Right of self-determination

[Dimentio]

This is for the OI;ers primarily. I am curious in how you view the right for communities to self-determination.

For example, is it less immoral to attack and destroy a village populated by cannibals who use to copulate in plain view and just are doing the necessary work to sustain themselves (the rest of the day they are masturbating, raping chicken and throwing their own faeces on each-other) and replace them with western governance, customs and values, than it is to attack a more "civilised" community?

I am not saying that such cultures exist, instead I created a hypothetical "barbarian culture" with non-existing social norms. Would any wrong-doings upon such people be less aggravating than wrong-doings on for example Americans and Israelis by suicide bombings?

The reason why I have started this discussion is that I have seen right-wingers apologise for Israel with that they "cannot identify themselves with the Palestinians" and that the streets in the West Bank are "filthy".

If we for one moment assumed that all the racist stereotypes were correct, or that we supplant Israel and Palestine with two hypothetical cultures, "Westland" and "Barbaricum" where Westland has increased attributes to what we identify with western lifestyle, including liberal democratic rights, a society where everyone are hard-working, polite and well-organised, while "Barbaricum" is a cannibalistic society where women are routinely raped, people are slacking all day and masturbating in plain view and refuse to work on the land more than it absolutely needs to feed themselves.

Would it make it morally less reprehensible for Westland to colonise Barbaricum then?

If the population of Barbaricum are resisting violently, would it be less acceptable than if the population of Westland was to come under foreign occupation and resist violently?

I am just trying to understand the world-view. That is why I use two hypothetical cultures which generally correspond to the prejudiced image about "west" contra "non-west".

To simplify it more: If an alcoholic bum living alone in a cottage without electricity together with his 36 cats (of which many are dead and rotting on the floor) and routinely shouts obscenities to young women walking past the street is subjected to an injustice, is it less of a concern than if a successful family father is subjected to an equal injustice?

[Skooma Addict]

I think that were a society to be conquered and occupied, the further away from my preferences that the given society is, the less morally reprehensible an invasion would be. So were there to be an invasion, I would prefer it to be on the barbarian culture as opposed to the civilized one. As far as whether or not an invasion is better than no invasion, I think it depends. If for example there is systematic and institutional raping of women on a mass scale, then yes I think a quick and efficient invasion is justified as long as it is planned out and the country being invaded is not some nuclear power with a massive and powerful army or something of that nature. In that scenario the situation gets iffy.

[poppynogood]

This is for the OI;ers primarily. I am curious in how you view the right for communities to self-determination.

For example, is it less immoral to attack and destroy a village populated by cannibals who use to copulate in plain view and just are doing the necessary work to sustain themselves (the rest of the day they are masturbating, raping chicken and throwing their own faeces on each-other) and replace them with western governance, customs and values, than it is to attack a more "civilised" community?[QUOTE]

It is wrong to displace them or destroy a village

If they are happy to sling their own faeces on each-other, I have no problem, yet the minute they sling them at me, them I will warn them, if they persist, then I will sling shit back at them, they are welcome to rape there chickens, they rape mine I would seriously think of building a protection barrier around my chickens.

[QUOTE=Dimentio;1915531]I am not saying that such cultures exist, instead I created a hypothetical "barbarian culture" with non-existing social norms. Would any wrong-doings upon such people be less aggravating than wrong-doings on for example Americans and Israelis by suicide bombings?

The reason why I have started this discussion is that I have seen right-wingers apologise for Israel with that they "cannot identify themselves with the Palestinians" and that the streets in the West Bank are "filthy".?

Palestinians, who are they

[Dean]

I am not saying that such cultures exist, instead I created a hypothetical "barbarian culture" with non-existing social norms. Would any wrong-doings upon such people be less aggravating than wrong-doings on for example Americans and Israelis by suicide bombings?

The reason why I have started this discussion is that I have seen right-wingers apologise for Israel with that they "cannot identify themselves with the Palestinians" and that the streets in the West Bank are "filthy".

Direct Consequences of Israeli withholding of energy* that the Palestinian Authority already owns / dumping of filth**:

*http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/02/200852518517936321.html

**http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/03/2008525183945545589.html

[Dimentio]

Direct Consequences of Israeli withholding of energy* that the Palestinian Authority already owns / dumping of filth**:

*http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/02/200852518517936321.html

**http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/03/2008525183945545589.html

I am more interested in the values behind such designations than whether the prejudices are based on truths, are lies or are the consequence of other factors.

If the Palestinians really were Quran-frothing nazis, would that make their plight (more) excusable?

[ComradeMan]

What about the Chinese "conquest" of Tibet. Didn't Mao and/or the Chinese more or less justify the conquest/occupation of Tibet on grounds of Tibetan culture being backward/reactionary/primitive?

[Dimentio]

What about the Chinese "conquest" of Tibet. Didn't Mao and/or the Chinese more or less justify the conquest/occupation of Tibet on grounds of Tibetan culture being backward/reactionary/primitive?

Yep, and while it was reactionary and backward, I personally don't think it would justify a Chinese occupation and colonisation.

[Obs]

Palestinians, who are they
Are you serious

[Queercommie Girl]

Yep, and while it was reactionary and backward, I personally don't think it would justify a Chinese occupation and colonisation.

There was no "Chinese colonisation" during the Maoist era. The Chinese only overthrew landlordism and serfdom in Tibet, but actually Tibetan peasants, herdsmen and workers acquired great social and economic rights.

The influx of Han Chinese people into the region en masse only started in recent years as China became more and more capitalist and many Han people went to Tibet to do business. During the Maoist days there were only a handful of Han party cadres in Tibet.

[Queercommie Girl]

What about the Chinese "conquest" of Tibet. Didn't Mao and/or the Chinese more or less justify the conquest/occupation of Tibet on grounds of Tibetan culture being backward/reactionary/primitive?

You are incorrect. No-one said Tibetan culture was backward and reactionary in an intrinsic sense, only the feudal serfdom that existed in Tibetan Lamaism was considered to be backward and reactionary, and indeed from a Marxist perspective it was indeed extremely reactionary, and no genuine socialist would ever defend the Lamaist socio-economic system.

But to oppose Lamaism is not the same as to oppose Tibetan culture intrinsically, just like if I strongly oppose Islamic theocracy, it doesn't imply I'm against Muslim culture.

Also, the Chinese Communist Party equally opposed the reactionary elements in traditional Han Chinese culture.

[Dimentio]

There was no "Chinese colonisation" during the Maoist era. The Chinese only overthrew landlordism and serfdom in Tibet, but actually Tibetan peasants, herdsmen and workers acquired great social and economic rights.

The influx of Han Chinese people into the region en masse only started in recent years as China became more and more capitalist and many Han people went to Tibet to do business. During the Maoist days there were only a handful of Han party cadres in Tibet.

During the maoist era, the Tibetans were probably not more oppressed than anyone else, which isn't really saying much. As for the maoist era, I'm not even going to start. Oh gosh!

[Queercommie Girl]

During the maoist era, the Tibetans were probably not more oppressed than anyone else, which isn't really saying much. As for the maoist era, I'm not even going to start. Oh gosh!

It was certainly oppressive if one is coming from the viewpoint of the forcefully dispossessed landlords and Chinese capitalists. Mao was very harsh with such people, and during the Cultural Revolution both Han and Tibetan Buddhist temples alike were destroyed because they were considered to be somewhat reactionary, even though it was largely indirect.

Yes, Maoism was not without its problems, for instance certain ultra-leftist lines during the Cultural Revolution years. But on the whole, it was certainly not an oppressive time if one is coming from the viewpoint of the peasants and workers in China and Tibet.

[ComradeMan]

Ah.......... so when it's China we make excuses but when it's Israel we don't? Sorry, Iseul but what you've said is complete nonsense and swap China for Israel, Tibet for Palestine and it sounds just like some ultra-Zionist arguments I have heard...


Record of Chinese atrocities in Tibet
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=40&pst=679893


1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese atrocities.
Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed.
Precious Tibetan artifacts were vandalized and sold in Hong Kong markets.
Over 6000 Tibetan religious and historical literature have been destroyed.
Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education, etc.
Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization.
Tibetan Children are denied their right to education.
70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate.
Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country.
Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity.
Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China. Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed.
6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country.
Sounds like zion.... oops... genocide to me....

[Budguy68]

I use to be a Zionist sypathizer and thought all their attacks were justified up until I saw videos of them bombing schools and residencial areas with fragmenting bombs. I consider myself anarcho Capo and yes you're right. A lot of right wingers support the jews in israel.

[Obs]

Ah.......... so when it's China we make excuses but when it's Israel we don't? Sorry, Iseul but what you've said is complete nonsense and swap China for Israel, Tibet for Palestine and it sounds just like some ultra-Zionist arguments I have heard...


Record of Chinese atrocities in Tibet
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=40&pst=679893


1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese atrocities.
Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed.
Precious Tibetan artifacts were vandalized and sold in Hong Kong markets.
Over 6000 Tibetan religious and historical literature have been destroyed.
Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education, etc.
Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization.
Tibetan Children are denied their right to education.
70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate.
Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country.
Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity.
Thousands of Tibetans are still in prisons in China. Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed.
6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country.

Sounds like genocide to me....
Yeah, I can't argue with sources like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House (:laugh:), Human Rights First, and the United Nations. Those are good, unbiased sources that you can use in any debate, especially on this forum.

You dumbass.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, I can't argue with sources like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House (:laugh:), Human Rights First, and the United Nations. Those are good, unbiased sources that you can use in any debate, especially on this forum.

You dumbass.

So this is all made up, all lies- none of it true. Smell the genetic fallacy- please- give me a break.

Wasn't Amnesty International who were calling on Obama to close down Guantanamo? Didn't they also criticise and publicise what went on in apartheid South Africa? Did they not condemn Israel for what is going on in Gaza? I suppose it's not true then about the Gaza strip....

Oh.. sorry, forgot that these facts might be a little awkward for some...

Dumbass.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, I can't argue with sources like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House (:laugh:), Human Rights First, and the United Nations. Those are good, unbiased sources that you can use in any debate, especially on this forum.

You dumbass.

And your sources?

[Obs]

And your sources?
Oh, I'm not a supporter of the invasion of Tibet, I just pointed out that ComradeMan's source was less than impressive.


So this is all made up, all lies- none of it true. Smell the genetic fallacy- please- give me a break.

Wasn't Amnesty International who were calling on Obama to close down Guantanamo? Didn't they also criticise and publicise what went on in apartheid South Africa? Did they not condemn Israel for what is going on in Gaza? I suppose it's not true then about the Gaza strip....

Oh.. sorry, forgot that these facts might be a little awkward for some...

Dumbass.
Amnesty can be right about some things and wrong about others. For instance, they are quick to denounce Cuba for "human rights abuses", buying into obvious falsehoods, as liberals are wont to do. They tend to get caught up in naive "anti-totalitarianism" and disregarding facts.

And quit stealing my act, fuckface. And using bold text doesn't prove your point.

[ComradeMan]

hmmmmmmm backtracking..... it's not the only source out there.

Why is it no one wants to answer this awkward point.

If people are going to condemn Israeli regimes for all the shit they get up to- fair enough. But why do they seem reluctant to condemn China for a very similar situation in Tibet?

As Gacky would say- you have to be consistant.

Seems hypocritical to me.

[Obs]

hmmmmmmm backtracking..... it's not the only source out there.
How the fuck am I backtracking?


If people are going to condemn Israeli regimes for all the shit they get up to- fair enough. But why do they seem reluctant to condemn China for a very similar situation in Tibet?
READ ALL OF MY POST.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ah.......... so when it's China we make excuses but when it's Israel we don't? Sorry, Iseul but what you've said is complete nonsense and swap China for Israel, Tibet for Palestine and it sounds just like some ultra-Zionist arguments I have heard...


It's not the same because the class basis is different.

Israeli atrocities are largely directed at the Palestinian poor.
Chinese "atrocities" were largely directed at the Tibetan elite, the landlords and the priests of Lamaism.

If you don't understand this, don't call yourself a Marxist again. For Marxists there is no "universal human rights", only class-based human rights.

Now I don't deny that ever since China became more and more capitalist, the situation in Tibet has changed somewhat and now you do have an influx of people from Han and other ethnicities rushing into the region to make money. But blame that on capitalism, not on the Chinese.

I don't blame whatever is happening in Palestine on the Jewish people either, I only blame it on capitalism and imperialism.



Record of Chinese atrocities in Tibet
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=40&pst=679893

1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese atrocities.


That's almost certainly an exaggerated figure, coming from a mainstream Western bourgeois source. But of course tens of thousands of people did die in Tibet, mainly they were the landlords, priests and other representatives of the reactionary landlord class.


Over 6000 monasteries and institutes of learning have been destroyed.


Many Lamaist temples were indeed destroyed, mainly during the ultra-left years of the Cultural Revolution, but many of the priests in Tibet represented the socio-economic interests of the reactionary landlord class, so they needed to be suppressed.

Tens of thousands of Chinese Buddhist and Daoist temples were also destroyed by Maoists in Han regions of China, and many Confucian scholars were killed. You might argue the Maoist line is too "ultra-left" or "Stalinist", but there was certainly no "Han nationalist" element in it at all. Tibetan and Han feudal cultures were destroyed alike.


Precious Tibetan artifacts were vandalized and sold in Hong Kong markets.


The selling of historical artifacts on a massive scale only began to occur in the post-Mao era as China turned capitalist.



Over 6000 Tibetan religious and historical literature have been destroyed.


And 100,000 Han Chinese religious and historical literature have been destroyed by the Maoists since they represented reactionary feudal culture. Mao himself was explicitly anti-Confucian. Would Zionists in Israel ever be anti-Judaism? I don't think so.

Criticise Mao for being "Stalinist" if you wish, but he was in no way a "Han Chinese nationalist".



Tibetans in Tibet are second class citizen without basic Human Rights, such as Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Right to Education, etc.


As things stand now, Han Chinese people don't have "freedom of expression, freedom of religion..." either. Have you heard nothing about the recent news of the radical Maoist trade unionist that has been arrested and sentenced to 3 years in prison? Oh, but of course, mainstream Western media would never report someone like him.


Tibetan women are subjected to forced abortion and sterilization.


That seems to be a line coming from conservative people who are against free abortion.



70% of Tibetans living in Tibet now are illiterate.

Ever since China turned capitalist, basic literacy rates have actually decreased in all areas, including Han areas of China.

But in Lamaist Tibet, literacy rates were even lower. Not surprising since the Tibetan big landlords monopolised all political and economic power and treated their serfs like slaves, including sometimes skinning disobedient serfs alive.

Arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and imprisonment without trial are the order of the day for Tibetans in their country.
At the moment, these things are far more common in Han areas of China than in Tibet.


Tibet has been divided into different parts and incorporated with Chinese provinces, thereby removing the existing Tibetan identity.


That's BS, unless you agree with the Tibetan nationalist version of how large Tibet is supposed to be. Most of the "extra areas" claimed by Tibetan nationalists actually have Han Chinese as the majority population.

Tibet’s natural resources and fragile ecology are irreversibly destroyed.


Yes, environmental destruction is happening across China now as we speak, but as I said, blame it on capitalism, not on China.



6 Million Tibetans have been outnumbered by 7.5 Million Chinese inducted into Tibet causing demographic disadvantage to Tibetans in their own country.


Yes, at the moment there is an influx of Han and other ethnicities like Muslim Hui peoples into the Tibetan region, and this is a problem. But as I said, this only started to happen in the post-Mao era as China turned capitalist so many people went to Tibet to make money, not during the Maoist era.

Blame it on capitalism, the ultimate source of all social ills in the world today.



Sounds like genocide to me....


"Genocide" is defined as the explicit and conscious planned extermination of a particular ethnic, racial or religious group. E.g. the Nazi extermination of Jews, or the extermination of native Americans by European colonists. In Tibet even today this is not happening. There is no conscious or explicit plan to destroy the Tibetan nation. Most of the social problems you have listed also occur in Han areas of China, often even more so. So they are hardly an exclusively Tibetan problem.

What is happening right now is that as more and more Han people migrate into Tibet, the Tibetans are becoming economically marginalised by Han capitalists and merchants. This is indeed quite bad, but as I said repeatedly, blame this on capitalism and the turn towards capitalism by revisionists in the Chinese government in recent years.

[ComradeMan]

Quote Obs

Amnesty can be right about some things and wrong about others. For instance, they are quick to denounce Cuba for "human rights abuses", buying into obvious falsehoods, as liberals are wont to do. They tend to get caught up in naive "anti-totalitarianism" and disregarding facts.

Hmmm----- let's cherrypick what we want to hear and what we don't want to hear.

Amnesty denounce human rights abuses everywhere for what I see. Yeah, there are human rights abuses everywhere, even in Cuba. But we are not talking about Cuba. We are talking about Tibet.

I don't care about you childish namecalling- you are being a hypocrite.
I see no fundamental difference to the Tibet situation as the Palestine situation, in fact there are many parallels- and it is interesting that some of the "excuses" I heard above for China sound horribly reminiscent of the shit some Ultra-Zionists come out with when seeking to justify what they do to the "primitive" Palestinians.

[Obs]

I see no fundamental difference to the Tibet situation as the Palestine situation
That is because you are a fucking liberal who doesn't know how class analysis works.

[Queercommie Girl]

I see no fundamental difference to the Tibet situation as the Palestine situation, in fact there are many parallels- and it is interesting that some of the "excuses" I heard above for China sound horribly reminiscent of the shit some Ultra-Zionists come out with when seeking to justify what they do to the "primitive" Palestinians.


You have no understanding of Chinese and Tibetan history, it seems.

I'm certainly not an orthodox Maoist and I agree some of his policies were wrong. But your criticism is coming from entirely the wrong angle. Mao might be an "ultra-leftist" or a "Stalinist", but Mao was no "Han nationalist", so it is completely different from Zionism.

Even Trotskyists who are explicitly anti-Mao are only against him because of his "Stalinist" policies, and not because he was a "Han nationalist", because the situation in Tibet was not different from the situation in the rest of China.

What kind of "Han nationalist" would actually massacre Confucian scholars and destroy Chinese Daoist and Buddhist temples en masse? Would Zionists ever burn down Jewish temples? I really don't think so. Did you know, the famous Confucian socialist philosopher Xiong Shili was tortured to death in China during the Cultural Revolution on Mao's order? That's like the government of Israel torturing the most famous rabbi in the Jewish world to death. What kind of "Han nationalist" would do that?

In fact, your views are indirectly racist in themselves, because by solely focussing on the suffering of Tibetans, you are ignoring the suffering of the ordinary Han Chinese masses. Even Amnesty International doesn't quite do that.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

It's not the same because the class basis is different.

-Well, well, well-- seeing as we didn't have a fucking working class to speak of in Tibet or really in Palestine then I suppose both are justified... but let's read on. Many of the Jews who died in the holocaust were bourgeois- in fact Hitler hated the "rich, money grabbing, bourgeois" Jewry--- so that makes genocide okay then does it?

Israeli atrocities are largely directed at the Palestinian poor.
Chinese "atrocities" were largely directed at the Tibetan elite, the landlords and the priests of Lamaism.

- Rubbish. The Palestinian poor is all that's left- you obviously no nothing about the situation. As for China and Tibet- the human rights abuses of all Tibetans are well documents by many sources, not just the lamas. In actual fact the lamas are the ones most likely to escape. It is cultural genocide.

If you don't understand this, don't call yourself a Marxist again. For Marxists there is no "universal human rights", only class-based human rights.

- I love the way you decide who is a marxist and who isn't....:thumbup1:

Now I don't deny that ever since China became more and more capitalist, the situation in Tibet has changed somewhat and now you do have an influx of people from Han and other ethnicities rushing into the region to make money. But blame that on capitalism, not on the Chinese.

-The worst things in Tibet happened in the 1950's- under whom?....

I don't blame whatever is happening in Palestine on the Jewish people either, I only blame it on capitalism and imperialism.

- Neither do I. I said Ultra-Zionists.

That's almost certainly an exaggerated figure, coming from a mainstream Western bourgeois source. But of course tens of thousands of people did die in Tibet, mainly they were the landlords, priests and other representatives of the reactionary landlord class.

-Genetic fallacy... a Western bourgeois source that just happens to also attack the Western bourgeois regimes too, quite a lot- including Israel, the USA, the former South Africa.... Where are your sources to prove the facts?

Many Lamaist temples were indeed destroyed, mainly during the ultra-left years of the Cultural Revolution, but many of the priests in Tibet represented the socio-economic interests of the reactionary landlord class, so they needed to be suppressed.

- They did not need to repress. They did not represent the socio-economic interests of reactionaries. That was there culture, their land- I am not saying they were wonderful or it was Shangrilah, but using your logic we will wipe out indigenous peoples all over the world- most of them would be considered reactionary by marxist standards? Is that what you think marxism stands for?

Tens of thousands of Chinese Buddhist and Daoist temples were also destroyed by Maoists in Han regions of China, and many Confucian scholars were killed. You might argue the Maoist line is too "ultra-left" or "Stalinist", but there was certainly no "Han nationalist" element in it at all. Tibetan and Han feudal cultures were destroyed alike.

-So? That was not right either. Not about Tibet though is it? Not about the genocide in Tibet though is it?

The selling of historical artifacts on a massive scale only began to occur in the post-Mao era as China turned capitalist.

-And...? We do nothing?


And 100,000 Han Chinese religious and historical literature have been destroyed by the Maoists since they represented reactionary feudal culture. Mao himself was explicitly anti-Confucian. Would Zionists in Israel ever be anti-Judaism? I don't think so.

- Hardcore Zionists and Torah Righteous Jews/Orthodox Jews do not actually have a very good relationship at all in Israel.

Criticise Mao for being "Stalinist" if you wish, but he was in no way a "Han Chinese nationalist".

- Didn't say he was. I'm talking about cultural genocide in Tibet being comparable to what has happened in the Middle East Disaster.

As things stand now, Han Chinese people don't have "freedom of expression, freedom of religion..." either. Have you heard nothing about the recent news of the radical Maoist trade unionist that has been arrested and sentenced to 3 years in prison? Oh, but of course, mainstream Western media would never report someone like him.

-Yes I have. But just because the authorities treat their own people like shit, does that excuse genocide? Lots of Germans were persecuted by the Nazis- yes, aryan- Germans. Does that change the Holocaust?

That seems to be a line coming from conservative people who are against free abortion.

-More red herrings. Forced abortions are not the fucking same as pro-choice!

Ever since China turned capitalist, basic literacy rates have actually decreased in all areas, including Han areas of China.

- So? Does that change the genocide in Tibet?


But in Lamaist Tibet, literacy rates were even lower. Not surprising since the Tibetan big landlords monopolised all political and economic power and treated their serfs like slaves, including sometimes skinning disobedient serfs alive.At the moment, these things are far more common in Han areas of China than in Tibet.

- Yeah, the Zionists also talk about how the Palestinians are better off. The apartheid regime (and some of their nostalgic supporters still do) used to boast about everything they had done for the primitive blackman...

That's BS, unless you agree with the Tibetan nationalist version of how large Tibet is supposed to be. Most of the "extra areas" claimed by Tibetan nationalists actually have Han Chinese as the majority population.

- You support the Palestinians with their claims on how big Palestine should be? The Palestinians are nationalists too are they not?

Yes, environmental destruction is happening across China now as we speak, but as I said, blame it on capitalism, not on China.

- But don't blame it on the Chinese government that is doing it and/or allowing it to happen. Zionism is the result of capitalism and oppression- so I suppose we should excuse the Ultra-Zionists then too? They are the victims too...

Yes, at the moment there is an influx of Han and other ethnicities like Muslim Hui peoples into the Tibetan region, and this is a problem. But as I said, this only started to happen in the post-Mao era as China turned capitalist so many people went to Tibet to make money, not during the Maoist era.

- So what? Mao is not going to come back? Deal with real issues in the here and now please. Use your logic and materialism for once...

Blame it on capitalism, the ultimate source of all social ills in the world today.

"Genocide" is defined as the explicit and conscious planned extermination of a particular ethnic, racial or religious group. E.g. the Nazi extermination of Jews, or the extermination of native Americans by European colonists. In Tibet even today this is not happening. There is no conscious or explicit plan to destroy the Tibetan nation. Most of the social problems you have listed also occur in Han areas of China, often even more so. So they are hardly an exclusively Tibetan problem.

- Bullshit. The only reason why they stear clear of using the word genocide and use terms like ethnic cleansing etc etc, is that under INTERNATIONAL LAW- in cases of genocide other nations have to intervene and no one is capable of or willing to intervene with China.

-So the Chinese "invasion" and "occupation" and "cultural genocide" of Tibet is just a fantasy then is it?

What is happening right now is that as more and more Han people migrate into Tibet, the Tibetans are becoming economically marginalised by Han capitalists and merchants. This is indeed quite bad, but as I said repeatedly, blame this on capitalism and the turn towards capitalism by revisionists in the Chinese government in recent years.

- Well stop blaming Israel then and blame it on capitalism. :confused:



You see the problem here is that all the arguments that apoplogists, including Fidel Castro, use to defend China on Tibet are strikingly similar to the ones that Ultra-Zionists use to defend Israel's position on Palestine.

Palestinians were primitive.
Palestine was not a recognised "country" nation state.
Palestinians are not a nation, they are just Arabs anyway.
Palestine was backward and underdeveloped...
Palestinians are lead by corrupt theocrats/religious leaders who do not have the best interests of the people at heart
Sound familiar?

I'm sorry- condemn Israel and condemn China or shut up!

As Gacky would say- you hav to bee cunsistant!;)


Edit- to your last load of drivel? Why am I racist? All those people who campaigned for black rights in South Africa were thus racists because they didn't talk about other discriminated ethnic groups in South Africa? Keep your red herrings because they stink.

[Obs]

@Iseul

It's not the same because the class basis is different.

-Well, well, well-- seeing as we didn't have a fucking working class to speak of in Tibet or really in Palestine

I don't think you have even the most basic clue of what life in Palestine is like.

[ComradeMan]

I don't think you have even the most basic clue of what life in Palestine is like.

Oh I think do.. I used to live with some Palestinians....

Circumstancial ad hom = logical fallacy.:lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

-Well, well, well-- seeing as we didn't have a fucking working class to speak of in Tibet or really in Palestine then I suppose both are justified...


This statement itself shows your ignorance with respect to Marxism.

The working class was small in Tibet, but it was still mostly peasantry. Today in Palestine there is actually quite a large working class.



Many of the Jews who died in the holocaust were bourgeois- in fact Hitler hated the "rich, money grabbing, bourgeois" Jewry--- so that makes genocide okay then does it?


Perhaps, but most of the Jews killed were not. More importantly, Hitler never had a conscious class-based policy. He was not a socialist.

I don't necessarily agree with ultra-leftism. But I acknowledge that people may need to be killed in a revolution, that is, reactionary capitalists and landlords may need to be killed.

I certainly believe killing a rich capitalist and killing a poor worker or peasant is not the same thing. This is why I said socialists don't believe in "universal human rights" devoid of class basis.

Revolution is not a dinner party, Lenin himself killed the entire Tsarist royal family, including the innocent children, to prevent the possibility of a counter-revolution developing. If you are a "bleeding hearts liberal" who can't accept such a thing, then don't be a Marxist.



Rubbish. The Palestinian poor is all that's left- you obviously no nothing about the situation.


I hope you are not denying that the poor in Palestine are those that are mostly targeted. If so then you are even more reactionary than I thought.



As for China and Tibet- the human rights abuses of all Tibetans are well documents by many sources, not just the lamas. In actual fact the lamas are the ones most likely to escape. It is cultural genocide.


Bourgeois sources which I don't trust.

Before you accuse me of using circular logic, I should tell you that I do not just rely on Maoist sources either. I look at other socialist sources, such as Trotskyist ones. Many Trotskyist sources also agree that while certain bad things did happen in Tibet, it is certainly exaggerated in the Western media, and objectively Tibetan peasants, workers and herdsmen actually acquired more social and economic rights after the Lamas were overthrown, which is why many of them actually supported the PLA.



I love the way you decide who is a marxist and who isn't....:thumbup1:


I don't personally decide anything. I'm saying since Marxism is fundamentally based on class analysis and class struggle, then if you don't understand class struggle then you are at best a flawed Marxist. This is nothing personal, just an objective point.



-The worst things in Tibet happened in the 1950's- under whom?....


Actually the worst things in Tibet are happening right now, under the revisionist Chinese leadership. Only bourgeois sources that actually support China's capitalist "opening-up reforms" would suggest that it was worse during the Maoist era.



-Genetic fallacy... a Western bourgeois source that just happens to also attack the Western bourgeois regimes too, quite a lot- including Israel, the USA, the former South Africa.... Where are your sources to prove the facts?


I am a socialist so I don't primarily rely on bourgeois sources. This is not a "logical fallacy" at all. On the contrary, the failure to understand class partisanship is a liberal fallacy made by pseudo-Marxists.

Socialist sources, both Maoist and non-Maoist ones, would suggest that:

1) objectively the overthrow of landlordist productive relations in Tibet improved both productivity and the average living standards of the Tibetan poor;

2) certain ultra-leftist and Stalinist-style policies in Tibet had some negative effects, but mainstream Western bourgeois sources tend to exaggerate these.

This is a rather fair and unbiased evaluation of the Tibetan situation.



They did not need to repress. They did not represent the socio-economic interests of reactionaries. That was there culture, their land


It was the culture of the reactionary feudal landlord class. In fact, many poor Tibetan peasants supported the policy to overthrow their Lamaist masters.

It's true that 1) during the Cultural Revolution due to the ultra-leftist line some policies went overboard; 2) due to bureaucratism and the lack of sufficient proletarian democracy, certain policies were distorted in some ways when they were applied and put into practice.

But generally speaking every genuine socialist, regardless of tendency, would agree that on the whole the overthrow of landlordism in Tibet was still more progressive than reactionary.



I am not saying they were wonderful or it was Shangrilah,


That's quite an understatement, don't you think? Considering it was a place where big landlords skinned disobedient serfs alive?



but using your logic we will wipe out indigenous peoples all over the world- most of them would be considered reactionary by marxist standards? Is that what you think marxism stands for?


What are you talking about? Firstly, many "indigenous" peoples, like the native North Americans wiped out by the European colonists, did not even have class societies. So there is nothing for Marxists to overthrow. Secondly, Marxists do not attack any culture intrinsically, only reactionary manifestations of cultures that are linked with exploiting classes. Communists did not attack Tibetan culture as a whole, except during some of the ultra-leftist times of the Cultural Revolution, which was wrong. The only thing that was directly attacked was reactionary Tibetan Lamaism.

Just like if I directly attack reactionary Islamic theocracy today, does that mean I'm an Islamophobe? What a ridiculous stand point.



So? That was not right either. Not about Tibet though is it? Not about the genocide in Tibet though is it?


Does this mean you also think there was a genocide or "cultural genocide" on the Han Chinese people during the same period?



And...? We do nothing?


What are you talking about? When did I ever give you the impression that I support Chinese capitalism?



Hardcore Zionists and Torah Righteous Jews/Orthodox Jews do not actually have a very good relationship at all in Israel.


Do hardcore Zionists represent the political interests of the working class in anyway? I don't think so.



Didn't say he was. I'm talking about cultural genocide in Tibet being comparable to what has happened in the Middle East Disaster.


According to your logic here, it would mean you have to state that there was a "cultural genocide" on the Han Chinese during the same period as well.



Yes I have. But just because the authorities treat their own people like shit, does that excuse genocide? Lots of Germans were persecuted by the Nazis- yes, aryan- Germans. Does that change the Holocaust?


Did I ever give you the impression that I support the current revisionist regime in China as it stands now? No.



More red herrings. Forced abortions are not the fucking same as pro-choice!


There was no "forced abortion" except the one-child policy that was implemented across China, and indeed even more harshly in Han areas.

Also, this occurred after Mao died and China began to turn capitalist.

And I don't support capitalist-revisionist China.



So? Does that change the genocide in Tibet?


What "genocide"? "Cultural genocide" is not even strictly speaking genocide. Don't just throw terms around.

As I said, if your logic of "cultural genocide" applies to Maoist China, then you would have to argue that Han Chinese people suffered a "cultural genocide" too.



Yeah, the Zionists also talk about how the Palestinians are better off. The apartheid regime (and some of their nostalgic supporters still do) used to boast about everything they had done for the primitive blackman...


Difference being: in Maoist China they really were better-off compared with when they were under the yoke of their theocratic Lamaist masters.

It was certainly not perfect, but it was certainly better.



You support the Palestinians with their claims on how big Palestine should be? The Palestinians are nationalists too are they not?


Given that I also defend the rights of the Israeli working class I don't actually support the idea that "Israel has no right to exist". I actually had a little bit of an argument with Shariati in another thread regarding this.



But don't blame it on the Chinese government that is doing it and/or allowing it to happen. Zionism is the result of capitalism and oppression- so I suppose we should excuse the Ultra-Zionists then too? They are the victims too...


But I am blaming the Chinese government now. Why do you think I support the Chinese government as it exists today? I'm only defending China as it existed during the Maoist era, not revisionist China today.



So what? Mao is not going to come back? Deal with real issues in the here and now please. Use your logic and materialism for once...


"Mao coming back" is completely not the point. You are obviously an idiot, and you have the gall to tell me to be logical.

You must never follow any news on China. Why do you think the radical Maoists in China today are calling for a "second socialist revolution"?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ten-declarations-maoist-t139905/index.html

In some ways the current Chinese government is cracking down on the Maoists more than on anyone else.



Bullshit. The only reason why they stear clear of using the word genocide and use terms like ethnic cleansing etc etc, is that under INTERNATIONAL LAW- in cases of genocide other nations have to intervene and no one is capable of or willing to intervene with China.


I gave you a clear definition of what "genocide" is and why even in revisionist-capitalist China today what is happening in Tibet does not constitute "genocide", while you just go around throwing out emotionalised terms.



So the Chinese "invasion" and "occupation" and "cultural genocide" of Tibet is just a fantasy then is it?


It was not really an invasion first-of-all, and even if it was, it was a relatively progressive invasion that overthrew the reactionary exploiting class and it was supported by many Tibetans, similar to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Do you consider the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan to be a "cultural genocide" too?

This is why as I said, you have no understanding of class, only of nationalism.



Well stop blaming Israel then and blame it on capitalism. :confused:


What the hell are you confused about? I told you, I don't support the revisionist Chinese government, and yes even with respect to the Israel-Palestinian situation, I blame it primarily on capitalism in general rather than specificially on Israel.



You see the problem here is that all the arguments that apoplogists, including Fidel Castro, use to defend China on Tibet are strikingly similar to the ones that Ultra-Zionists use to defend Israel's position on Palestine.


Good to see that you are against Castro too, why do you even have Che as an avatar, I wonder.



Palestinians were primitive.


Communists in China have never suggested that Tibetans were "primitive", only that Tibetan Lamaism was reactionary because it supported feudalism.

By your logic I guess Communists in China must have considered the Han Chinese to be primitive too, since they were against traditional Confucianism, Daoism and Chinese Buddhism?

Damn those Commies! What they really wanted to do was just to culturally colonise China with the European doctrine of Marxism!

That would be the logical implication of your idea.



Palestine was backward and underdeveloped...


Tibet was backward, so was the rest of China. Does this mean the Chinese Communists were just instruments of European-style colonisation in China?



Palestinians are lead by corrupt theocrats/religious leaders who do not have the best interests of the people at heart

Actually Palestine was never a theocracy like Tibet or Iran today.

But if a Marxist is explicitly opposed to a reactionary theocratic state, how is that wrong at all?



I'm sorry- condemn Israel and condemn China or shut up!

As Gacky would say- you hav to bee cunsistant!;)


Don't bring other people into this.

You are just an ignorant liberal who has no understanding of class analysis.



Edit- to your last load of drivel? Why I am I racist? All those people who campaigned for black rights in South Africa were thus racists because they didn't talk about other discriminated ethnic groups in South Africa? Keep your red herrings because they stink.


I said you are being indirectly racist, not directly so. It's not the same.

By the way, I think you will find that most of the civil rights activists in South Africa did not just care about black rights, but supported many other causes too, such as LGBT rights (post-apartheid South Africa was the first country in the world to officially have laws against LGBT discrimination in its Constitution), and even the rights of poor white workers. So they were never as narrow-minded as you are.

Also, I hope you do realise that your comparison here is totally ridiculous. Tibet is no way like South Africa. In South Africa there was very clear systematic discrimination against all black people, but even today in China there are no systematic discrimination against Tibetan people. I don't deny that racism exists, but then as a Chinese person living in the UK, I've experienced racism too, does this mean the UK is just as bad as South Africa under apartheid? No.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Record of Chinese atrocities in Tibet
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=40&pst=679893



Just to add some "balance" to the debate, here's (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) a piece entitled "Friendly Feudalism" by Michael Parenti. It lays out some of the unsavory things that transpired under the "Tibetan Theocracy". Here's an excerpt:



The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use.

Sounds grim, huh? It's definitely not an unbiased source, but I think the search for "objectivity" in these debates is futile. Any source that's critical of China is automatically deemed "untrustworthy bourgeois propaganda" and anything that paints the Chinese intervention in a somewhat positive light is "apologism for Chinese imperialism". Hell, I'll admit it. Chinese intervention in my view, seems to have improved the welfare of the Tibetans in some ways, but it's difficult to ignore the evidence of Chinese repression(some of which is mentioned by Parenti in the piece above).


Anyway, y'all can be the judge. I'm not gonna feign authority on this topic. Hell, I'm unabashedly ignorant. That's why I hope to glean something from these "exchanges".

[Queercommie Girl]

Hell, I'll admit it. Chinese intervention in my view, seems to have improved the welfare of the Tibetans in some ways, but it's difficult to ignore the evidence of Chinese repression(some of which is mentioned by Parenti in the piece above).


Well, certainly we shouldn't just ignore the bad things that occurred in Tibet as well as the rest of China, which is a reflection of certain deformations in the Maoist system in those days.

But there are a few things for all genuine socialists to think about:

1) Firstly, when one talks about "Chinese repression", as a socialist one needs to ask: who was being repressed? If it was the landlord class that was being repressed, then from a socialist perspective is that really such a bad thing? Revolution is not a dinner party.

2) It is a mistake to paint Maoism in Tibet with "Han nationalist" colours, because even anti-Stalin Trotskyists admit that repression etc was just as bad in the Han areas of China. The mistakes of Maoism were perhaps due to either Stalinism or ultra-leftism or both, but certainly not Han nationalism.

3) Overall Maoist Tibet was still more progressive than Lamaist Tibet, that's an objective fact that cannot be denied, regardless of one's tendency.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

1) Now we condone killing innocent children do we? Hmmmmm NO
2) I never said Tibet was wonderful did I? Just like I don't pretend that the Palestinians were all wonderful either.
3) If you knew a fig about revolutions you'd know that revolutions are for the people to have themselves when they are ready and not by forced foreign intervention. I think it was El Che who stated this and perhaps broke his own rule to his cost in Bolivia.
4) Your "morality" would justify ideological imperialism and colonialism of the worst possble degree- "Conquistador", let's civilise the savages shall we? Pathetic.
5) Jumping around all over the place from one argument to the other does not change the fact that what Israel "had done" to Palestine bears a striking resemblance in many forms to China and Tibet. Similar arguments are used by both sides to justify themselves. Furthermore similar ideas have been used by reactionary colonialist invaders since time immemorial to justify their imperialism. What nation or group has not invaded, oppressed and destroyed in the name of bringing prosperity and civilisation? Pehaps the Vikings were the only honest ones, hey Olaf let's go pillaging- Okay Sven- that's a good idea! LOL!!!!!! For fuck's sakes you can see perfectly well the principle. LA LEGGE E' UGUALE PER TUTTI- THE LAW IS EQUAL FOR ALL- or it be no law.
6) I personally believe you display some worrying psychopathic traits when it comes to the killing sprees you would sanction, are you the re-incarnation of Pol Pot?

PS It might be hard for you to grasp with your illogical binary vision of things, but because I don't agree with Fidel on this point it does not mean I am against Fidel.
VIVA FIDEL VIVA CUBA LIBRE!!!!!!
:)

[Queercommie Girl]

1) Now we condone killing innocent children do we? Hmmmmm NO


I don't disagree with Lenin's actions of killing off the entire Tsarist royal family.



2) I never said Tibet was wonderful did I? Just like I don't pretend that the Palestinians were all wonderful either.
Tibet was just "not wonderful", that's a ridiculous understatement. Tibet under Lamaism was ultra-oppressive.



3) If you knew a fig about revolutions you'd know that revolutions are for the people to have themselves when they are ready and not by forced foreign intervention. I think it was El Che who stated this and perhaps broke his own rule to his cost in Bolivia.
Many poor people did actually support the Communists in Tibet. You are biased if you don't even take that into account.



4) Your "morality" would justify ideological imperialism and colonialism of the worst possble degree- "Conquistador", let's civilise the savages shall we? Pathetic.
You are a fucking idiot. It was never about "civilisation" in Tibet, it was about the overthrow of reactionary productive relations like landlordism.



5) Jumping around all over the place from one argument to the other does not change the fact that what Israel "had done" to Palestine bears a striking resemblance in many forms to China and Tibet. Similar arguments are used by both sides to justify themselves. Furthermore similar ideas have been used by reactionary colonialist invaders since time immemorial to justify their imperialism. What nation or group has not invaded, oppressed and destroyed in the name of bringing prosperity and civilisation?
The resemblance is only superficial, because you consistently fail the mention class in any of your diatribe against China.



LA LEGGE E' UGUALE PER TUTTI- THE LAW IS EQUAL FOR ALL- or it be no law.
Absolute universal rights without consideration of class is indeed a liberal bourgeois concept, not a Marxist or socialist one. Socialist equality does not apply to the exploiting classes who refuse to give up their exploitation. Fuck man, this is just Marxism 101. You really must be an idiot to not understand this.



6) I personally believe you display some worrying psychopathic traits when it comes to the killing sprees you would sanction, are you the re-incarnation of Pol Pot?
Show me where I have demonstrated the desire to go on "killing sprees"? Your offensive personal attacks just show that you have no real argument, not to mention that this is against your religious ethic of treating other people in a benevolent manner.

No I don't endorse Pol Pot at all. Even orthodox Maoists aren't pro-Pol Pot, and I'm not even an orthodox Maoist.



PS It might be hard for you to grasp with your illogical binary vision of things, but because I don't agree with Fidel on this point it does not mean I am against Fidel.
VIVA FIDEL VIVA CUBA LIBRE!!!!!!
:)
I consider Mao in a similar way. I agree with some of Mao's ideas and policies but not others. What's there so hard to grasp?

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

I don't disagree with Lenin's actions of killing off the entire Tsarist royal family.

- Well then you condone killing innocent children who did not bear any portion of the blame for their father's actions. Hang on, isn't the sins of the fathers being carried onto the sons a biblical thing?:thumbup1:

Tibet was just "not wonderful", that's a ridiculous understatement. Tibet under Lamaism was ultra-oppressive.

-Palestine was hardly a cradle of democracy. Aztec civilisation wasn't utopia, nor Mayan- so what's your point?

Many poor people did actually support the Communists in Tibet. You are biased if you don't even take that into account.

-No I would be biased if I refused to acknowledge facts and stats of which you have provided none.

You are a fucking idiot. It was never about "civilisation" in Tibet, it was about the overthrow of reactionary productive relations like landlordism.

- It wasn't about a country five times the size of France with a population of about six million with some of the world's largest reserves of untapped rare metals, coal, oil, shale, iron ore and so on? Or is that just a coincidence? :thumbup1:

The resemblance is only superficial, because you consistently fail the mention class in any of your diatribe against China.

- Because class paradigms cannot always be applied to every situation can they? But oppression is oppression. The poor slaves in the US weren't fucking working class were they?

-It's not a diatribe against China or the Chinese people as a whole, it's a diatribe against what has been done/is being done in Tibet by the Chinese government and also the rather bewilderingly hypocritical stance some on the left take in comparison to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Absolute universal rights without consideration of class is indeed a liberal bourgeois concept, not a Marxist or socialist one. Socialist equality does not apply to the exploiting classes who refuse to give up their exploitation. Fuck man, this is just Marxism 101. You really must be an idiot to not understand this.

-Parrot- bourgeois, liberal, bourgeous liberal, anyone says anything we don't like they are a bourgeois liberal.

-Tibetans are the last in their health care, employment, and travel.

- Tibetan population was approx- 6 million in 2000, fallen by 15% since 1951.

-You must have an agenda to not mention these things.

Show me where I have demonstrated the desire to go on "killing sprees"? Your offensive personal attacks just show that you have no real argument, not to mention that this is against your religious ethic of treating other people in a benevolent manner.

- You are the one that talks about people "needing to be killed" your words not mine. You are the one who sees it necessary to kill innocent children, burn down churches and so on.... don't play the innocent victim here- all your words.

-Don't try and play a religion card on me. Your confucian ethic of living in diversity and in peace doesn't gel much with your rants about stuff. I am not attacking you, I'm attacking what you say and seeing as your keen to call people fucking idiots all over the place, well you get what you give out.

No I don't endorse Pol Pot at all. Even orthodox Maoists aren't pro-Pol Pot, and I'm not even an orthodox Maoist.

-What are you? It's not clear. Your words are so violent and bloodthirsty it leaves one wondering...

I consider Mao in a similar way. I agree with some of Mao's ideas and policies but not others. What's there so hard to grasp?

-Wasn't attacking your for being a Maoist.

Now explain to me:-

In Tibet, a country five times bigger than France (pop. 60 million) with a population of 6 million, and of course the huge natural resources reserves that Tibet has, why has there been the "culling" of the Tibetan birth rate with a brutal and oppressive system of forced birth control, sterilisation and abortion? In the meantime China's population has doubled. At the same time moving millions of Han Chinese in Tibet to outnumber the indigenous population? Explain that? Hang on when Israel moves in settlers it's evil Zionism...what about China?

Just a coincidence?

[freepalestine]

Oh I think do.. I used to live with some Palestinians....

Circumstancial ad hom = logical fallacy.:lol:youre a fkin disgrace .

[Queercommie Girl]

Well then you condone killing innocent children who did not bear any portion of the blame for their father's actions. Hang on, isn't the sins of the fathers being carried onto the sons a biblical thing?:thumbup1:


Lenin only made that decision after some very careful consideration. It was only for a strategic reason, nothing more. I accept that not every Leninist agrees with this particular decision of his, but as a Leninist myself I will certainly not consider such a decision "psychopathic" like a liberal bourgeois or an anti-Leninist historian such as the bourgeois scholar Figes would.

Revolution and class warfare can get very bloody sometimes. I'm not saying you have no right to disagree with Lenin here, but you are certainly going way overboard by focussing so much on this singular point.



Palestine was hardly a cradle of democracy. Aztec civilisation wasn't utopia, nor Mayan- so what's your point?


Palestine was certainly not a progressive socialist state, but frankly it was nothing like Lamaist Tibet.

It's true the Aztecs and Incas were oppressive slavery states with the practice of human sacrifice for religious rituals, but did the Spanish conquerors really overthrew any oppressive structures? Not really. The Spanish had their own system of slavery. In the long run it did provide the basis for transition into modern capitalism, but one could argue that the Aztecs and Incas could have eventually developed that on their own.

In any case, it was not the same as in Tibet at all. In Tibet there was no systematic racism or systematic destruction of Tibetan culture and Buddhism, in fact, some progressive religious figures and intellectuals actually supported socialism.



No I would be biased if I refused to acknowledge facts and stats of which you have provided none.


There are many such sources, mostly socialist ones.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8919&news_iv_ctrl=1040

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/05/01/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet-part-1/

Even anti-Maoist Trotskyists who vehemently oppose the Tiananmen Square massacres say that the Maoist revolution of 1949 was the "second greatest event in human history".

http://socialistworld.net/pubs/tiananmen/00.html

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Chinese Revolution of 1944-49 was the greatest edvance in history. A quarter of the world's people threw off the yoke of imperialism, of landlords and capitalists, and advanced into the modern age.



- It wasn't about a country five times the size of France with a population of about six million with some of the world's largest reserves of untapped rare metals, coal, oil, shale, iron ore and so on? Or is that just a coincidence? :thumbup1:


That's not what it was about actually, because during the Maoist era, China poured more money into Tibet than it ever got out of it.

It's true that in China today, the policies towards Tibet have become semi-colonialist. But I don't support the Chinese government as it stands now.



Because class paradigms cannot always be applied to every situation can they? But oppression is oppression. The poor slaves in the US weren't fucking working class were they?


Class can be applied to virtually every situation. And what has black slaves in the US got to do with Tibet? Tibetan serfs under Lamaism lived like slaves, but they were liberated from their slavery by the Maoists.



It's not a diatribe against China or the Chinese people as a whole, it's a diatribe against what has been done/is being done in Tibet by the Chinese government and also the rather bewilderingly hypocritical stance some on the left take in comparison to the Israel-Palestine conflict.


The key here is that under Lamaism, Tibetan serfs lived like slaves literally. Under Maoism, there were some problems due to deformations in the structure but Tibetan peasants, herdsmen and workers lived much better than they did previously. Now under revisionist-capitalism in China today Tibetans as well as most Chinese are becoming "wage slaves", which is why I'm anti-capitalist.

That's class analysis, which you have missed.



Parrot- bourgeois, liberal, bourgeous liberal, anyone says anything we don't like they are a bourgeois liberal.


No I'm not parroting anyone. I'm saying that exploiting classes who refuse to give up their exploitation don't deserve equal rights.



Tibetans are the last in their health care, employment, and travel.


During the Maoist era, Tibetans had the same level of welfare as Han Chinese.

Now, most forms of public welfare in China have been taken away, and Tibetans now are more negatively affected than Han Chinese due to the massive influx of Han migrants into the region to make money against whom the native Tibetans cannot compete with.

Tibet today is indeed a semi-colony of China, I don't deny that. But it was not so under Maoism.

It's funny that you can be quite supportive of Castro and Che but oppose Mao so much. Mao certainly made mistakes but both Castro and Che greatly admired Mao. So your position is somewhat inconsistent to be frank.



You are the one that talks about people "needing to be killed" your words not mine. You are the one who sees it necessary to kill innocent children, burn down churches and so on.... don't play the innocent victim here- all your words.


Yes and that's not some kind of "killing spree". I said that reactionaries might need to be killed if they refuse to back down. Lenin only killed reactionaries after very careful consideration, Mao said most would not need to be killed. But seriously, revolution is not a picnic, if you think one can have a completely "bloodless" revolution, you are just deluding yourself.



Don't try and play a religion card on me. Your confucian ethic of living in diversity and in peace doesn't gel much with your rants about stuff.


I'm not a Confucian, I am a Marxist.



I am not attacking you, I'm attacking what you say and seeing as your keen to call people fucking idiots all over the place, well you get what you give out.


Actually I only started responding to you with offensive words after you used them first.



What are you? It's not clear. Your words are so violent and bloodthirsty it leaves one wondering...


"Bloodthirsty" relative to absolute pacifism perhaps, but revolution usually do become somewhat violent. So revolutionaries shouldn't be afraid of blood like you seem to be.



I consider Mao in a similar way. I agree with some of Mao's ideas and policies but not others. What's there so hard to grasp?

Wasn't attacking your for being a Maoist.


You are attacking Maoist policies in Tibet almost completely. While I agree some of the policies were wrong on the whole they were still largely progressive.

If you just attack Chinese policies in Tibet today then there is not much disagreement to be frank.



Now explain to me:-

In Tibet, a country five times bigger than France (pop. 60 million) with a population of 6 million, and of course the huge natural resources reserves that Tibet has, why has there been the "culling" of the Tibetan birth rate with a brutal and oppressive system of forced birth control, sterilisation and abortion? In the meantime China's population has doubled. At the same time moving millions of Han Chinese in Tibet to outnumber the indigenous population? Explain that? Hang on when Israel moves in settlers it's evil Zionism...what about China?

Just a coincidence?


I don't defend the revisionist Chinese state today. Everything you've said here only started to happen after the Maoist era. Today Tibet is indeed becoming a semi-colony of China, but objectively it's still not as bad or systematic as it is in Palestine now or like how it was like in South Africa.

The influx of Han and Hui Chinese into Tibet (it's not just Han, but also a considerable minority of Hui Muslims in Tibet now as well) only began to happen in recent years. During the Maoist era, there were only a few Han party cadres in Tibet.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul


Yep, and while it was reactionary and backward, I personally don't think it would justify a Chinese occupation and colonisation. :thumbup1:

Did you read the OP?

This is the point- it's the moral dilemma. You cannot condemn Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians, or the US/Allied occupation of Afghanistan if you are not prepared to take a long hard look at China. It's double standards.

No one is denying that Tibet was a feudal regime, no one is denying that it was "backward" and so on- but does that give the right to a "foreign" occupier to just march in and take over?

Many of the arguments you present in defense of China are frighteninly similar to those given by Ultra-Zionists to justify the harsh policies that Israel has enacted, furthermore they are practically the same kinds of motivations that every conqueror has always given in seeking to justify an occupation- the old "we bring them civilisation and progress". The Romans did this, the European powers did this and so on and so forth.

Mark Twain on "Indians":
He is ignoble—base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue. The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development. His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying. To give him a dinner when he is starving, is to precipitate the whole hungry tribe upon your hospitality, for he will go straight and fetch them, men, women, children, and dogs, and these they will huddle patiently around your door, or flatten their noses against your window, day after day, gazing beseechingly upon every mouthful you take, and unconsciously swallowing when you swallow! The scum of the earth!
(NB Whether Twain thought this himself or was characterising an attitude is to be debated).

Did the invasion of Tibet improve the material wealth and increase the quality of life of your average Tibetan? Do the Tibetans have a right to determination as stated in the Chinese constitution of 1949? Are the means of (Tibetan) production in the hands of the (Tibetan) workers?

The International Commission of Jurists reported that 70% of Tibetans in the TAR live below the poverty line. The Tibetan people have a right to self-determination which is the collective right of any people to determine their own political status and to pursue their own economic, social and cultural development.

If it were all so wonderful why do so many Tibetans try to flee?

If you deny that this is oppression, imperialism and at "best" ethnic cleansing then you are gravely mistaken- not only that you spit in the face of every oppressed group of indigenous peoples- including the Palestinians.

The fact that you choose to ignore the hard economic motivations behind the invasion betrays either a complete naivety of how things in the real world work or some kind of agenda.

[balaclava]

This is for the OI;ers primarily. I am curious in how you view the right for communities to self-determination.

I am just trying to understand the world-view. That is why I use two hypothetical cultures which generally correspond to the prejudiced image about "west" contra "non-west".



You raise an interesting point (well I think you do, as I’ve reached the point where I am starting to look for the point behind the point!).

Reading your post you ask the simple question should a society with abhorrent cultural values be allowed self determination. My answer to that is YES, so long as the majority of the people in that society want to live by those cultural values and what they do does not endanger neighbouring societies. The question that follows is, if some of those people from Barbaricum want to move and live in Westland should they be allowed to retain and practice those cultural values that clash with the cultural values of the Westland society?

[ComradeMan]

Here's what I found Chomsky had to say...

Noam Chomsky: I doubt that there is much in the way of useful analogies, in this case. Maybe I'm missing something.

Seems to me there is a much closer analogy between the Palestinian occupied territories and Tibet right now. There are dissimilarities too. Thus, rightly or wrongly, Tibet is internationally recognized (by the US too) as part of China, so what is happening there is internal. In contrast, outside of Israel (and in practice, the US), no one recognizes the OT as part of Israel, and in an authoritative judgment, confirming early Security Council resolutions, the International Court of Justice determined that the Geneva Conventions apply to the OT, so all settlement activity is in violation of international law, as are all measures (like the "separation wall") to protect settlers (the US Justice concurred). However, despite the sharp legal distinction, there are some instructive parallels that can be explored.
Take the recent US-backed Israeli violence in the OT and Chinese violence in Tibet. The former is far greater, and the justifications far weaker. Just imagine how the US and Israel would react if Palestinians in illegally annexed East Jerusalem were to burn down a bank and Jewish stores, attack Jews, etc., as in Tibet We can then compare the actual reactions. In the case of US-backed Israeli violence and illegal actions in the OT, overwhelming support for embattled Israel. In the case of Chinese violence in Tibet, much grandstanding, as when Nancy Pelosi -- an enthusiastic supporter of Israeli violence -- declares passionately that if we don't stand up for Tibet we will lose our "moral authority" (she didn't explain on what that authority rests).
One can proceed -- that is, if one is interested in truth and justice and immune to shrieks of horror and a deluge of brickbats.
NC
(Noam Chomsky)
http://www.pragoti.org/node/681?news_id=681

So what I understand Professor Chomsky to be saying is that despite the differences and the (obvious) qualitative/quantative differences in political reaction there is an underlying parallel.

[balaclava]

The question that follows is, if some of those people from Barbaricum want to move and live in Westland should they be allowed to retain and practice those cultural values that clash with the cultural values of the Westland society?


I thought that might get a few hands scratching a few heads ;)

[Dimentio]

You raise an interesting point (well I think you do, as I’ve reached the point where I am starting to look for the point behind the point!).

Reading your post you ask the simple question should a society with abhorrent cultural values be allowed self determination. My answer to that is YES, so long as the majority of the people in that society want to live by those cultural values and what they do does not endanger neighbouring societies. The question that follows is, if some of those people from Barbaricum want to move and live in Westland should they be allowed to retain and practice those cultural values that clash with the cultural values of the Westland society?



I personally think that abhorrent cultural practices should be phased out, but not through military subjugation but rather "soft power", by attraction of the "more advanced culture".

In general though, I wouldn't claim that the muslim culture is inferior to the western culture. They are pretty close. The only "real" barbarian cultures around in the world today are for example some tribes in Borneo and Papua New Guinea.

As for immigration, people should be allowed to have whatever culture they have as long as they aren't violating basic ethic norms/human rights or destroying their environment.

[balaclava]

As for immigration, people should be allowed to have whatever culture they have as long as they aren't violating basic ethic norms/human rights or destroying their environment.

Let me see if I understand you correctly; you would invite these people with a culture that supports cannibalism, routine rape women, slacking all day and masturbating in plain view into your country as your neighbour and support their right to continue their culture and have your children taught at school that they should respect that culture? And I wondered why you chose the name dementia!

[ComradeMan]

I personally think that abhorrent cultural practices should be phased out, but not through military subjugation but rather "soft power", by attraction of the "more advanced culture".

In general though, I wouldn't claim that the muslim culture is inferior to the western culture. They are pretty close. The only "real" barbarian cultures around in the world today are for example some tribes in Borneo and Papua New Guinea.

As for immigration, people should be allowed to have whatever culture they have as long as they aren't violating basic ethic norms/human rights or destroying their environment.

I know you probably don't mean it in an offensive way- but don't you think it is a bit arrogant and imperialistic to describe people as barbarians.

Look at that thread I posted about Indonesian treatments of Papuans- who are the real barbarians?

How do you define barbaric?



Let me see if I understand you correctly; you would invite these people with a culture that supports cannibalism, routine rape women, slacking all day and masturbating in plain view into your country as your neighbour and support their right to continue their culture and have your children taught at school that they should respect that culture? And I wondered why you chose the name dementia!


Does this really happen though?

Where are these cannibalistic rapist masturbators of which you speak?

Why should indigenous people respect the "modern man"- who comes chops down forests, destroys the environments, rapes the women, uses alcohol as a weapon, spreads diseases for which they have no resistance (deliberately) and then preaches to them about civilisation?

Who were the barbarians when the last Tasman islanders were hunted down with dogs, shot, stuffed and put in the fucking museum?

Who were the barbarians who decided that San people (Bushmen) were no better than vermin to be shot?

Who were the barbarians at the Battle of Wounded Knee?

Why the fuck should anyone respect that culture?

[balaclava]

Where are these cannibalistic rapist masturbators of which you speak?


They are a ancient (un)civilisation living in a land called Barbaricum.

And, whilst we're on about it I accuse Dementia of being a masturbatorphobe and as such he should be 'restricted.'

[ComradeMan]

They are a ancient (un)civilisation living in a land called Barbaricum.

And, whilst we're on about it I accuse Dementia of being a masturbatorphobe and as such he should be 'restricted.'

Yeah, well we've moved on from the hypothetical OP.

[Revolution starts with U]

If they are not harming or subjugating westland, what right would they have to do it to barbaricarum, other than a mistaken belief that uncivilized is somehow less than human.

[freepalestine]

Here's what I found Chomsky had to say...

Noam Chomsky: I doubt that there is much in the way of useful analogies, in this case. Maybe I'm missing something.

Seems to me there is a much closer analogy between the Palestinian occupied territories and Tibet right now. There are dissimilarities too. Thus, rightly or wrongly, Tibet is internationally recognized (by the US too) as part of China, so what is happening there is internal. In contrast, outside of Israel (and in practice, the US), no one recognizes the OT as part of Israel, and in an authoritative judgment, confirming early Security Council resolutions, the International Court of Justice determined that the Geneva Conventions apply to the OT, so all settlement activity is in violation of international law, as are all measures (like the "separation wall") to protect settlers (the US Justice concurred). However, despite the sharp legal distinction, there are some instructive parallels that can be explored.
Take the recent US-backed Israeli violence in the OT and Chinese violence in Tibet. The former is far greater, and the justifications far weaker. Just imagine how the US and Israel would react if Palestinians in illegally annexed East Jerusalem were to burn down a bank and Jewish stores, attack Jews, etc., as in Tibet We can then compare the actual reactions. In the case of US-backed Israeli violence and illegal actions in the OT, overwhelming support for embattled Israel. In the case of Chinese violence in Tibet, much grandstanding, as when Nancy Pelosi -- an enthusiastic supporter of Israeli violence -- declares passionately that if we don't stand up for Tibet we will lose our "moral authority" (she didn't explain on what that authority rests).
One can proceed -- that is, if one is interested in truth and justice and immune to shrieks of horror and a deluge of brickbats.
NC
(Noam Chomsky)
http://www.pragoti.org/node/681?news_id=681

So what I understand Professor Chomsky to be saying is that despite the differences and the (obvious) qualitative/quantative differences in political reaction there is an underlying parallel

also in iran with ethnic cleansing-racism against thew ahwazi etc

[ComradeMan]

also in iran with ethnic cleansing-racism against thew ahwazi etc


Could you go on....?

More information please....

[Jimmie Higgins]

If people are going to condemn Israeli regimes for all the shit they get up to- fair enough. But why do they seem reluctant to condemn China for a very similar situation in Tibet?

Seems hypocritical to me.It depends on how you see China I suppose.
Socialist Worker: The changing shape of struggle in China (http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/09/shape-of-struggle-in-china)
Socialist Worker: China’s record of imperialism (http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/23/china%E2%80%99s-record-of-imperialism)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let me see if I understand you correctly; you would invite these people with a culture that supports cannibalism, routine rape women, slacking all day and masturbating in plain view into your country as your neighbour and support their right to continue their culture and have your children taught at school that they should respect that culture? And I wondered why you chose the name dementia!

God no. I don't want these hypothetical peoples coming in and polluting the American culture of genocide, slavery, racism, leaving poor people to rot on the streets, letting the old rot in neglect, letting the immigrants take the blame for the dysfunctional economic system, training people to torture in other countries, slacking rich bankers who make us pick up the tab for their debts, allowing police to run people over in cars and shoot them in the back with little to no legal repercussions in my neighborhood, kicking people out of their homes so they have to masterbate out in the open with the above-mentioned homeless, cannibalizing people's futures, and raping whole swaths of the world of resources and labor.

[RGacky3]

I love this rediculous idea that before europeans came indigenous people were just raping and eating each other, being lazy and jacking off off the time. Really? Do you really believe that?

[ComradeMan]

It depends on how you see China I suppose.
Socialist Worker: The changing shape of struggle in China (http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/09/shape-of-struggle-in-china)
Socialist Worker: China’s record of imperialism (http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/23/china%E2%80%99s-record-of-imperialism)


Thanks for those articles- I found particularly interesting the following passage:

The movement, however, spilled into the working-class districts of Llasa and became a riot as the poor attacked the symbols of Han Chinese prosperity that have sprung up amid Tibetan poverty. Some Han Chinese individuals were also targeted.

When the movement spread to three neighboring provinces, it maintained its working-class character and began to demand full self-determination for Tibet. No doubt, many of these Tibetan workers had been influenced by previous experience of class struggle. The Han working class, however, did not unite around the Tibetans, and instead was wrapped up in the anti-Tibetan Han chauvinism that was promoted particularly through the Internet.
http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/23/china’s-record-of-imperialism

[Jimmie Higgins]

I love this rediculous idea that before europeans came indigenous people were just raping and eating each other, being lazy and jacking off off the time. Really? Do you really believe that?Historically the examples of cannibalism, head-hunting, and so on come AFTER contact and subjugation by modern colonialists. Tribal, nomadic, and even early agricultural people just didn't have the population numbers and productive surplus to kill a lot of people like more advanced and developed class societies. Most examples of cannibalism are from societies which have been disrupted by colonialism. The slave-trade was one example of how colonialism transformed feudal type slavery (slaves are basically prisoners of war made into servants) into hunting humans for the sake of profit on a mass scale. In Latin America, the cases of cannibalism in tribes were recorded in places where most of the population had been destroyed and land taken away.

Finally, cannibalism as a cultural norm is a myth and propaganda:
During their period of expansion in the 15th through 17th centuries, Europeans equated cannibalism with evil and savagery. In the 16th century, Pope Innocent IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_IV) declared cannibalism a sin deserving to be punished by Christians through force of arms and Queen Isabella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile) of Spain decreed that Spanish colonists could only legally enslave natives who were cannibals, giving the colonists an economic interest in making such allegations.

[Bud Struggle]

I love this rediculous idea that before europeans came indigenous people were just raping and eating each other, being lazy and jacking off off the time. Really? Do you really believe that?

That sounds like Primative Communism. :D

[ComradeMan]

Historically the examples of cannibalism, head-hunting, and so on come AFTER contact and subjugation by modern colonialists. Tribal, nomadic, and even early agricultural people just didn't have the population numbers and productive surplus to kill a lot of people like more advanced and developed class societies. Most examples of cannibalism are from societies which have been disrupted by colonialism. The slave-trade was one example of how colonialism transformed feudal type slavery (slaves are basically prisoners of war made into servants) into hunting humans for the sake of profit on a mass scale. In Latin America, the cases of cannibalism in tribes were recorded in places where most of the population had been destroyed and land taken away.

Finally, cannibalism as a cultural norm is a myth and propaganda:


That isn't really true in a lot of cases.

There is evidence to suggest they ancient Celtic tribes of Britain may have been cannibals, and certainly neolithic peoples. Cannibalism is as old as the hills. Some tribes in New Guinea/Papua that have had only very little contact and relatively recently with the outside world- do indeed practise a form of cannibalism.

Cannibalism, human sacrifice and headhunting of one form or another can be found in the histories of most human populations at one time or another- regardless of colonialism.

By the same token I do not negate the possibility that they were exacerbated by the experience of colonialism however I do not think that their origin depends on colonialism.

One interesting exception may be the native American "scalping" which seems to have been introduced by the British and French.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One interesting exception may be the native American "scalping" which seems to have been introduced by the British and French.Well I would not be suprised if cannibalism of the dead or ritualistic (and limited) cannibalism was practiced (I was raised Catholic so according to that religion I've eaten quite a bit of Christ's flesh:lol:), but from what I've read (limited because I don't have that much of a background in anthropology) from progressive as well as academic articles on anthropology, the practice has been much exaggerated and many of the documented cases are from societies which were falling apart - often due to colonization and destruction of traditional ways of life.

As the wikipedia quote above suggests, many of the accounts of cannibalism come from people who had an interest in promoting the idea of native people being worthy of destruction or conversion (often becoming Christians and forced labor all at once!). I don't think life for basic ag. societies or nomadic people was all rainbows and campfires, I am just highly suspicious of many of these early accounts and on a practical level, I don't think populations were large enough in hunter-gather societies to actually hunt people for food. If you basically consume what you and the rest of your group can produce, there isn't enough surplus labor (or surplus population) to make eating living people a sustainable situation. Where there was cannibalism in these societies I think it was more likely due to some kind of extreme circumstantial pressure or eating the dead.

[4 Leaf Clover]

wait , you are not speaking about national self-determination ?

[ComradeMan]

Well I would not be suprised if cannibalism of the dead or ritualistic (and limited) cannibalism was practiced (I was raised Catholic so according to that religion I've eaten quite a bit of Christ's flesh:lol:), but from what I've read (limited because I don't have that much of a background in anthropology) from progressive as well as academic articles on anthropology, the practice has been much exaggerated and many of the documented cases are from societies which were falling apart - often due to colonization and destruction of traditional ways of life.

As the wikipedia quote above suggests, many of the accounts of cannibalism come from people who had an interest in promoting the idea of native people being worthy of destruction or conversion (often becoming Christians and forced labor all at once!). I don't think life for basic ag. societies or nomadic people was all rainbows and campfires, I am just highly suspicious of many of these early accounts and on a practical level, I don't think populations were large enough in hunter-gather societies to actually hunt people for food. If you basically consume what you and the rest of your group can produce, there isn't enough surplus labor (or surplus population) to make eating living people a sustainable situation. Where there was cannibalism in these societies I think it was more likely due to some kind of extreme circumstantial pressure or eating the dead.

Cannibalism exists/has existed in different forms.

Ritual cannibalism- connected with ideas of sympathetic magic and spirtualism. If I eat my enemy's heart I will take his strength. This form of cannibalism, connected to headhunting too, is a war practice and not the general means of nutrition.

See also the aghori sect in India. There are some videos on Youtube- warning, some of the stuff is not for people of a sensitive disposition. Ritual killings and a form of ritual cannibalism also exist to this day in Africa too- but these two examples, albeit undeniably extant, are by no means the general cultural norms of the given populations either.

Cannibalism in times of famine and starvation- a different thing entirely but not a cultural norm by any means- more a survival instinct of desparation.

You are also correct in your assertion that "conquering" cultures do have the tendency to exaggerate the "barbarism" of the conquered culture in order to justify their own expansionism from a moral point of view. The Romans did this with the "barbarians" they conquered to a certain extent. For the Conquistadores it was better PR to say they were conquering a bunch of human sacrificing, headhunting cannibalistic savages than perhaps an organised civilisation with a written language and an advanced social structure. At the same time, a Spaniard of the 16th century would have understandably been shocked and appalled by the presence of such things too in those societies.

[ComradeMan]

This may be a little off topic and odd, but I never understood what is ethically so bad about cannibalism ?? If the person is already dead then why not eat them ? If that is a cultural norm anywhere then it wouldn't offend people and the dead person obviously wouldn't care, so what's the problem ?


You are right of course, and that is a bit like what the aghori sect in India say. It's a cultural norm really and nothing else.

On the other hand, there is a lot of medical evidence to suggest that cannibalism is a very dangerous practice (for the eater, not just the eaten!!!:lol:) and really should not be encouraged either...

Do you eat jelly babies?

[Revolution starts with U]

Cannibalism causes "mad cow disease." There's a name for it in humans, but it's basically the same thing.

[ComradeMan]

Cannibalism causes "mad cow disease." There's a name for it in humans, but it's basically the same thing.

It's known as "Kuru"- a prion disease and form of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy related toCreutzfeldt–Jakob disease, mad cow disease is formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Cannibalism causes "mad cow disease." There's a name for it in humans...I believe it's called Glenn Beck Disease - named after patient 0.




That was just terrible - I shouldn't post here after being up all night.

[RGacky3]

Oops wrong thread

[Albania]

What about the Chinese "conquest" of Tibet. Didn't Mao and/or the Chinese more or less justify the conquest/occupation of Tibet on grounds of Tibetan culture being backward/reactionary/primitive?


Seems the world is occupied with Tibet and forgets the other non-mentioned parts of the world that are controlled by other nations.

Unfortunately, US control of the Caribbean Island of Puerto Rico is hardly mentioned. 406 years under Spain and now 112 years under the US. Colonialism, no matter if even the intentions were good , has played havoc on there society.
In this age there should be no Colonialism .

[ComradeMan]

Seems the world is occupied with Tibet and forgets the other non-mentioned parts of the world that are controlled by other nations.

Unfortunately, US control of the Caribbean Island of Puerto Rico is hardly mentioned. 406 years under Spain and now 112 years under the US. Colonialism, no matter if even the intentions were good , has played havoc on there society.
In this age there should be no Colonialism .

I don't think they have forgotten so much as they either don't realise or don't care.

[Bud Struggle]

Seems the world is occupied with Tibet and forgets the other non-mentioned parts of the world that are controlled by other nations.

Unfortunately, US control of the Caribbean Island of Puerto Rico is hardly mentioned. 406 years under Spain and now 112 years under the US. Colonialism, no matter if even the intentions were good , has played havoc on there society.
In this age there should be no Colonialism .

There are a lot of Americans that woulde be happy to let the island be independent. Unfortunately they hold ELECTIONS there and ask the people what THEY WANT. And they keep on staying with the
US. :(

[ComradeMan]

There are a lot of Americans that woulde be happy to let the island be independent. Unfortunately they hold ELECTIONS there and ask the people what THEY WANT. And they keep on staying with the
US. :(

Three plebiscites have been held in recent decades to resolve the political status, but no changes have been attained. Support for the pro-statehood party, Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), and the pro-commonwealth party, Partido Popular Democrático (PPD), remains about equal. The only registered pro-independence party, the Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP), usually receives 3-5% of the electoral votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#Commonwealth

[Dimentio]

I know very well that only a minority of the fourth world cultures have engaged in such practices, but such cultures have nevertheless existed.

[Bud Struggle]

It sucks when the people don't want what they are supposed to want. :(

[Lt. Ferret]

its like puerto ricans like the protection of the US but dont want to pay ridiculous taxes :(

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't necessarily agree with ultra-leftism. But I acknowledge that people may need to be killed in a revolution, that is, reactionary capitalists and landlords may need to be killed.

I certainly believe killing a rich capitalist and killing a poor worker or peasant is not the same thing. This is why I said socialists don't believe in "universal human rights" devoid of class basis.

Revolution is not a dinner party, Lenin himself killed the entire Tsarist royal family, including the innocent children, to prevent the possibility of a counter-revolution developing. If you are a "bleeding hearts liberal" who can't accept such a thing, then don't be a Marxist.

Well then I am certainly not a Marxist. I always saw a Marxist future as one with a radically different economic system, but not as much a cultural or civil rights thing. I don't believe that someone who was born with more money than myself was a bad person because of it. If a wealthy person and myself were to both need heart transplants, it should be based on who's next in line for one and nothing else (granted if they were like really wealthy they could fly to China and get some convict's organs.)

Let's say Conan or some other talk show host starts hating on the revolution. Are we gonna go find his ass and get rid of him?

I think that's really the question at stake here.

[ComradeMan]

its like puerto ricans like the protection of the US but dont want to pay ridiculous taxes :(

It's like the American colonists wanted British naval protection but didn't want to pay the taxes! :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

It sucks when the people don't want what they are supposed to want. :(

You mean like how Palestinians voted in Hammas, but the US and Israeli government's won't treat that party as legitimate, or how the US prevented votes in Vietnam because they know that Ho Chi Minh would be elected... then they helped assassinate their South Vietnam proxies when those leaders decided they had to negotiate with the North.

I support the calls for independence in Puerto Rico, because I think independence would help the working class there - but seeing as it is currently not the big polarizing and popular movement that it was at different points in the past, I don't go to demonstrations on this issue and I have never seen one (maybe they happen on the East Cost, but I've never seen one in California). So support of self-determination there is not the same as the solidarity with actual liberation movements or independence movements that exist - like in Tibet and Palestine and other places where there is clearly movements and either a majority or a significant portion of the population calling for independence.

Supporting the right to self determination does not mean promoting independence where there is no real material or political call for one. The US CP adopted a view of Black Liberation that was created by Russian bureaucrats based around a struggle for self-determination for black people as "a nation" in the so-called US "black-belt". It was a strange argument since aside from a small number of Garveyists and "Back-to-Africa" nationalists, there were no political forces calling for black rule of the south as a separate nation. To its credit, the US CP basically just ignored this view of struggle in practice while they promoted the idea of it propagandistically. As the "back to Africa" movements always found, African Americans, despite being upset at oppression at home, have no organize connection to Africa and so what people have generally fought for is equal rights and treatment as the road to liberation, not having a physical "nation". Even the Nation of Islam doesn't talk about making some US state a "black-run nation" - their nationalism is about owning businesses in black communities.

[Lt. Ferret]

It's like the American colonists wanted British naval protection but didn't want to pay the taxes! :lol:

hey thats EXACTLY what happened. american colonists shoulda got their asses kicked, they were in the wrong.

[ComradeMan]

hey thats EXACTLY what happened. american colonists shoulda got their asses kicked, they were in the wrong.

Lieut. Ferret......?

=

http://strumpette.com/uploads/september07/benedict_arnold.jpg

[hatzel]

['Nation' in the post is referring to the old meaning, not the nation of the nation state and nationalism. If you would prefer to substitute the word with 'ethnic / cultural / linguistic / religious / political / etc. community' or something, feel free!]

We realise that self-determination and independence needn't be the same thing, right? I mean...well, let's think about the Basque nationalist movement. If all the Basque people, all the Basque-speakers and so on, cry out for independence...we support it, right? So then the Basque lands are made into an independent, Basque-speaking state, let's call it Euskadi. And it's full of Euskadish people, that's the new adjective for this country. Now...what then of the Spaniards there, who then start crying about how they, the proud Vascan (as the Spanish inhabitants of Euskadi are now called) people, want independence. And the French-speaking minority in the north of Euskadi also want independence. So there we go, we cut a little line around the areas largely inhabited by the Vascan people and the Basque (as the French inhabitants of Euskadi are now called) people, and these are the new states of Vasco and Basqueland. The euskadish minority left in Vasco and Basqueland, then, might move to Euskadi, or they might start crying for independence. And what of the Bolivian population of Bilbao, would we support their struggle to carve out a few blocks as an independent city state, if they wanted it? I guess the issue here is...if self-determination involves drawing a line on a map and giving that area, as a state, to some group, and this is supported, then the only logical conclusion would be a range of ethnically cleansed, culturally homogenised states. Where there is no group of people who could possibly call for their exclusive ownership of an area on a map.

To get this to the Israel-Palestine issue, the point would be whether one would support a Druze independence movement in a Palestinian state. And, perhaps more controversially, whether one would support any independence movement which might emerge amongst any remaining Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Or does supporting the Palestinian right of self-determination include supporting the removal of all Jewish individuals in the West Bank? Because...well, that's a little bit like ethnic cleansing, isn't it? Of course as long as this idea of drawing lines on a map continues, 'this land is for these people, this land is for these', then the eventual results will be cleansed states. Cleansed by force, or by assimilation, or by some other manner. Self-determination, though, is a different thing. The Sami people push for self-determination, and they have their parliaments to deal with certain things. Of course these parliaments aren't particularly powerful, but the Sami aim is merely to increase the power of these parliaments, and broaden the spectrum of matters which this parliament can deliberate on with regards to the Sami community. Nobody's trying to cut a vast swathe of northern Scandinavia off and declare it Sápmi. Nobody's confusing self-determination, and even the support of national interests, with some half-hearted attempt at claiming some expanse of land as exclusive property of one nation, at the expense of all others. No no, self-determination as territorial independence movements will only cause fractures, and lead to these situations of right-wing wet dreams, where nobody need fear some foreign beast depriving them of their rich culture, as, of course, all other cultures have been effectively shut out on the other side of some imaginary line on the ground.

Now, I'm not saying that it's at all true that one nation cannot possibly ever function under a government controlled by another, but what's with this obsession with giving them land? Nobody calling for that nation to be given a separate parliament, and equal access to whatever resource they find around them. A nation, a community, anything, can exist, self-determined, merely by being allowed to set up a parliamentary system, if they so please, and a law system, or whatever they want, equally applicable and accessible to any person who wishes to engage in that community, irrespective of their geographical location. A nation's parliament need not be given strictly delimited territory in which to exercise its power. Instead, a nation's parliament need only have authority over matters related to the nation itself, as long as these people are simultaneously freed from the authority of any community which they themselves do not associate with.

Simple, really...in summary: self-determination and self-rule for a nation doesn't require that nation to be given exclusive ownership or authority over a given area, as long as no other nation is allowed to claim exclusive ownership or authority over this area.

Over and out,
Rabbi Krimskrams

[ComradeMan]

['Nation' in the post is referring to the old meaning, not the nation of the nation state and nationalism. If you would prefer to substitute the word with 'ethnic / cultural / linguistic / religious / political / etc. community' or something, feel free!]

.......Rabbi Krimskrams

Thanks Rabbi- sort of thing I have been saying for a long time.;)

[hatzel]

Thanks Rabbi- sort of thing I have been saying for a long time.;)

Well I sure hope you didn't get restricted for saying it, comrade...otherwise I might be in trouble! :rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

Now, I'm not saying that it's at all true that one nation cannot possibly ever function under a government controlled by another, but what's with this obsession with giving them land? Nobody calling for that nation to be given a separate parliament, and equal access to whatever resource they find around them. A nation, a community, anything, can exist, self-determined, merely by being allowed to set up a parliamentary system, if they so please, and a law system, or whatever they want, equally applicable and accessible to any person who wishes to engage in that community, irrespective of their geographical location. A nation's parliament need not be given strictly delimited territory in which to exercise its power. Instead, a nation's parliament need only have authority over matters related to the nation itself, as long as these people are simultaneously freed from the authority of any community which they themselves do not associate with.

Simple, really...in summary: self-determination and self-rule for a nation doesn't require that nation to be given exclusive ownership or authority over a given area, as long as no other nation is allowed to claim exclusive ownership or authority over this area.

Over and out,
Rabbi Krimskrams


Wait...*what*??? Am I the only one not drinking the Kool-Aid here -- ??!!!

With all due respect, Rabbi, you're reducing the all-important political component of 'self-governance' -- that is, the absence of hegemony from without -- to a kids' playground exercise in make-believe.

*Of course* land *matters*. *Of course* a community -- as with a diaspora's -- geographic location *matters*. A governing body without actual physical territory over which to exercise its decisions is a farce, nothing less.

And what nation, cultural or otherwise, *wouldn't* want to be given exclusive ownership and authority over a given area -- ??? I thought that's the *very definition* of what a nation is -- !! Likewise, where would there be an area without *any* claims to authority? The whole world's been carved up, in some arrangement or another, for centuries now (more or less)...!





I support the calls for independence in Puerto Rico, because I think independence would help the working class there - but seeing as it is currently not the big polarizing and popular movement that it was at different points in the past, I don't go to demonstrations on this issue and I have never seen one (maybe they happen on the East Cost, but I've never seen one in California). So support of self-determination there is not the same as the solidarity with actual liberation movements or independence movements that exist - like in Tibet and Palestine and other places where there is clearly movements and either a majority or a significant portion of the population calling for independence.


If you would, Jimmie Higgins, please explain why you included Tibet in your list there -- what is your / the ISO's position regarding Tibet in relation to China?

[ComradeMan]

And what nation, cultural or otherwise, *wouldn't* want to be given exclusive ownership and authority over a given area -- ??? I thought that's the *very definition* of what a nation is -- !! Likewise, where would there be an area without *any* claims to authority? The whole world's been carved up, in some arrangement or another, for centuries now (more or less)...!

Of course you are assuming that all peoples do indeed have the concept of land-ownership. Nomadic peoples and many indigenous groups had/have no historical concept of land-ownership however they do/did have their own structures of "governance" or "administration". These groups often havd/had an attachment to a territory- usually limited by geographical factors but the idea that it was "owned" is a whole different thing.

I have to differ with you then on the definition of what a nation is and isn't.

The idea of nation states is not actually as old as you may think. Kingdoms and Empires were not nation states, tribal/nomadic groups were not nation states- very few "sovereign" nation states existed 500 years ago- especially if we factor in the idea of a national or ethnic group.

[ckaihatsu]

The idea of nation states is not actually as old as you may think. Kingdoms and Empires were not nation states, tribal/nomadic groups were not nation states- very few "sovereign" nation states existed 500 years ago- especially if we factor in the idea of a national or ethnic group.




Of course you are assuming that all peoples do indeed have the concept of land-ownership. Nomadic peoples and many indigenous groups had/have no historical concept of land-ownership however they do/did have their own structures of "governance" or "administration". These groups often havd/had an attachment to a territory- usually limited by geographical factors but the idea that it was "owned" is a whole different thing.


Yeah, you're correct, of course, and I don't mean to quibble -- but you're also twisting and turning around the basic -- especially modern -- reality of political *power*.





I have to differ with you then on the definition of what a nation is and isn't.


In the modern and current reality a 'nation' is synonymous with internal hegemony, even to Kafka-esque extents. No cultural / community grouping is going to be exempt from this reality -- with modern control over the natural / material world comes an ease of movement, as from representative agents of empire (in the broadest sense of the term). There are hardly any remaining geographic areas for autarky -- Afghanistan comes to mind as a notable exception, and is a perennial challenge for empire -- so that means that the flag -- or corporate logos -- fly over *all* of our heads, each and every one of us. The *numbers* of people currently living under a modern national jurisdiction of one sort or another are the vast *majority* of humanity's entire population.

[ComradeMan]

In the modern and current reality a 'nation' is synonymous with internal hegemony, even to Kafka-esque extents. No cultural / community grouping is going to be exempt from this reality -- with modern control over the natural / material world comes an ease of movement, as from representative agents of empire (in the broadest sense of the term). There are hardly any remaining geographic areas for autarky -- Afghanistan comes to mind as a notable exception, and is a perennial challenge for empire -- so that means that the flag -- or corporate logos -- fly over *all* of our heads, each and every one of us. The *numbers* of people currently living under a modern national jurisdiction of one sort or another are the vast *majority* of humanity's entire population.

That is exactly why we are discussing rights to self-determination- a right that is also "guaranteed" by the UN and supposedly recognised under international law.

I can't find a definitive list- but I would think it would run into hundreds and hundreds of groups or "nations", in Europe alone there are many "stateless" groups and in recent years their rights to self-determination have been somewhat recognised with language regulations and higher degrees of local autonomy- but other groups have not and outside of Europe the situation can be pretty bad.

[hatzel]

A governing body without actual physical territory over which to exercise its decisions is a farce, nothing less.

Ah...why? I mean, what's so farcical about a governing body which might claim taxes from a population, and then use those taxes for various purposes, including providing a police force to protect that population, schools to educate that population and hospitals to treat that population. Cleverly, a governing body doesn't govern territory. It doesn't tell trees where to grow and how high, and it doesn't ask for 30% tax from the lake's earnings. All governing bodies are fundamentally inter-human affairs. What's so farcical about a suggestion that the extraneous elements of government be pruned from the central human provision element? I repeat, governing bodies exercise their decisions over people, and not territory. A governing body doesn't need to control territory, it just chooses to. Historically, of course, this was linked to merely claiming control over the land inhabited by the people under its governance, which later developed into forcibly incorporating all newcomers into this territory, which of course is a result of human greed. However, as our comrade's said, nations have existed outside of territorial claims. I have a very interesting essay about autonomous law-making in the Romani community, which outlines very clearly their system. And what was that? That the Romani community of an area could convene for trials and other deliberation. The same would historically have been common amongst Jewish communities. Where's the territory here? Does this Jewish or Romani court claim authority over the whole city, does it have any other kind of territorial ambition, or does it in fact merely claim authority over individuals in that city who form part of that city's Jewish or Romani communities? What then is to say that such a system isn't equally applicable to any other system of governance? If, and only if, the 'mainstream' government in that city allowed the minority courts and government autonomy over its subjects. That is to say, the people.


Likewise, where would there be an area without *any* claims to authority? The whole world's been carved up, in some arrangement or another, for centuries now (more or less)...!

I guess that's why some of us place ourselves on the anarchist spectrum, or at least amongst the groups of people who might suggest...you know...that things might be changed. I heard Europe's all capitalist, so I assume, by this logic, European anti-capitalists should all just shut up, because their silly ideas of a Europe without capitalism is scuppered by the fact that there is capitalism in Europe. Yup. Luckily I'm not the kind of guy who runs around accusing people of being reactionary (or more correctly conservative in this case), but I think we get the idea here. The point being made here was the suggestion that merely supporting endless independence movements is against the ideas of internationalism, and supports national romanticism and the idea that there is something inherent about some patch of land which means it belongs to one people. This is right-wing diatribe, the whole idea of Johnny Foreigner coming over to our land, apparently...in truth we have no right to claim that somebody from Newcastle has more right to live in London than somebody from Islamabad, and supporting the idea of the English nation owning the land that London is built on is supporting that claim, that a Geordie isn't foreign in London, whilst a Pakistani is.

[ckaihatsu]

All governing bodies are fundamentally inter-human affairs. [...] I repeat, governing bodies exercise their decisions over people, and not territory.


Yes, of course we're talking about inter-human affairs, and not some geo-location and quantity of *dirt* (etc.)....





Where's the territory here? Does this Jewish or Romani court claim authority over the whole city, does it have any other kind of territorial ambition, or does it in fact merely claim authority over individuals in that city who form part of that city's Jewish or Romani communities?


Sure, but then you're ignoring the *overarching* bourgeois national and international territories that ultimately exercise authority, no matter the internal populations.





If, and only if, the 'mainstream' government in that city allowed the minority courts and government autonomy over its subjects. That is to say, the people.


Again -- you're ignoring the *overarching* bourgeois national and international territories that ultimately exercise authority, no matter the internal populations.





I guess that's why some of us place ourselves on the anarchist spectrum, or at least amongst the groups of people who might suggest...you know...that things might be changed. I heard Europe's all capitalist, so I assume, by this logic, European anti-capitalists should all just shut up, because their silly ideas of a Europe without capitalism is scuppered by the fact that there is capitalism in Europe.


No, I *never* said, suggested, or implied anything like that -- please make sure that you don't put words in my mouth.





The point being made here was the suggestion that merely supporting endless independence movements is against the ideas of internationalism,


As revolutionaries we have to ask *whose* internationalism -- ?

If the extent of one's politics is supporting endless independence movements then one is lacking from a more *comprehensive* approach to combating global imperialism. (Note Third-Worldism here.) And if one supports the *existing* (bourgeois) internationalism then one is not *even* supporting national liberation independence movements for self-determination.

[ComradeMan]

What about Lapplanders/Saami people? They are stateless, they are nomadic- would they not be justified in saying their whole way of life and culture is very much linked to their environment, just like say Amazonian indigenes and so on. I don't think it's always about "blood and earth" and overt nationalism.

[ckaihatsu]

What about Lapplanders/Saami people? They are stateless, they are nomadic- would they not be justified in saying their whole way of life and culture is very much linked to their environment, just like say Amazonian indigenes and so on. I don't think it's always about "blood and earth" and overt nationalism.


Excuse me -- I don't mean to be contentious here....

What I'm saying is that, as revolutionaries, we have no interest in the internal matters and activities of cultural / ethnic groups. Even typical "transgressions" on the part of individuals are not our concern, either -- these are normally considered civil or criminal matters and the existing order has claim to jurisdiction over such things.

What the bourgeois order does *not* address, and *cannot*, is the large-scale exploitation and oppression of such populations, and of the working class as a whole. That's where there *is* a role for revolutionaries, and we should make sure to address the functioning of the capitalist system at the highest levels -- including, but not limited to, nationalism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nation has nothing to do with territory. Nation means a group of people w a shared heritage and language who identify w each other; like the Jewish nation (which does not mean Isreal).

[hatzel]

Yes, of course we're talking about inter-human affairs, and not some geo-location and quantity of *dirt* (etc.)....

Well, I know I am. But I vaguely remember somebody suggesting that a governing body without control over some geo-location or quantity of dirt is effectively pointless, and I also vaguely remember a lot of this discussion being about independence movements, for one group or nation to rise up and take land for themselves, as a means of national liberation. And I vaguely remember expending some energy arguing that this method, and this approach to national liberation, is wrought with problems, and should only be pursued / supported with extreme caution, as there are other, much more suitable, methods available.


Sure, but then you're ignoring the *overarching* bourgeois national and international territories that ultimately exercise authority, no matter the internal populations.

Did you read both the bits you quoted together? As a contingent whole, or are individual sentences taken with no concept of context? The first quote pointed out that these minorities had some degree of self-government, the second pointed out that, for these minorities to be truly self-governed, then they must be given control over all of their affairs, rather than just a subset, with other affairs taken over by the majority rulers. Wasn't that exactly what I was saying? Wasn't this whole thing about suggesting that one fight for a change in 'the *overarching* bourgeois national and international territories that ultimately exercise authority, no matter the internal populations', rather than merely creating a new '*overarching* bourgeois national and international territory that ultimately exercises authority, no matter the internal populations'. That is to say...working on the assumption that the British government collects no taxes from the French population, nor does it exercise any authority over them, what is then to keep us from breaking down the idea of territorial borders, so that, for instance, the French citizens in Britain don't pay their taxes to the British government, aren't subservient to the British governments authority and are not judged by British law, but by, for example, the French government and legal system, or by their own autonomous systems. Even though they happen to live in what we now call Britain. The point I'm getting at here is that we should encourage and support national autonomy, rather than national independence. For instance, rather than supporting Basque nationalism based on territorial concerns (itself a fundamentally capitalist endeavour, to ensure the Basque people alone 'own' the resources of the land), one should support the right of the Basque people to set up an autonomous community, if they so wish, whereby those who associate as Basque and with the Basque community may be governed by the newly established Basque government and legal system, irrespective of where they are, and not the Spanish, in any way. Whilst those still identifying as Spanish remain under the Spanish system. Such a movement may also open the door for the Catalan and Galician people to be given similar rights, effectively nullifying the concept of the Spanish national border, drawn on a map, as it comes down merely to which people choose to be a part of which community (and which, perhaps, even choose not to be a part of any)

Such a system could work, as can be seen by examining the Jewish and Romani communities I mentioned. If they were only given complete autonomy in all concerns, they would operate according to the system I have outlined above. And one might say that it's unlikely that existing states would be willing to sacrifice good tax payers. For this I have two points. The first is that it costs money to provide education and healthcare to a population. Sure, one loses workers, tax-payers, whatever, but one also makes savings in this concern, as this government would no longer be under the obligation to provide to members of other communities, as the American government doesn't provide schools for Mexican citizens. The second point is a concern of comparison with territorial independence movements. If we imagine you are yourself a state, and you are given a choice. Either you give away a certain area, and any resources that might be there. Forests, oil, whatever. This is the option given to states by territorial independence movements, and for them to agree to this, there must be strong reasons. The cost of maintaining authority must outstrip the rewards. However, if one was offered instead the possibility of merely sharing the land, and the resources, so that the citizens of the country can still cut down the trees, sell them, support the national economy and pay taxes...well, that's a far more attractive option than the former suggestion, don't you think?

By supporting such movements, rather than territorial independence movements, we find ourselves supporting communalism, and each and every person's true right of self-determination, by allowing them to decide which community they want to be a part of, and under which government and legal system, rather than supporting the idea that ones location on this Earth somehow defines how exactly they will be governed, like it or not. This is the message behind territorial nationalist movements. That, for some nation to have autonomy, they need to own the land under their feet, and exclude all other people from utilising it as they see fit. And I don't think that this is quite the ideal that we're supposed to be striving for...

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I know I am. But I vaguely remember somebody suggesting that a governing body without control over some geo-location or quantity of dirt is effectively pointless, and I also vaguely remember a lot of this discussion being about independence movements, for one group or nation to rise up and take land for themselves, as a means of national liberation. And I vaguely remember expending some energy arguing that this method, and this approach to national liberation, is wrought with problems, and should only be pursued / supported with extreme caution, as there are other, much more suitable, methods available.


Okay, in the interests of getting this shit together, can we define 'land' as being about some kind of control / jurisdiction over the *physical* turf *and* those who may happen to be making footprints on it -- ?

What problems are you indicating for the project of national liberation?





Did you read both the bits you quoted together? As a contingent whole, or are individual sentences taken with no concept of context? The first quote pointed out that these minorities had some degree of self-government, the second pointed out that, for these minorities to be truly self-governed, then they must be given control over all of their affairs, rather than just a subset, with other affairs taken over by the majority rulers. Wasn't that exactly what I was saying? Wasn't this whole thing about suggesting that one fight for a change in 'the *overarching* bourgeois national and international territories that ultimately exercise authority, no matter the internal populations', rather than merely creating a new '*overarching* bourgeois national and international territory that ultimately exercises authority, no matter the internal populations'.


Certainly.





That is to say...working on the assumption that the British government collects no taxes from the French population, nor does it exercise any authority over them, what is then to keep us from breaking down the idea of territorial borders, so that, for instance, the French citizens in Britain don't pay their taxes to the British government, aren't subservient to the British governments authority and are not judged by British law, but by, for example, the French government and legal system, or by their own autonomous systems. Even though they happen to live in what we now call Britain. The point I'm getting at here is that we should encourage and support national autonomy, rather than national independence.


Oh, okay -- that *does* clarify things....





For instance, rather than supporting Basque nationalism based on territorial concerns (itself a fundamentally capitalist endeavour, to ensure the Basque people alone 'own' the resources of the land), one should support the right of the Basque people to set up an autonomous community, if they so wish, whereby those who associate as Basque and with the Basque community may be governed by the newly established Basque government and legal system, irrespective of where they are, and not the Spanish, in any way. Whilst those still identifying as Spanish remain under the Spanish system. Such a movement may also open the door for the Catalan and Galician people to be given similar rights, effectively nullifying the concept of the Spanish national border, drawn on a map, as it comes down merely to which people choose to be a part of which community (and which, perhaps, even choose not to be a part of any)


Well, this is fine and everything, but I'm thinking that it would immediately run into *logistical* problems, which would yank us right back to geography and terra firma. For example, what if someone in an indigenous population was intentionally harmed by someone from outside this indigenous population / community, and the locals called for some acknowledgement and legal process to be initiated by the outsider's far-away locality, and the outsider's locality effectively brushes it off as being too remote and insignificant a concern to address, much less use resources for, as in taking said person into custody from the indigenous location?

The local population might not want to exercise any measures against the outsider since that person is not technically subject to their community's governance, yet a certain transgression took place within their population nonetheless -- what then?





Such a system could work, as can be seen by examining the Jewish and Romani communities I mentioned. If they were only given complete autonomy in all concerns, they would operate according to the system I have outlined above. And one might say that it's unlikely that existing states would be willing to sacrifice good tax payers. For this I have two points. The first is that it costs money to provide education and healthcare to a population. Sure, one loses workers, tax-payers, whatever, but one also makes savings in this concern, as this government would no longer be under the obligation to provide to members of other communities, as the American government doesn't provide schools for Mexican citizens.


I'm going to have to object to this as being too problematic -- it's essentially *separatist* and the "autonomy" invites too many complications of jurisdiction (as I outlined above) that interfere with what may very well have to be under the umbrella of *human* rights, independent of location, especially for minors / dependents....





The second point is a concern of comparison with territorial independence movements. If we imagine you are yourself a state, and you are given a choice. Either you give away a certain area, and any resources that might be there. Forests, oil, whatever. This is the option given to states by territorial independence movements, and for them to agree to this, there must be strong reasons. The cost of maintaining authority must outstrip the rewards. However, if one was offered instead the possibility of merely sharing the land, and the resources, so that the citizens of the country can still cut down the trees, sell them, support the national economy and pay taxes...well, that's a far more attractive option than the former suggestion, don't you think?

By supporting such movements, rather than territorial independence movements, we find ourselves supporting communalism, and each and every person's true right of self-determination, by allowing them to decide which community they want to be a part of, and under which government and legal system, rather than supporting the idea that ones location on this Earth somehow defines how exactly they will be governed, like it or not. This is the message behind territorial nationalist movements. That, for some nation to have autonomy, they need to own the land under their feet, and exclude all other people from utilising it as they see fit. And I don't think that this is quite the ideal that we're supposed to be striving for...


You're basically describing the status quo here, and asking political independence movements to put aside their *political* demands with the argument that they're going to remain *economically* dependent on the larger nation-state anyway -- (which is a cogent pragmatic argument).

From the standpoint of national liberation / autonomy movements the efforts to establish some kind of distinct national liberation identity may be too burdensome and low-ceilinged to pursue, given global imperialism. Yet the reality of their past and current oppressions remain -- it's a conundrum for all of us, without meaning to be glib or rude. These kinds of struggles *must* be generalized and politicized by mass labor -- nothing less has any chance of succeeding.

[ddof5]

i think we should just be natural, in other words, survival of the fittest.

such a culture, if discovered by a superior culture, would be conquered.

[ckaihatsu]

i think we should just be natural, in other words, survival of the fittest.

such a culture, if discovered by a superior culture, would be conquered.


Your concern aside, the reason why "natural" is problematic is because, for one, who's to say what 'natural' is? Does it mean not-using tools of any kind? If so, might there be a "threshold" at which people might still find ways to "cheat", say by using fire made by naturally occurring lightning strikes? And what if they then brought wood over to keep the fire continually supplied so that it would never be extinguished? Is that "natural" or is it "using tools"?

[ComradeMan]

i think we should just be natural, in other words, survival of the fittest.

such a culture, if discovered by a superior culture, would be conquered.

Oh dear.... social darwinism, short step to racial eugenics....! :(

[#FF0000]

i think we should just be natural, in other words, survival of the fittest.

such a culture, if discovered by a superior culture, would be conquered.

Ah yes might equals right. I guess if I hit you hard enough I deserve your lunch money.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ah yes might equals right. I guess if I hit you hard enough I deserve your lunch money.

Well, that's what workers' revolution is...

We don't need the moral high ground, we take what is ours.

Nic.

[#FF0000]

Well, that's what workers' revolution is...

We don't need the moral high ground, we take what is ours.

Nic.

Yeah I p. much agree but I think workers overthrowing capitalism is a different situation than a nation with some delusion of superiority going in and invading another country because that other country is full of savages or whatever.