Socialist imperialism? Tibet, the -istans, etc.

[CynicalIdealist]

Why did the USSR invade several -istan countries--initially multiple under Lenin and then Afghanistan much later--and why did China invade Tibet? I'm not sure if I buy the idea that socialist states' actions abroad have all been "in support of revolution," but I'm having trouble seeing how state socialist leaders would benefit financially or otherwise. I also recognize the fact that all of the countries I just listed had huge booms in their respective life expectancies and less theocratic bullshit. Ultimately, there's a lot that I need to know about supposed Chinese/USSR expansion.

[Adil3tr]

Under Stalin it was to have buffer states to use against an invasion, with lenin it was basically liberation to save the workers state.

[Antifa94]

I think it's pretty obvious that the USSR wasn't socialist by 1979, their invasion was simply imperialist.. Mao justified his invasion of Tibet as part of a desire to unify China, he viewed Tibetans as an integral part of China's identity. Clearly, the Tibetans thought otherwise.

[Adil3tr]

In general, china and the USSR didn't want allied oriented nations on their border. Look at the US with Cuba, even before the middle crisis.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think it's pretty obvious that the USSR wasn't socialist by 1979, their invasion was simply imperialist.. Mao justified his invasion of Tibet as part of a desire to unify China, he viewed Tibetans as an integral part of China's identity. Clearly, the Tibetans thought otherwise.
I don't have any knowledge as to why socialist countries intervene in the affairs of their neighbors, but, I would like to know more about Mao's invasion of Tibet.

Anyone who has information feel free to PM me it.Thanks.

[Tablo]

I thought the people of Tibet were happy with being absorbed into China initially? Then again I'm pretty sure I heard that from a Maoist.

[Obs]

I think it's pretty obvious that the USSR wasn't socialist by 1979, their invasion was simply imperialist.. Mao justified his invasion of Tibet as part of a desire to unify China, he viewed Tibetans as an integral part of China's identity. Clearly, the Tibetans thought otherwise.
Except the Tibetan peasants were very enthusiastic when the PLA went into Tibet. In fact, the destruction of temples and the execution of lamas was generally orchestrated by the Tibetan serfs themselves, who were now liberated once the power of the lamas had been curbed by the invading PLA.

[Sir Comradical]

If the USSR offered independence to the central asian republics, which class would they be offering the country too? Warlords? Landowners? There's no point seizing state power, smashing the reaction and repelling the foreign invasion if the revolution only ends up handing over republics to the exploiting classes on the grounds of self-determination.

[Thirsty Crow]

Except the Tibetan peasants were very enthusiastic when the PLA went into Tibet. In fact, the destruction of temples and the execution of lamas was generally orchestrated by the Tibetan serfs themselves, who were now liberated once the power of the lamas had been curbed by the invading PLA.
I'm not saying that I disagree, but can you provide some evidence?

[scourge007]

I recall that Tibet was a pretty brutal place before the PLA came in. People would get tortured by the monks and so on and so forth.

[Jack]

I recall that Tibet was a pretty brutal place before the PLA came in. People would get tortured by the monks and so on and so forth.

This, essentially.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html]

While, of course, no Communist is going to justify the actions taken by China since the 90's to depopulate the area of Tibetans and settle it with Han Chinese, the initial invasion was liberating for most sections of Tibetan society.

[Property Is Robbery]

I recall that Tibet was a pretty brutal place before the PLA came in. People would get tortured by the monks and so on and so forth.
Could I see some facts supporting that?

[Born in the USSR]

I wonder,what sorts of things are that lefties,who support the most reactoinary regimes against the USSR an China?There is no need to have enemies if you have such friends.

[Unclebananahead]

At the risk of echoing rather similar perspectives already iterated in this thread...
I read sometime ago that when 'god ruled Tibet,' a strict, feudal theocracy existed under the lamas, who lived relatively privileged lives in comparison to the Tibetan peasants, who were basically serfs (serfdom being an 'enlightened' form of slavery) in which they were 'owned like oxen.' I think this might have been from Michael Parenti, but I'm not certain.

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G using Tapatalk

[scourge007]

Could I see some facts supporting that?
I'd post the link , but I don't have enough posts. Go to this site called the kasama project and type in the true story of Maoist revolution in Tibet.

[∞]

Well Tibet has issues on moral regard, the invasion in Afghanistan was indeed imperialist.
Even though many people died, and Najbullah was a brutal leader, there was a few improvements. A secular lifestyle, a opportunity for female education, among other things. However it was brutal, and it was stupid.

[∞]

There was no booms either...

[gorillafuck]

The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't imperialist. The USSR did not exploit the resources of Afghanistan, they freely gave resources to industrialize Afghanistan. Maoists were the ones busy supporting the, ahem, "Afghan patriots".

I'm very skeptical of Parenti's depiction of the invasion of Tibet.

[bailey_187]

Imperialism, as understood by Marxists, is not simply one country invading another.

[Burn A Flag]

They're imperialist because they're state capitalist, not socialist.

[scarletghoul]

Tibet has always historically been a part of China, and the Tibetan revolution (the serfs/slaves overthrowing the feudal theocracy, with the support of the PLA) is a part of the wider Chinese Revolution.


Clearly, the Tibetans thought otherwise.Yes, clearly. That is, if by 'the Tibetans' you mean middle class US liberals and the minority of old Tibetan theocrats.

[scarletghoul]

As for the USSR there were revolutionary movements in the peripheral countries as a side effect of the Russian Revolution. The Russian Empire ended so these former colonies had to get a new government of some kind, and it made sense for the Bolsheviks to ally/help with the revolutionary movements there to set up Communist governments. The revolutionary movements in these countries were home-grown to an extent and somewhat popular though they couldnt have succeeded without Bolshevik support. I don't see how it is imperialist for them to unite with Russia to form a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or for the Red Army to defend these places' socialist forces in the civil war. I have not seen any opinion polls or referenda from the central Asian countries but have also not seen any glorification of their 'independence' like in the Baltic states for example, (+ I know an a-political Kazakh and he says he prefers USSR because people were united), so to me it seems as if the peoples of those countries wanted to be part of the USSR.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, clearly. That is, if by 'the Tibetans' you mean middle class US liberals and the minority of old Tibetan theocrats.
Middle class liberals? If you think working class Americans support the Chinese invasion of Tibet then you're out of your mind.

[scarletghoul]

:laugh:
Middle class liberals? If you think working class Americans support the Chinese invasion of Tibet then you're out of your mind.
No, fool, I'm saying look at all the nob heads who protest against Tibet being part of China, they're almost always middle class fair-trade-loving white liberal twats.

[gorillafuck]

No, fool, I'm saying look at all the nob heads who protest against Tibet being part of China, they're almost always middle class fair-trade-loving white liberal twats.
Can you substantiate that? A lot of the socialists and leftists I know are white middle class people who are hot-headed as shit. Still isn't an argument against socialism or left wing politics.

I'd like to see information on the Chinese invasion of Tibet that isn't from Micheal Parenti, I don't particularly trust Micheal Parenti.

[∞]

The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't imperialist. The USSR did not exploit the resources of Afghanistan, they freely gave resources to industrialize Afghanistan. Maoists were the ones busy supporting the, ahem, "Afghan patriots".

I'm very skeptical of Parenti's depiction of the invasion of Tibet.

I don't care if Maoists supported them. It is political imperialism.

[Nolan]

Can you substantiate that? A lot of the socialists and leftists I know are white middle class people who are hot-headed as shit. Still isn't an argument against socialism or left wing politics.

I'd like to see information on the Chinese invasion of Tibet that isn't from Micheal Parenti, I don't particularly trust Micheal Parenti.

What's wrong with Parenti?

[gorillafuck]

What's wrong with Parenti?
A Hoxhaist with no problems with Parenti? A man who was a supporter of perestroika?:confused:

Well, he supported perestroika, and thinks there was no genocide in Kosovo. He writes a lot of good stuff but he also writes and says his share of crap.

[Nolan]

A Hoxhaist with no problems with Parenti? A man who was a supporter of perestroika?:confused:

Well, he supported perestroika, and thinks there was no genocide in Kosovo. He writes a lot of good stuff but he also writes and says his share of crap.

I didn't say I agree with him on everything. I just wonder what was necessarily wrong with his view on Tibet.

[Jack]

A Hoxhaist with no problems with Parenti? A man who was a supporter of perestroika?:confused:

Well, he supported perestroika, and thinks there was no genocide in Kosovo. He writes a lot of good stuff but he also writes and says his share of crap.

Parenti is a fucking Titoite, but even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[Unclebananahead]

Why do you say he's a 'Titoite'/'Titoist' (whatever the correct term is)? Is it because he condemned the US imperialist overthrow and dismantling of Yugoslavia under the Clinton administration?

[Q]

If the USSR offered independence to the central asian republics, which class would they be offering the country too? Warlords? Landowners? There's no point in seizing state power, smashing the reaction and repelling the foreign invasion if the revolution only ends up handing over republics to the exploiting classes on the grounds of self-determination.

With that reasoning, please explain why the Bolsheviks granted independence to Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

[MarxSchmarx]

Melvyn Goldstein's Tibet 1913-1951 the Decline of the Lamaist state is probably the authoritative English language account of what happened in Tibet after the Chinese revolution.

The book notes how the Tibetan govt had indeed recognized chinese suzerainty and initially had reasonably good relations with the PLA. A reversal to the Qing status quo was the long term goal once independence became obviously impossible when the foreign governments withdrew their de facto recognition of Tibet. The PLA also left many local institutions in tact and, at the initial invasion, was quite keen on gradually prying Tibet out of its shell but otherwise took a fairly distant role. It was a combination of failed negotiations, diplomatic isolation, military superiority by the PLA, and ultimately a guerrilla war that the Tibetan government decided to lead that broke the odd detente and provoked a fierce reaction from Beijing that realized local Tibetan authorities could not be trusted.

Actually a lot of the peasant/serf support of burning monastaries and stuff came during the cultural revolution.

[mosfeld]

For information on the revolution in Tibet from a Maoist PoV, read..:

The True Story of Maoist Revolution in Tibet, Part 1 (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/05/01/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet-part-1/)
The True Story of Maoist Revolution in Tibet, Part 2 (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/05/01/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet-part-2/)
The True Story of Maoist Revolution in Tibet, Part 3 (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/05/01/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet-part-3/)

[4 Leaf Clover]

National liberation of Tibetans ? Is that a joke ? In which way is that nation oppressed if someone might enlighten me. Oh i forgot , you don't actually support Tibet falling to the interest zone of capitalism , you support 2-3 or maybe 4 revolutions happen until Tibet is true socialist society with workers control. Yupeeeeeeeeeeeee

[red cat]

I recall that Tibet was a pretty brutal place before the PLA came in. People would get tortured by the monks and so on and so forth.

Due to the prohibition of traditional violence in Buddhism, one common punishment for peasants and slaves was keeping them chained to the ground in public, and starving them to death.

There was also a law that a family having over a certain number of sons would have to send one to the monastery. In this way, a large fraction of the population was kept as labourer and homosexual-sex slaves.

[Cultural Revolution]

Due to the prohibition of traditional violence in Buddhism, one common punishment for peasants and slaves was keeping them chained to the ground in public, and starving them to death.

There was also a law that a family having over a certain number of sons would have to send one to the monastery. In this way, a large fraction of the population was kept as labourer and homosexual-sex slaves.


Here is my take on the issue.

I supported the PLA along with tibetan monks, throwing off the fuedal theocratic order, and support the bringing Tibet into socialist china... However, Since china became state capitalist, i support independence, as otherwise, to support chinese rule over tibet, is to support imperialism, as china as a capitalist superpower is using near slave labour today, as the theocrats were before the PLA liberated it.

[red cat]

Here is my take on the issue.

I supported the PLA along with tibetan monks, throwing off the fuedal theocratic order, and support the bringing Tibet into socialist china... However, Since china became state capitalist, i support independence, as otherwise, to support chinese rule over tibet, is to support imperialism, as china as a capitalist superpower is using near slave labour today, as the theocrats were before the PLA liberated it.

This is somewhat the official Maoist line on Tibet. But it should be added that the present movement in limelight that is demanding independence for Tibet is composed of theocrats and lackeys of western imperialism, who advocate the old feudal order. However, most of Tibet's bureaucrats and capitalists are ethnic Han and it is almost as bad as a colony. So, if in future a genuine national liberation movement emerges in Tibet and even tries to play off western and Chinese imperialist powers against each other, it will be a justified move.

[Obs]

So, if in future a genuine national liberation movement emerges in Tibet and even tries to play off western and Chinese imperialist powers against each other, it will be a justified move.
Not to mention awesome.

[x359594]

I recall that Tibet was a pretty brutal place before the PLA came in. People would get tortured by the monks and so on and so forth.

It sounds as if you were there.

The Tibetan issue is a complex one, and more often than not serious discussion gets swamped by half truths and wishful thinking.

For starters, I would refer everyone to The Dragon in the Land of the Snows: A History of Modern Tibet by Tsering Shakya and sources cited.

In any case, the situation of Tibet today is that of a neo-colony in relation to Beijing no matter what progress was made in the 1950-55 period.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The picture of Tibet, here in the west, before the PLA entrade, is that of it beeing some sort of lost paradise like its portrating in kudun ore 7 Years in Tibet.
When in reality it was a feudal-slave society livivng like they did in the middle ages, Himmler ones sended an expedition to the region in search for the origins of the aryan race. The expedition reported back about how good and well organized the society where, clearly in the taste for nazis.

In 1978 the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan, took the power through a coup and formed Democratic Peoples Republic of Afghanistan. The old ruling class (the landlords) where abolished, infrastructure, healthcare, industrialization, education-programs and landreforms where introduced. Women got a certain better position and became equal to men, burqas and forced marriges where banned all this where done with help frome the USSR and yes they got some minerals back in return for helping the afghans, how imperialistic of them. In mainstream history about this period you will read that people in the countryside didnt like this and started rebelling and its true, the former landlords dissliked all this and they got support by religeous nuts (Usama bin Ladin) and by the US goverment, toghether they formed the talibans.

[x359594]

The picture of Tibet, here in the west, before the PLA entrade, is that of it beeing some sort of lost paradise like its portrating in kudun ore 7 Years in Tibet...

Wishful thinking.


...When in reality it was a feudal-slave society livivng like they did in the middle ages, Himmler ones sended an expedition to the region in search for the origins of the aryan race. The expedition reported back about how good and well organized the society where, clearly in the taste for nazis...

Half truths without context.

[Born in the USSR]

Can anybody explain me why Soviet military presence in Afghanistan is "Social imperialism" ,but the same military presence of Cuba in Angola and Ethiopia or of Vietnam in Cambodia are not ?

[scourge007]

It sounds as if you were there.

The Tibetan issue is a complex one, and more often than not serious discussion gets swamped by half truths and wishful thinking.

For starters, I would refer everyone to The Dragon in the Land of the Snows: A History of Modern Tibet by Tsering Shakya and sources cited.

In any case, the situation of Tibet today is that of a neo-colony in relation to Beijing no matter what progress was made in the 1950-55 period.
I should've put I recall reading that Tibet used to be a pretty brutal place before China invaded.

[scourge007]

Due to the prohibition of traditional violence in Buddhism, one common punishment for peasants and slaves was keeping them chained to the ground in public, and starving them to death.

There was also a law that a family having over a certain number of sons would have to send one to the monastery. In this way, a large fraction of the population was kept as labourer and homosexual-sex slaves.
That one is new to me. I wonder how many male sex slaves the Dhali Lama had ?

[∞]

Can anybody explain me why Soviet military presence in Afghanistan is "Social imperialism" ,but the same military presence of Cuba in Angola and Ethiopia or of Vietnam in Cambodia are not ?

Maybe the slaughter of peasants and villagers...Or the regime-puppet leaders who ensured the geo-political interests of Moscow were met...

[red cat]

Can anybody explain me why Soviet military presence in Afghanistan is "Social imperialism" ,but the same military presence of Cuba in Angola and Ethiopia or of Vietnam in Cambodia are not ?

If you follow other threads on these two topics, then you will know that the Maoist line considers both of these as social imperialist moves.

[YouSSR]

This is what imperialism means:




(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

regardless of what you personally think about Maoist China and the USSR, it's an embarrassment to see Marxists misuse fundamental terminology in the same way the bourgeois apologists use it.

[x359594]

I should've put I recall reading that Tibet used to be a pretty brutal place before China invaded.

That what they said about continental North America before the Europeans invaded.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

That what they said about continental North America before the Europeans invaded.

Not comparable.

[4 Leaf Clover]

this thread is full of theoretical bullshit and masturbation

[Born in the USSR]

this thread is full of theoretical bullshit and masturbation

Well said!

"State capitalism","social imperialism" - what a crap! How can imperialism be socialist? :lol:

[Rafiq]

With that reasoning, please explain why the Bolsheviks granted independence to Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Hey, I fully support the Bolsheviks at the time, and am not saying they were Imperialist, but I'm pretty sure that The World War 1 allies took them away as punishment for signing a peace treaty with Germany.

Please correct me if I'm wrong though