Tibet...

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Can Someone Tell Me Whats Going On Over There?Should it be free'd?i dont know much about it so i'd definitly appreciate some info.

[il Commy]

There's a debate about whether China should have conquered it back then, though all communists agree that the reactionary feudal regime there had to be destroyed one way or another. Today I strongly believe that Tibet is should get self-determination rights and have a democratic-socialist revolution, since China today is just state-capitalist.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

ok,thanks comrade!

[blackemma]

The other issue is that Communists are supposed to be for national self-determination. The revolution can only be carried out by the country's own population, not by outside forces. To argue against this would be to argue for imperialism, no matter how well-intentioned. The United States government used the same logic to justify intervention in Iraq: after all, wasn't Saddam a dictator responsible for many deaths? In my opinion, China has no place in Tibet or any country except China. The experience I've had with people who lived in former Soviet bloc countries like Czechoslovakia is that they detest Communism passionately and would never support an even moderately socialist politician. My point I'm trying to get at here is that you can't force revolution on people. They have to arrive at it by their own will, which is why I think the people in Cuba are more supportive of Castro than in many other Communist revolutions, though there's also a significant degree of nationalism which plays into that.

[il Commy]

Blackemma, I wasn't trying to justify imperialism. I don't actually support the invasion to Tibet, I actually think it was made by proletarian bonapartism for the benefit of the ruling bureaucracy and not by a workers' state for the benefit of the peoples.

But the Maoist argue that Tibet is a part of China. And it's not imperialism if it's your own nation. I disagree with that because no matter how culturaly two nations resembel, if they're in different stages of development and have different regimes one can not force itself on the other. If Tibet would have become socialist with the help of China and then unite with it it would be excellent. But that's not what happend, China imposed itself on the underdeveloped Tibet for it's own benefit, and that is called imperialism. Like USA in Iraq, you've mentioned it.

Today there is no debate what so ever between Maosits, Trotzkysts or any other forms of communists - China is state capitalist and Tibet must have a right for self determination.

[Saint-Just]

China imposed itself on the underdeveloped Tibet for it's own benefit, and that is called imperialism. Like USA in Iraq, you've mentioned it.

Today there is no debate what so ever between Maosits, Trotzkysts or any other forms of communists - China is state capitalist and Tibet must have a right for self determination.

It pumped money into a particularly useless economy. It gave an impoverished desert land health and education. It absorbed Tibet because Mao was a patriot, and he believed that those in Tibet were fellow countrymen.

Today, Tibet still has many fuedal leanings, even in half a century they have not disappeared. Who knows that would happen if Tibet broke away from China, but it certainly wouldn't be better off than China. As for there being a 'democratic socialist' revolution in Tibet...

[blackemma]

Blackemma, I wasn't trying to justify imperialism. I don't actually support the invasion to Tibet, I actually think it was made by proletarian bonapartism for the benefit of the ruling bureaucracy and not by a workers' state for the benefit of the peoples.

I'm aware. I wasn't directing my comments at you. Just clearing up the issue.

As for China helping Tibet - give me a break. And I'm sure America's Marshall Plan was designed out of generosity and good-will, right? Nation-states, no matter what their ideology, act in their own self-interest. Pumping money into a useless economy? That sounds like more imperialist rhetoric. I mean, I'm sure Latin and Central America are positively delighted at the World Bank's help in their struggle towards development. Funny how after China's 'help', Tibet remains "an impoverished desert land" with "many feudal leanings". Oh wait, China's 'socialist'. We're supposed to cheer for socialists, right? I retract all previous coments.

[Der Ritter]

China has betrayed the socialist cause. Now they are a nation full of western factories. It&#39;s like the red flag of communism has been replaced by the red flag of McDonalds. <_<

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 11:03 PM
As for China helping Tibet - give me a break. And I&#39;m sure America&#39;s Marshall Plan was designed out of generosity and good-will, right? Nation-states, no matter what their ideology, act in their own self-interest. Pumping money into a useless economy? That sounds like more imperialist rhetoric. I mean, I&#39;m sure Latin and Central America are positively delighted at the World Bank&#39;s help in their struggle towards development. Funny how after China&#39;s &#39;help&#39;, Tibet remains "an impoverished desert land" with "many feudal leanings". Oh wait, China&#39;s &#39;socialist&#39;. We&#39;re supposed to cheer for socialists, right? I retract all previous coments.

Simply because imperialists claim they do it it doesn&#39;t mean that socialists cannot actually do it. Of course China has not been socialist since 1976.

[Finality]

Here (http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/T/Tibet-history-tibet-and-china.html) is a somewhat good article on modern Tibetan history. Nothing too in depth though.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Der [email protected] 25 2003, 10:02 AM
China has betrayed the socialist cause. Now they are a nation full of western factories. It&#39;s like the red flag of communism has been replaced by the red flag of McDonalds. <_<
Sad but True...

[Finality]

Originally posted by Der [email protected] 25 2003, 03:02 PM
China has betrayed the socialist cause. Now they are a nation full of western factories. It&#39;s like the red flag of communism has been replaced by the red flag of McDonalds. <_<
IIRC, McDonald&#39;s is run by a franchise system. If I understand correctly this means that the profits go to the owners who are simply trying to eek out a living in a poor country.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong though.

[Der Ritter]

Originally posted by Finality+Aug 25 2003, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Finality @ Aug 25 2003, 07:48 PM)
Der [email protected] 25 2003, 03:02 PM
China has betrayed the socialist cause. Now they are a nation full of western factories. It&#39;s like the red flag of communism has been replaced by the red flag of McDonalds. <_<
IIRC, McDonald&#39;s is run by a franchise system. If I understand correctly this means that the profits go to the owners who are simply trying to eek out a living in a poor country.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong though. [/b]
Unless they are state run it is definitely not communist.

[New Tolerance]

Here&#39;s something interesting:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7288/fedconn.htm

It&#39;s a proposed constitution for a Federal Republic of China

One of the articles says that Tibet will be allowed to have a referendum in 25 years.

[Thought_Criminal]

It&#39;s important to remember the unique version of Manifest Destiny that China has. Chinese culture believes that there is a historical China which will inevitably be united. The main components of which are Han, Outer Mongolia, Eastern Turkestan, Manchuria, Canton, and Tibet.

At one point or another in China&#39;s five-thousand year history, Han was taken over by each one of the other aforementioned parts. And to the Chinese, this means that they became part of historical China.

Right now the main points of contention regarding this situation are the Indo-Chinese border and Taiwan, which has been historically linked to the Chinese province of Canton.

[New Tolerance]

Don&#39;t forget about sections of Serbia.

[CubanFox]

We are against the war in Iraq because it is imperialistic, yes?

How could we possibly be for the conquest of Tibet? China engulfed Tibet. That is by very definition, expansionistic&#33; Imperialism at it&#39;s &#39;finest&#39;&#33;

ex·pan·sion·ism
n.
A nation&#39;s practice or policy of territorial or economic expansion

im·pe·ri·al·ism
n.
The policy of extending a nation&#39;s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/01/08/tibet.lama.01/map.china.tibet.gif

Before the invasion of Tibet that red stripey bit wasn&#39;t part of China. Now it is. China gained territory through force. That, my friends, is imperialism.

We&#39;d be angry if the US conquered, say, Mexico. Why aren&#39;t we pissed that China conquered Tibet?

[Jesus Christ]

bravo
good show CubanFox, good show
i had no idea Tibet was that huge though

[Saint-Just]

You have no knowledge of the history of China and what constitutes a Nation. Your model of imperialism is highly simplistic. Would you go so far as to say that Hong Kong and Macao should not have been absorbed by China?

It is fact that China has pumped resources into Tibet and gained little from it. They may have suppressed religion in Tibet, however Tibet has gained much from being part of China. It is only an opinion that what they have gained is better than independance, however you cannot seriously argue that China has had any economic benefit from absorbing Tibet.

Your arguments are infantile at best. Severian needs to sort you guys out. He will agree with you that Tibet should have independance from China. But other than that he knows far more about Tibet than you or I will show you that you are wrong with your arguments.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 11:03 PM
As for China helping Tibet - give me a break. And I&#39;m sure America&#39;s Marshall Plan was designed out of generosity and good-will, right? Nation-states, no matter what their ideology, act in their own self-interest.
But that self-interest lies in different directions depending on their economic system.

It is, in fact, true that the PRC has subsidized Tibetan economic development. Read A. Tom Grunfeld, Melvyn Goldstein, any serious writer on Tibet. Even Tsering Shakya doesn&#39;t make any accusation of economic exploitation. So the World Bank, etc., analogies are misplaced.

Whatever the PRC&#39;s motives for taking control of Tibet, economic exploitation was not one of them. I tend to think there are two major factors:

1. Strategic military considerations. The border with India and the likelihood of Tibet being used as a base for contra-style guerilla warfare against neighboring areas. (Many of which are also Tibetan-inhabited. That&#39;s the basic reasons different maps show Tibet different sizes: are they depicting "political Tibet" - formerly the Dalai Lama&#39;s kingdom, currently the "Tibet Autonomous Region") or "ethnographic Tibet" - areas with a large Tibetan population.

2. Reasons of nationalist ideology. The Kuomintang, Ming dynasty, etc, also claimed Tibet, Manchuria, etc., as part of China. But they became unable to enforce this claim, as China was gradually dismembered by the imperialist powers. The de facto independence of Tibet for much of the early 20th century occurred partly in this context; Britain sponsored the Lhasa regime....also look up the Younghusband expedition if you&#39;re interested in this stuff, the British actually invaded Tibet in the early 20th century.

The CCP was able to say, look, we brought about a unified and independent China where the Kuomintang couldn&#39;t.

In order to achieve these goals, they were willing to spend some money on Tibet&#39;s economic development.

Also on social programs such as health and education; the contrast between pre-1959 Tibet and today in literacy (yes, Tibetan-language literacy), infant mortality, etc, is tremendous. (As one result, the number of Tibetans has increased greatly, which doesn&#39;t stop the Dalai Lama from spouting off about "genocide.")

[Severian]

Originally posted by il [email protected] 24 2003, 09:34 PM
1. I don&#39;t actually support the invasion to Tibet, I actually think it was made by proletarian bonapartism for the benefit of the ruling bureaucracy and not by a workers&#39; state for the benefit of the peoples.

2. But the Maoist argue that Tibet is a part of China. And it&#39;s not imperialism if it&#39;s your own nation. I disagree with that because no matter how culturaly two nations resembel, if they&#39;re in different stages of development and have different regimes one can not force itself on the other. If Tibet would have become socialist with the help of China and then unite with it it would be excellent. But that&#39;s not what happend, China imposed itself on the underdeveloped Tibet for it&#39;s own benefit, and that is called imperialism. Like USA in Iraq, you&#39;ve mentioned it.

3. Today there is no debate what so ever between Maosits, Trotzkysts or any other forms of communists - China is state capitalist and Tibet must have a right for self determination.
OK, I&#39;ve added numbers to Il Commy&#39;s post for purposes of responding the different paragraphs.

1. True. But one should recognize, I think, that Tibetan peasants did benefit in a number of ways. It&#39;s primarily from the viewpoint of world socialism that the invasion is problematic, it&#39;s effect on how people around the world see the Chinese revolution, the way it&#39;s hard to criticize Washington&#39;s, etc., violations of self-determination if one support&#39;s China&#39;s, etc.

2. Agreed as far as self-liberation, rather than somebody coming along to give liberation to you. But in other respects, the reasons given here seem off to me. By this argument, Lincoln was wrong to "impose" emancipation on the south, which was after all at a different stage of development. And it avoids the core question: are Han Chinese and Tibetans two different nations, or not?

IMO they are. Precisely because of the cultural and language differences. Tibetan and Chinese aren&#39;t even in the same language family - Tibetan is closer to Burmese.

Whether Tibet was historically part of China can be, and has been, debated until the cows come home. From a Leninist point of view, however, we don&#39;t have to worry about it too much, as the right to self-determination applies regardless of how long a people has been part of a state. In that sense, the whole issue of whether China invaded Tibet or just regained control of it is best left for the bourgeoisie and all those who fetishize imaginary lines in the dirt.

3. I, for one, don&#39;t agree with this supposedly universal consensus. It&#39;s necessary to watch the property relations, the expectations that working people have, the protests against privatizations, etc., more than anything happening among the leadership at the top. Even whether the ruling party calls itself Communist or not is ultimately unimportant, as this claim was always false anyway.

Restoring capitalism in China, or for that matter Russia, has proven more difficult than many capitalists had hoped. It&#39;s a battle that is ongoing, and defeat should not be declared in advance.

In this context, then, it&#39;s still necessary to defend what&#39;s left of the Chinese Revolution, and the "Free Tibet" campaign in the West is part of whipping people up to attack China at some point down the road....regardless of the subjective intentions of the people involved.

Here&#39;s (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html) an article I wrote about Tibet a few years back. I&#39;ve done a bit more reading since then, and I have some more links and stuff on the subject if anyone&#39;s interested.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 09:53 PM
Today, Tibet still has many fuedal leanings, even in half a century they have not disappeared. Who knows that would happen if Tibet broke away from China, but it certainly wouldn&#39;t be better off than China. As for there being a &#39;democratic socialist&#39; revolution in Tibet...
Actually, I don&#39;t agree that Tibet "still has many feudal leanings." Unless one labels everyone who practices the Tibetan Buddhist religon as having feudal leanings, which I think would be inaccurate.

Really, there&#39;s no way feudalism could be restored in Tibet. Even the DL and other exiles claim not to favor it, and it&#39;s mighty hard to take land back from peasants, y&#39;know? Didn&#39;t even happen when the Bourbons were restored after the French Revolution.

The real question is backsliding towards capitalism IMO. The breakup of the collectives, the growing class differentiation in the peasantry, etc.

Other factors being equal, I agree actually that it&#39;s better for Tibet to stay in the PRC. But other factors are not equal. The most important issue, from a Marxist perspective, is not where an imaginary line should be drawn in the dirt. The most important issue is promoting unity of consciousness and action between workers and peasants of different nationalities.

Forcibly keeping Tibet in China, if most people there don&#39;t want to stay, destroys all possibility of that unity. So ultimately, it&#39;s not up to you, me, the Dalai Lama, or anybody but the majority of Tibetans to say if it&#39;s better for Tibet to stay part of the PRC or not.

I won&#39;t pretend to know, under current conditions, what most Tibetans in Tibet - as opposed to exiles - think. But Tibetans do have real grievances as a nationality, (though the ones that people in the West hear about are generally exile fabrications. ) And there is a lot of dissatisfaction, which occasionally bubbles to the surface.

[redstar2000]

Restoring capitalism in China, or for that matter Russia, has proven more difficult than many capitalists had hoped. It&#39;s a battle that is ongoing, and defeat should not be declared in advance.

One may admire such "heroic optimism"...it would be foolish to emulate it. :D

Russia and China are capitalist countries period.

I wonder when China will begin making noises about Indochina being "historically part of China"?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Thank you Severian. I read your essay too, which gives an even better look on the history of Tibet in the last 50 years.

I hope CubanFox and Primus32302 can now see how narrow their views on Tibet were.

[Jesus Christ]

narrow?
lol
im not going to change my views on Tibet just because someone posted their own opinions on why Tibet should be part of China
the people of Tibet want to be seperate from China, and if they want that, then I will respect that, even if they would be worse off without China, which I dont think is true
I think that the Tibetans on their own would be perfectly capable of improving their "country"
power to the people, if they want to be seperate, they should be seperate in my opinion
and any country that exiles someone as respectable as the Dalai Lama from his homeland deserves no respect from me
youre entitled to your own opinions, but dont think people are mislead just because they dont have the same opinions

[Saint-Just]

Did you read Severians posts and his essay?

My point was that some people here argued that China was exploiting Tibet and had not gained any benefits from beign part of China. Severian gave an extremely well-founded and thought-out argument as to why this was wrong.

There was also an assertion that China had no claim to Tibet and that it was simply an act of imperialism. He also showed this to be wrong.

As for the Dalia Lama and his Buddhists, you should of read Severians essay where he showed them to be much more feudalistic and brutal than you suggest. We in the west think there is one single type of Buddhism, we only ever think of Zen-Buddhism. This is wrong.

someone as respectable as the Dalai Lama

What a respectable person&#33; He donated &#036;1,000,000 to the Supreme Truth Cult of Japan, the perpetrators of the Sarin gas terrorist incident on the Tokyo underground. He hides away from his own country, if he was a real patriot he would do something &#39;respectable&#39; to win back Tibet. As it is real patriots in China support the annexation of Tibet. The Dalia Lama is nothing but a lackey of U.S. imperialism, U.S. imperialism being a large driving force behind the &#39;free Tibet&#39; campaign.

Why do you have Ho Chi Minh as your avatar? I am not denying that above all he was a patriot, bu what about the years he spent at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East in Moscow, also known as the &#39;Stalin School&#39;?

In addition, of what political orientation are you?

[il Commy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 01:43 PM
2. Agreed as far as self-liberation, rather than somebody coming along to give liberation to you. But in other respects, the reasons given here seem off to me. By this argument, Lincoln was wrong to "impose" emancipation on the south, which was after all at a different stage of development. And it avoids the core question: are Han Chinese and Tibetans two different nations, or not?

IMO they are. Precisely because of the cultural and language differences. Tibetan and Chinese aren&#39;t even in the same language family - Tibetan is closer to Burmese.

Whether Tibet was historically part of China can be, and has been, debated until the cows come home. From a Leninist point of view, however, we don&#39;t have to worry about it too much, as the right to self-determination applies regardless of how long a people has been part of a state. In that sense, the whole issue of whether China invaded Tibet or just regained control of it is best left for the bourgeoisie and all those who fetishize imaginary lines in the dirt.

3. I, for one, don&#39;t agree with this supposedly universal consensus. It&#39;s necessary to watch the property relations, the expectations that working people have, the protests against privatizations, etc., more than anything happening among the leadership at the top. Even whether the ruling party calls itself Communist or not is ultimately unimportant, as this claim was always false anyway.

Restoring capitalism in China, or for that matter Russia, has proven more difficult than many capitalists had hoped. It&#39;s a battle that is ongoing, and defeat should not be declared in advance.

In this context, then, it&#39;s still necessary to defend what&#39;s left of the Chinese Revolution, and the "Free Tibet" campaign in the West is part of whipping people up to attack China at some point down the road....regardless of the subjective intentions of the people involved.

Here&#39;s (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html) an article I wrote about Tibet a few years back. I&#39;ve done a bit more reading since then, and I have some more links and stuff on the subject if anyone&#39;s interested.
1. The invasion hurt the tibeteans too, it wasn&#39;t only helpful for them. They might have benefited it, but it didn&#39;t hurt only the international revolution.

2. I just meant to say they&#39;re different nations in different conditions, even if years ago they were the same nation. I don&#39;t know how it came out, but I agree with you.

3. I never talked about the restoration of the full free-market capitalism to Tibet. I don&#39;t believe they should get that kind of self determination. I&#39;m a Trotzkyst, when I talk about self determination I mean socialist self determination. Tibet should free itself from chienes imperialism and it&#39;s workers should build true and democratic socialism with fully planned economy operated by workers.

I don&#39;t think we should cooporate with the "free Tibet" guys. It&#39;s like fixing Cuba&#39;s deformatives with the restoration of capitalist "democracy", it means going backward instead of forward. Backward is free market, forward is socialist democracy.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 26 2003, 02:08 PM
Did you read Severians posts and his essay?

My point was that some people here argued that China was exploiting Tibet and had not gained any benefits from beign part of China. Severian gave an extremely well-founded and thought-out argument as to why this was wrong.

There was also an assertion that China had no claim to Tibet and that it was simply an act of imperialism. He also showed this to be wrong.

As for the Dalia Lama and his Buddhists, you should of read Severians essay where he showed them to be much more feudalistic and brutal than you suggest. We in the west think there is one single type of Buddhism, we only ever think of Zen-Buddhism. This is wrong.

someone as respectable as the Dalai Lama

What a respectable person&#33; He donated &#036;1,000,000 to the Supreme Truth Cult of Japan, the perpetrators of the Sarin gas terrorist incident on the Tokyo underground. He hides away from his own country, if he was a real patriot he would do something &#39;respectable&#39; to win back Tibet. As it is real patriots in China support the annexation of Tibet. The Dalia Lama is nothing but a lackey of U.S. imperialism, U.S. imperialism being a large driving force behind the &#39;free Tibet&#39; campaign.

Why do you have Ho Chi Minh as your avatar? I am not denying that above all he was a patriot, bu what about the years he spent at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East in Moscow, also known as the &#39;Stalin School&#39;?

In addition, of what political orientation are you?
yes, I read the posts but I am still sticking to my opinion
I still believe Tibet is being exploited by China regardless of what you or someone else posts
what you post isn&#39;t a fact just because you post it

China DOES have a claim to Tibet, and a large one at that, they made Chinese the official language of Tibet and force Tibetan children to learn in instead of their native language, they exile any religious person that they see to be a threat, and Tibetans themselves are beaten daily by Chinese officers just because they are Tibetan

As for the Dalai Lama, I have absolutely no problem with any person being more feudalistic than the next, it is their way of life, and China has no right to change it.
Where the hell did you come up with the idea that the Dalai Lama donated money to the Truth Cult, he criticizes them every chance he gets because he believes that they use religion wrongly as a tool.
He is one of the strongest supporters of freeing Tibet from Chinese rule, but there is not much he can do because he isnt even allowed to step foot in China or Tibet to talk to his own people. Hes made numerous appeals to the UN, but they were ignored of course.
and as for the US being a supporter of freeing Tibet, in my eyes that just means that they are doing something right for once, just they better not try any funny shit to install a representative

And I have Ho Chi Minh as my avatar because I believe he is the person who came closest to making socialism a reality, and that he was acting for the love of his country instead of a love for communism.
As for going to that school, it doesnt matter what it was called because he didnt exercise stalinistic ideals, and thats what matters.

and I am of the liberal left

once again, because you post something does not make it a fact
people have their own opinions, deal with it
not everyone has to follow the path you do

[Saint-Just]

I know you won&#39;t believe what I post, thats why I asked for the help of Severian. I assumed you may listen to him and he has many more sources than I do.

He also knows that the Chinese did not force Tibetans to speak in Chinese, but allowed them to learn in their onw language.

I have absolutely no problem with any person being more feudalistic than the next

I do, since I am a socialist, I also have a problem with people being capitalist.

Where the hell did you come up with the idea that the Dalai Lama donated money to the Truth Cult

My source for this information is politicalcompasss.org, and I stil believe them.

that he was acting for the love of his country instead of a love for communism.

At least we have something in common; a love of our country.

As for going to that school, it doesnt matter what it was called because he didnt exercise stalinistic ideals, and thats what matters.

He assissinated a few Trotskyists in his time, does that count for &#39;Stalinistic&#39;?

once again, because you post something does not make it a fact
people have their own opinions, deal with it
not everyone has to follow the path you do

I do not see why you need to say this.

[Thought_Criminal]

We must not forget the fact that more than a million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese military in order to maintain it&#39;s presence there. The Dalai Lama may not have been elected by the people, but his only real support was the people. The Dalai Lama is not what I would consider an oppressor, an imperialist, or a dictator. This issue is very near to me because my town has a large population of Tibetan monks who were forced to flee Tibet because of Chinese suppression of National sentiment. The Dalai Lama himself is going to visit my town next month. And I consider myself a Bhuddhist by conversion.

The Bhuddhist philosophy is very similar to the Communist philosophy. This is one of the reasons Socialism thrives in Asia, even in stated capitalist nations such as Japan and Thailand. It must be remembered that the major detractors, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Phillipines, are both largely Christian or at least the Bourgeiose is Christian.

China, though officially atheist, usually only enforces it&#39;s religious doctrine in Tibet. Tibetans in Beijing can worship, but not Tibetans in Lhasa. The Tibetan flag is forbidden to be flown in Lhasa, but it can be displayed in Beijing with no prior notice.

This is not ideology, this is control. In Tibet, religion is the nationality. Before 1949, Tibet was a Bhuddhist fundamentalist state with socialist values. After, it became a Chinese province devoid of anything that the Tibetan people could rally around.

I hold a very simple and effective philosophy on this issue. 95% of all politicians, capitalist, communist, monarchist, or socialist, are bad guys. There are very few exceptions, among them I consider Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and the Dalai Lama the top first percentile among them.
We cannot ignore that under communism tens of millions of Soviet Citizens were liquidated by Stalin. We cannot ignore that under Communism Pol Pot initiated death squads on massive scales. Chuchusko killed many thousands of Romanians, Jean Bokassi thousands of Central Africans. While we site the continuing atrocities of the Capitalist Imperialists, we must not forget our own pasts, comarades.

See past the false fronts of the politicians and know that it is the Socialist system that we promote that helps the proletariate, not politicians, not war, nothing that a single person can do. It is the people that must prevail.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 09:49 PM
We must not forget the fact that more than a million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese military in order to maintain it&#39;s presence there. The Dalai Lama may not have been elected by the people, but his only real support was the people. The Dalai Lama is not what I would consider an oppressor, an imperialist, or a dictator. This issue is very near to me because my town has a large population of Tibetan monks who were forced to flee Tibet because of Chinese suppression of National sentiment. The Dalai Lama himself is going to visit my town next month. And I consider myself a Bhuddhist by conversion.

The Bhuddhist philosophy is very similar to the Communist philosophy. This is one of the reasons Socialism thrives in Asia, even in stated capitalist nations such as Japan and Thailand. It must be remembered that the major detractors, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Phillipines, are both largely Christian or at least the Bourgeiose is Christian.

China, though officially atheist, usually only enforces it&#39;s religious doctrine in Tibet. Tibetans in Beijing can worship, but not Tibetans in Lhasa. The Tibetan flag is forbidden to be flown in Lhasa, but it can be displayed in Beijing with no prior notice.
The accusation about "more than a million" Tibetans killed by the PRC is not a "fact." It is a slander spread by the DL&#39;s government in exile. Which has never given any evidence for it.

The relatively honest "free Tibet" activists, like the Tibet Information Network, do not make this claim. (Edit:They&#39;re not honest enough to come out and say it&#39;s false, though. They just keep quiet about it.)

According to Encarta Encyclopedia, ""Experts believe that before Chinese Communists began controlling Tibet in the 1950s, the region’s population was declining due to illness, poor pre- and postnatal care, and a sizeable proportion of men becoming celibate monks. It is estimated, however, that the population has nearly doubled since that time, as a result of better health care, increased availability of food, and relative political stability."

It should also be pointed out that China&#39;s population-control policies are applied more loosely for Tibetans and other non-Han Chinese nationalities.

So much for the accusations of genocide.

There is, if anything, more space for religion in Tibet than in the rest of the PRC. Buddhism is, in fact, legal throughout the PRC, the Chinese government not being stupid enough to think it would disappear if they outlawed it. Organized religion, like everything else, is subject to political control. That&#39;s what&#39;s really involved in reports of repression of religious groups that periodically come out of China.

"The Dalai Lama may not have been elected by the people, but his only real support was the people."

Actually, his real support was the Tibetan army, armed monks, etc. Like any other ruler.

"This issue is very near to me because my town has a large population of Tibetan monks who were forced to flee Tibet because of Chinese suppression of National sentiment."

Yeah, a lot of monks fled France during the French Revolution, too. They were part of Tibet&#39;s privileged class pre-1959. The monasteries owned a big part of Tibet&#39;s land - and Tibet&#39;s serfs. Just as the Church did in prerevolution France.

"The Bhuddhist philosophy is very similar to the Communist philosophy"

Nonsense. According to Tibetan Buddhist theology, everyone was born into their proper station of life. If you were a serf or slave, that was your just punishment for your sins in past lives, and you should suffer in silence. Or if you were a woman - the Tibetan word for woman literally means "lesser birth."

Oddly, the monks don&#39;t seem willing to follow their own advice when it&#39;s their turn to lose out. That is, they&#39;re not willing to quietly and patiently suffer whatever the PRC does to them. I mean, they musta done something in a past life to deserve it, right?

The founder of Buddhism was critical of the caste system, but that didn&#39;t stop the former Tibetan regime from having pariah castes. It&#39;s like any other major religion, really - in its early period it expressed a certain opposition to oppression, but eventually it became a servant of the upper classes.

And what&#39;s up with giving Thailand as an example of socialism? The country&#39;s become one huge brothel for the U.S. military, with girls forced into sexual slavery.

But then again, you&#39;ve already said that serf-and-slave-owning Tibet was based on "socialist values", so why not sexual slavery as well.....

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 08:49 PM
yes, I read the posts but I am still sticking to my opinion
I still believe Tibet is being exploited by China regardless of what you or someone else posts
what you post isn&#39;t a fact just because you post it
Naturally. But I&#39;ve given sources, and I can give more if that would be useful.

But if your opinion on Tibet is an article of faith, that would be a waste of time.

[Jesus Christ]

no, i would not like any more sources because most of the sources youll provide are most likely biased to your liking and still wont satisfy me

[elijahcraig]

About your signature, Primus, ever read this?


At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.

The Path Which Led Me To Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm)


Leninism is not only a miraculous “book of the wise”, a compass for us Vietnamese revolutionaries and people: it is also the radiant sun illuminating our path to final victory, to socialism and communism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:59 AM
no, i would not like any more sources because most of the sources youll provide are most likely biased to your liking and still wont satisfy me
In the article by yours truly I linked, I do quote biased sources....biased in YOUR direction, however.

I&#39;ve also quoted the Encarta Encyclopedia - that Bill Gates, he&#39;s a Chinese Communist, right? And I can support what I&#39;ve said from serious bourgeois historians like Melvyn Goldstein (who&#39;s the leading U.S. academic expert on Tibet), A. Tom Grunfeld, and Tsering Shakya - a Tibetan exile who used to work for the Tibet Information Network.

But I&#39;ll accept that none of these will "satisfy" you - if you don&#39;t like what they say, you can always find a way to dismiss them.

[Thought_Criminal]

Comarades, this conversation has boiled down to derogatory bickering. We have to try to take a middle of the road stance here. We have to recognize facts.

#1 China was not invited to annex Tibet, it took Tibet by force.

#2 Many people have been killed in Tibet by the PLA

#3 Religion is being suppressed in Tibet

#4 The Dalai Llama&#39;s home village was completely destroyed, as well as many other villages in Tibet

#5 Tibet is one of the largest sources of refugees in the world

I did some research last night, and I found that your first point was correct, the number of civilian dead has been exaggerated by members of the Tibetan Government in exile. But conservative estimates place the number at around five hundred thousand.

None of us is in Tibet at this moment. We never have been to Tibet. We can never know the real situation. We have to learn what we can from out here and make our own observations.

I believe the maxim that the first casualty of war is the truth, we have to pick facts out of the propaganda that both sides give, only then can we form a truth in our mind. If we listen to only one side, we get only one side&#39;s truth.

[Jesus Christ]

Severian, you act like I&#39;m the only one against China in this, but read through the thread.
It all boils down to opinions, which you think everyone should have yours.

[Saint-Just]

Severian is middle-of-the-road. I am on the pro-Chinese stance here and the others are being anti-Chinese.

China was not invited to annex Tibet, it took Tibet by force

Take this statement for example. I would suggest that it is largely the corrupt, sadistic ruling class in Tibet who opposed the unification of all Chinese people&#39;s. Severian would say that the annexation was to illegal but there is a valid argument that Tibet should be part of China. You are being completely bias here, suggesting that China should not have taken Tibet at all.

Religion is being suppressed in Tibet

I hardly agree that this should pursaude me to denounce the Chinese annexation of Tibet. Let me give you a few examples of the suppression of religion in Tibet.

The Buddhists were told to &#39;surrender their black heart in exchange for a red heart faithful to the Communist Party, and help the government build a paradise here on Earth&#39;.

Monks were forced to put signs on Monastries such as: &#39;Do not think that through the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas you can obtain good fortune, cure disease or avoid disaster. No matter howbig a donation you make, they cannot grant you such requests.&#39;

Monks had their robes torn and had to engage in &#39;struggle meetings&#39; in towns. They had placards around their necks and the red guard whipped them while people splashed ink on them. From loudspeaks people were told to denounce them as they were womanisers, exploiters, money lenders and could topple the motherland. In fact many buddhists had toppled the motherland in the past proclaiming themselves the new emperors. By the end of the cultural revolution there were barely 100 Buddhist temples and monastries ramaining, today there are tens of thousands.

[Bolshevika]

Take this statement for example. I would suggest that it is largely the corrupt, sadistic ruling class in Tibet who opposed the unification of all Chinese people&#39;s. Severian would say that the annexation was to illegal but there is a valid argument that Tibet should be part of China. You are being completely bias here, suggesting that China should not have taken Tibet at all.

I agree 110% CM. The feudalistic, superstitious, counter revolutionaries in Tibet wanted to keep independent from China because of their practices in oppressing the proletariat. It was not in their best interests to be part of a unified China.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 04:27 PM
Comarades, this conversation has boiled down to derogatory bickering. We have to try to take a middle of the road stance here. We have to recognize facts.


The "middle of the road" is not inherently better or more factual. Depends on what the facts are.

I&#39;ll agree that both the PRC and the Tibetan gov&#39;t-in-exile have made false statements and exaggerations. It&#39;s just that the PRC&#39;s have less circulation in the West, so there&#39;s less need to debunk them.


#1 China was not invited to annex Tibet, it took Tibet by force.

True. While there were some in Tibet who supported the PRC against the Lhasa monarchy, they were probably not the majority.


#2 Many people have been killed in Tibet by the PLA


True. &#39;Course, one could also say "Many Southerners were killed by the Union Army in the Civil War."


#3 Religion is being suppressed in Tibet


Vague. One could as accurately accuse the PRC of subsidizing religion in Tibet, contrary to the principle of church-state separation, as they finance lamas who toe the official line politically.


#4 The Dalai Llama&#39;s home village was completely destroyed, as well as many other villages in Tibet

I don&#39;t know if this is true. Source?


#5 Tibet is one of the largest sources of refugees in the world

Eh....it&#39;s not that exceptional, really. I bet, if you do the math, there&#39;s a much larger proportion of Cubans who&#39;ve left their country over the past 40 years. I just checked in Grunfeld&#39;s book, and depending on whose population estimates you accept, between 1 and 2% of the population left in the 1959 exodus. 1% if you believe the DL.


I did some research last night, and I found that your first point was correct, the number of civilian dead has been exaggerated by members of the Tibetan Government in exile. But conservative estimates place the number at around five hundred thousand.

Still sounds high to me. Whose "conservative estimates"?

Grunfeld says "tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands"...but he&#39;s counting famine in the 1950s, and famine was not exactly unknown to the old Tibet. The overall increase in Tibet&#39;s population should indicate that fewer died from famine than if the old regime had continued.

In any case, having recognized that the exiled serfowners and theocrats are not a reliable source on this point, possibly you would consider being more sceptical towards their other claims as well?


I believe the maxim that the first casualty of war is the truth, we have to pick facts out of the propaganda that both sides give, only then can we form a truth in our mind. If we listen to only one side, we get only one side&#39;s truth.

I agree. But then, I&#39;ve never relied on PRC claims, unless they are supported by other sources.

Which they sometimes are. For example, for decades both Washington and the DL denied for decades Beijing&#39; claims that the CIA was arming and training Tibetan rebels and financing the DL&#39;s gov&#39;t-in-exile. Those claims turned out to be 100% true.

[Severian]

More fun with fake pacifism:

The Dalai Lama endorses Washington&#39;s "war on terrorism". (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625159989.html)

[Saint-Just]

Very interesting Severian. If I was a buddhist I would not accept such a figurehead. I assumed strong pacifists thought such violence was never the answer. Particularly when a lot of innocent people die.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The Dalai Lama, 68, was interviewed in a hotel room in Manhattan as he prepared for the first of four days of teaching in Buddhist philosophy.





Translation;


The Dalai Lama, 68, was interviewed after a fine lunch of baluga caviar and lobster from his penthouse suite in the Waldorf Astoria as he prepared for the first of four days teaching in "how to be a lapdog to the USA" philosophy.