L3M0/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1278291957&sr=8-16

which I like, because it's the single best book on Tibetan history I've seen, seeing as it presents both sides of the coin's official version of how things happened.

[manic expression]

then surely a 3rd party account not aligned with either the Tibetans or the Chinese have written of this...I have yet to see anything of it.
The same serf labor systems existed in neighboring Nepal until 2000. If you're seriously suggesting that serfdom didn't exist in Tibet, then perhaps you can tell us what we can call those peasants who were born into that station. Perhaps if we just change the word for Russian peasants before 1861, then they wouldn't be enserfed either.


There were no Tibetans involved in the original fall of Lhasa. after the PLA defeated the Tibetan forces outside of Lhasa, there were almost no other major skirmishes. the Chinese might as well have walked into Tibet after the Lamas signed a peace treaty with the Chinese.That's because Tibetans, at the time, were under a feudal monarchy. Of course they wouldn't be able to join the PLA and liberate themselves if they needed liberation. However, Tibetans have been in support of the PRC since that point, as former serfs have joined the CPC, Sitar being a notable example.


But Mainland China had a rapid rise in wealth for the bourgeousie, many of which were former proletarians with centuries of discrimination agianst themselves as well; why couldn't this benefit the Tibetans in the same way?Such development rarely carries itself out across the board. Tibet was starting from a relatively impoverished position, and they were barely connected to the outside world. The PRC has worked to alleviate this by building railroads, industrializing, modernizing agriculture and so on. The thing is that China is so big that when you have a rise in wealth in Hei Bei for example, it's not going to directly affect Tibet for some time. We're now seeing the PRC address this.


Their original purpose was to found a communist society in the regions of Central Tibet, Amdo, and Kham, of which they failed to do.When did they state they were founding a communist society? Dictatorship of the masses must first be established, then socialism. If you mean collectives for farming, they did do that throughout the whole country.


as you know very well I'm certain, many programs are simply done for show, such as the "welfare" we have here in the United States. The PRC would never want to economically and socially empower Tibetans, because they know the minute that happens, China gets the boot out of Tibet.The PRC has already politically empowered the Tibetan people. Economically and socially, Tibetans enjoy privileges that Han Chinese do not. And there is no indication that Tibetans don't want to continue their support of the PRC, in fact, the isolation and unpopularity of the 2008 riots prove that Tibet stands with the PRC.


That's not fair at all though, because exactly the same thing can be said regarding the PRC; at that instance, we're back to square one.The same thing cannot be said of the PRC, not at all. The PRC, unlike the monarchy in exile, has shown its desire to improve the lives of Tibetans time and again, to liberate Tibet from feudalism. It takes a great deal of criticism from imperialists for doing this, and yet it continues to carry out its progressive mission. Unlike the monarchy in exile, the PRC has done this in concrete ways, not in giving lip service to republican ideals.


Yes, there are such things as goodluck tilaks, tilaks wishing favorable rebirth, etc. that could have no connection to Hinduism...but even so, the administrator is almost surely a priest or dignified person, and I'm not sure superstition is really what many of the die-hard atheists had in mind.It does have a connection to Hinduism, of course, because they're both tilaks, it just doesn't mean it's specifically religious all the time. I've put a tilak on my own forehead...and I'm neither a priest nor a dignified person. It's like the fact that not everyone who burns incense is religious.

[bailey_187]

new article on Tibet:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9187/