Dalai Lama is stepping down from power

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-india-dalailama-idUSTRE7290UK20110310

Apparently the Dalai Lama is going to step down from his long, historical, brutal leadership over the Tibetan people. Stating that he believes now is the right time for Tibet to elect a leader "democratically," coincidentally (and I say that under loose terms) after witnessing the world rise up against brutal US-backed dictatorships.


"As early as the 1960s, I have repeatedly stressed that Tibetans need a leader, elected freely by the Tibetan people, to whom I can devolve power."

Except the fact that you DIDN'T step down from power since the 60's, and continued torturing your own people, all while trying to overthrow China's socialist rule, with the help of the CIA. So...why didn't you step down if you've been talking about it for the past....5 decades!?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How many people have the Tibetans tortured since he was kicked out of Tibet in 1960? Give me a break ...

[Obs]

What power is he stepping down from, exactly?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Head of the "government in exile" i think, thereby stripping the lama institution of all official temporal power. He's still a monk though

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-india-dalailama-idUSTRE7290UK20110310

Apparently the Dalai Lama is going to step down from his long, historical, brutal leadership over the Tibetan people. Stating that he believes now is the right time for Tibet to elect a leader "democratically," coincidentally (and I say that under loose terms) after witnessing the world rise up against brutal US-backed dictatorships.

"As early as the 1960s, I have repeatedly stressed that Tibetans need a leader, elected freely by the Tibetan people, to whom I can devolve power." Except the fact that you DIDN'T step down from power since the 60's, and continued torturing your own people, all while trying to overthrow China's socialist rule, with the help of the CIA. So...why didn't you step down if you've been talking about it for the past....5 decades!?

Sorry...but the brutality of the Dalai Lama has already been succesfully debunked as propaganda and misrepresentation of history.

[Obs]

Sorry...but the brutality of the Dalai Lama has already been succesfully debunked as propaganda and misrepresentation of history.
http://shugdensociety.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tibetan-serf.jpg
This guy disagrees.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Head of the "government in exile" i think, thereby stripping the lama institution of all official temporal power. He's still a monk though

It's certainly an interesting position he holds on Tibet, if he's ever truly held a position there since being exiled.

[Sir Comradical]

Sorry...but the brutality of the Dalai Lama has already been succesfully debunked as propaganda and misrepresentation of history.

Not the current Dalai Lama but the Lama theocracy that existed in Tibet prior to 1949 wasn't particularly pleasant. Here's a passage from Mobo Gao's book 'Battle for China's Past - Mao and the Culturual'.

"Another Tibetan says that at that time people believed that Mao was a living Buddha (2006: 268), and thinks that there are still many Tibetans who, having been liberated by Mao’s revolution, have the same feelings for Mao (2006: 271). A former serf declares that without the CCP there would not have been a life for serfs like him (2006: 292). Another interviewee, the son of a well-known living Buddha and the most outstanding Tibetan photographer, states he really believed in Mao and thought everything said by Mao was the universal truth. In the 1980s when he was received by His Holiness the Dalai Lama (outside China) he told his Holiness that it was the truth that the majority of the Tibetans supported the CCP because the CCP really liberated the serfs (2006: 329). The first interviewee, an ordinary Tibetan woman in Lhasa, states that Mao helped a lot of people, that the world cannot do without people like Mao, that Tibet used to be unfair when some were rich while some did not have enough to eat and that Mao’s revolution changed everything (2006: 21)."

^^ Clearly the Tibetans don't think much of the Dalai Lama who is worshipped more by idiot hollywood liberals who think he's all deep and spiritual.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not the current Dalai Lama but the Lama theocracy that existed in Tibet prior to 1949 wasn't particularly pleasant. Here's a passage from Mobo Gao's book 'Battle for China's Past - Mao and the Culturual'.

Hence I said THE Dalai Lama



^^ Clearly the Tibetans don't think much of the Dalai Lama who is worshipped more by idiot hollywood liberals who think he's all deep and spiritual.They clearly do not tink the same thing of the Chinese, with torture, forced abortion policy, abject poverty disparity between Chinese and Tibettans and unequal progeny laws for Chinese and Tibettans.

Neither do I think annecdotal evidence of personal experience is really a good way to base you case on. I think I can find a whole lot of annecdotal evidence to claim the opposite...all it does is show some people do agree with the Maoists. Protests and the refugees largely show the contradicting story.

In fact,...as I have satted earlier...I was in Tibet. Found very little Tibettans there that actually were pleased by Chinese pressence and many do love the Dalai Lama and often have pictures of him hidden and stashed away. Pictures which are forbidden and can get you arrested...as I myself experienced when I was caught with a travel guide which had a small picture of the DL in it.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://shugdensociety.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tibetan-serf.jpg
This guy disagrees.

It has already been established fact that the Dalai Lama did not have any personal influence on state legislation because fo eth largest part of his reign he was considered a minor without any worldly power within the government.

It has also been established that as soon as he did he re-implemented the controll of the bodies instituted by his father against slavery and corporal punishment.

So your argument goes nowhere to disprove my statement.

[Sir Comradical]

Hence I said THE Dalai Lama

Yes, no one accuses the current Dalai Lama of perpetuating Tibetan feudalism when he was only 12 when the communists seized power. You assumed that such an accusation exists when it doesn't.


They clearly do not tink the same thing of the Chinese, with torture, forced abortion policy and unequal progeny laws for Chinese and Tibettans.

Yes the laws are unequal because the government is generally more leniant towards Chinese Tibetans. Case in point (from the same book):

"While the Chinese government has implemented a family planning policy to control China’s population, it has much more lenient policies towards ethnic minorities, including Tibetans."

It's also inaccurate to distinguish between 'Chinese' and 'Tibetan' as if they're mutually exclusive. A person is Chinese if they live within the borders of China therefore Chinese is not an ethnic group in any strict sense. Tibetans are Chinese, they are Tibetan Chinese just like the Han ethnicity are Han Chinese.

Please be more specific and provide a context when throwing around words like 'torture'. Are we referring to the Cultural Revolution?

[Sir Comradical]

It has already been established fact that the Dalai Lama did not have any personal influence on state legislation because fo eth largest part of his reign he was considered a minor without any worldly power within the government.

It has also been established that as soon as he did he re-implemented the controll of the bodies instituted by his father against slavery and corporal punishment.

So your argument goes nowhere to disprove my statement.

Yes but he supported the reactionary Tibetan feudal lords in their protracted war against the PLA. Luckily for the Tibetan people, the majority of whom had been liberated from slavery a decade earlier, the PLA pulverised these CIA backed clowns.

[gorillafuck]

Apparently the Dalai Lama is going to step down from his long, historical, brutal leadership over the Tibetan people.Long brutal leadership? give me a break. He does not even exercise authority over the "Tibetan people".

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes, no one accuses the current Dalai Lama of perpetuating Tibetan feudalism when he was only 12 when the communists seized power. You assumed that such an accusation exists when it doesn't.

from OP:


Apparently the Dalai Lama is going to step down from his long, historical, brutal leadership over the Tibetan people.So...basically...yes there is ...and no you are wrong in that respect.



Yes the laws are unequal because the government is generally more leniant towards Chinese Tibetans. Case in point (from the same book):

"While the Chinese government has implemented a family planning policy to control China’s population, it has much more lenient policies towards ethnic minorities, including Tibetans."ehh...no...absolutely untrue. All inhabitants of China are allowed two children. This has been limited for Tibettans to one child and is often enforced by forced sterilisations and abortions....while Chinese women in Tibet are subsidiced to get two children.

THis is tantamount to genocide. As you are well aware you need at least two children per family to maintain the current population.

And then we do not even speak of many, many other economic and social laws whci do not favor ethnic Tibettans and put them in a severe backwards position as opposed to Chinese who migrate to Tibet.



It's also inaccurate to distinguish between 'Chinese' and 'Tibetan' as if they're mutually exclusive. A person is Chinese if they live within the borders of China therefore Chinese is not an ethnic group in any strict sense. Tibetans are Chinese, they are Tibetan Chinese just like the Han ethnicity are Han Chinese.
Fine.. ethnic Chinese of the Han group. You know full well what I mean...



Please be more specific and provide a context when throwing around words like 'torture'. Are we referring to the Cultural Revolution?No...I refer to the period since the occupation of Tibet until this day. And torture I mean: beatings and every other act which is designed to inflict pain either physical or psychological; either as punishment or method to extract information or for pleasure of the torturer when the victim is unwilling to undergo that act.

Specific enough?

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes but he supported the reactionary Tibetan feudal lords in their protracted war against the PLA. Luckily for the Tibetan people, the majority of whom had been liberated from slavery a decade earlier, the PLA pulverised these CIA backed clowns.

Not so lucky seeing as this resulted in wide spread discriminiation, a policy of genocide, torture, forced abortions and sterilisation, economic and social disadvantage, and their country being used as a huge chemical and nuclear dumpplace....etc. etc.

My advice...go to Tibet. (Don't bring pictures or books containing pictures of any Dalai Lama ever).

[Sir Comradical]

ehh...no...absolutely untrue. All inhabitants of China are allowed two children. This has been limited for Tibettans to one child and is often enforced by forced sterilisations and abortions....while Chinese women in Tibet are subsidiced to get two children.

THis is tantamount to genocide. As you are well aware you need at least two children per family to maintain the current population.

And then we do not even speak of many, many other economic and social laws whci do not favor ethnic Tibettans and put them in a severe backwards position as opposed to Chinese who migrate to Tibet.

Where are you getting this from? Not that I defend the current regime in China but I'd like to seriously know where you're getting this information from. Everything I've read up till now basically says that Tibetans are are ones exempt from the one-child policy.

Just to be sure, you don't have anything against Han Chinese immigrating to Tibet, do you?


Fine.. ethnic Chinese of the Han group. You know full well what I mean...

No...I refer to the period since the occupation of Tibet until this day. And torture I mean: beatings and every other act which is designed to inflict pain either physical or psychological; either as punishment or method to extract information or for pleasure of the torturer when the victim is unwilling to undergo that act.

Specific enough?

A specific definition of torture, yes. Does it refer to any properly contextualised episodes in Tibet's turbulent history as a part of the PRC? No.

[Sir Comradical]

Not so lucky seeing as this resulted in wide spread discriminiation, a policy of genocide, torture, forced abortions and sterilisation, economic and social disadvantage, and their country being used as a huge chemical and nuclear dumpplace....etc. etc.

My advice...go to Tibet. (Don't bring pictures or books containing pictures of any Dalai Lama ever).

None of the above represents a condition exclusively endured by Tibetans. Tibetan workers/peasants are in the same boat as Han workers/peasants. Why support the balkanisation of China under the auspices of rival capitalist countries like the United States, when it's class oppression that's the problem? As for environmental damage, that's a China wide problem.

[Princess Luna]

If the Dalai Lama had the power to change how the people in Tibet lived then how come he didn't?
If the Dalai Lama was powerless , then isn't it good the Chinese came and brought things like secular education, roads, running water, and electricity even if stuff such as Freedom of speech and press didn't change?

My advice...go to Tibet. (Don't bring pictures or books containing pictures of any Dalai Lama ever).
If you invent a time machine , don't bring a communist book to Tibet under the Dalai Lama ever. Also the fact alot of people in Tibet respect and have pictures of him is irrelivent , he is a religious figure if you go to Latin America i am sure you will find lots of pictures of the Pope.

[Amphictyonis]

Hence I said THE Dalai Lama


In fact,...as I have stated earlier...I was in Tibet.

Will the real Dalali Lama please stand up? I thought I was a Buddhist for a while a few years back. About a decade ago. This was before I found out all the talk of nothingness was really just another institutional social hierarchy. Just another sect of human beings groupthinking into the future. Don't get me wrong I find their dogma more tolerable than Christian dogma but at the end of the day.....I suppose I have a little too much of the dark side in me. Buddhism would be more tolerable if the hierarchies (subtle as they may be) didnt exist. I commend the Dali Lama for at least acknowledging that. From the years of study I took part in I came to the conclution that to be a Buddhist you cannot be a Buddhist.

[Magón]

So when this Dalai Lama kicks the bucket, will the new one know he's not in charge anymore?

[Princess Luna]

oh and if you think the bad stuff about the Dalai Lama is just "propganda" here are 2 anti-communists saying the Chinese are better then the Dalai Lama
WgK-uaLHJ-0

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If you invent a time machine , don't bring a communist book to Tibet under the Dalai Lama ever. Also the fact alot of people in Tibet respect and have pictures of him is irrelivent , he is a religious figure if you go to Latin America i am sure you will find lots of pictures of the Pope.

Cuba is more than happy to receive envoys from the Vatican including the Pope himself, and the Catholic Church is far more reactionary than the Dalai Lama. So why does China denigrate his religious and spiritual role? Maybe we don't agree with every part of Vajryana Buddhism, but we can discuss it rationally instead of barring him from the country and treating Tibet like a police state

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

From the years of study I took part in I came to the conclution that to be a Buddhist you cannot be a Buddhist.

That's very Zen of you :cool:

[RedStarOverChina]

from OP:
ehh...no...absolutely untrue. All inhabitants of China are allowed two children. This has been limited for Tibettans to one child and is often enforced by forced sterilisations and abortions....while Chinese women in Tibet are subsidiced to get two children.
Do you just make up stuff as you go or something?

Urban Han Chinese---Those living in cities and towns---are only allowed to have one child. Rural population are allowed to have a second child if the first one is a girl.

The Family Planning Policy (dubbed One Child Policy in the West) do NOT apply to ethnic minorities. At all.

It's always the same ignorant, ill-informed blatherings in every single Tibet-related debate.

[Kassad]

The Dalai Lama and all of his reactionary Buddhist cronies still cling to the pre-Revolution days in which they were the feudal overlords over the Tibetan serfs. The Chinese Revolution was a monumental historical event and the liberation of Tibet brought the people there things like quality homes, roads, education and healthcare that were virtually unfathomable before the revolution.

The Dalai Lama epitomizes what it is to be a CIA-backed reactionary. He serves the interest of demonizing the Chinese Revolution and the monumental social gains that followed. The United States would love to see Tibet reverted back to a feudal colony. It would be much simpler to plunder the resources and people of Tibet without the defend of the Chinese state. The former landowning class will never give up its attempts to once again shackle the people of Tibet and any real revolutionary would oppose that unconditionally.

Let the Dalai Lama stand down, but let it be down that he still maintains his post as a CIA-backed slaveowner, murderer and counterrevolutionary. Say hello to the dustin of history.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Meanwhile, from "our comrades" in China:

"On Monday, China had stated that the Dalai did not have a right to choose his successor and must follow the religious tradition of reincarnation." - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/132089/india/dalai-lama-exit-a-bid-to-counter-china.html

[RedStarOverChina]

"On Monday, China had stated that the Dalai did not have a right to choose his successor
Which is true according to Tibetan tradition. No Dalai Lama can "reincarnate" before he dies. The selection of a new Dalai Lama must occur after his death. Since the 1700s, this process was to be conducted under the supervision and approval of an official from the Chinese government.

The Dalai Lama, however, has suggested a break with the tradition and select his successor before he dies.

[The Red Next Door]

The Dalai Lama and all of his reactionary Buddhist cronies still cling to the pre-Revolution days in which they were the feudal overlords over the Tibetan serfs. The Chinese Revolution was a monumental historical event and the liberation of Tibet brought the people there things like quality homes, roads, education and healthcare that were virtually unfathomable before the revolution.

The Dalai Lama epitomizes what it is to be a CIA-backed reactionary. He serves the interest of demonizing the Chinese Revolution and the monumental social gains that followed. The United States would love to see Tibet reverted back to a feudal colony. It would be much simpler to plunder the resources and people of Tibet without the defend of the Chinese state. The former landowning class will never give up its attempts to once again shackle the people of Tibet and any real revolutionary would oppose that unconditionally.

Let the Dalai Lama stand down, but let it be down that he still maintains his post as a CIA-backed slaveowner, murderer and counterrevolutionary. Say hello to the dustin of history.

I myself would be prefer him getting shot down in front of his precious flocl.

[RedStarOverChina]

I think that Lhamo Dondrub/Tenzin Gyatso/14th Dalai Lama---However you wish to call him, is a product of the theocratic system. He is a liar, a hypocrite and a tool of the CIA not because he was inherently dishonest/evil, but because he was put into this position in a very young age.

It's true that his own family owned thousands of slaves and that he did nothing to stop it, but it's questionable how much real power he had when he was young. By tradition, the regent is usually just as powerful--if not more so than a Dalai Lama in his youth.

The lamas poisoned Tenzin Gyatso's father (because he was more Han than Tibetan, and was pro Chinese central government); he knew that but was unable to do anything about it.

In the end, he acted on behalf of the system knowing full-well its' failings and cruelties; that was his biggest sin. But how many of us would have done "the right thing" if we were in his shoes? We don't know that.

Also I disagree that Dalai Lama would restore feudalism/theocracy in Tibet if allowed to return. Him and his lamas wouldn't be able to even if they had the guts to try. They know full-well part of the reason why they failed was because of their cruelties and negligence towards the poor, the serfs and the slaves.

Obviously I don't think they should be in the position to make that decision in the first place.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Red Star-I agree with the notion that he was a young man when the Chinese took over, and can't be blamed for not modernizing his state overnight, though I am perhaps more sympathetic still to him and his historical position.

I also agree with the idea that he wants some kind of theocratic restoration to be absurd. He's a smart man, he knows it wasn't the Shangri La that westerners often think. Last I heard from the negotiations, he only wants autonomy, and the main sticking points between the two sides are how much autonomy, and how much area would exist under this autonomous authority. I've heard nothing from him about restoring the old system of Lama-based theocracy.

He has the right to return to Lhasa and take on a spiritual role of some type, and that it would do a lot to quiet the constant dissent simmering in parts of Tibet. As well as this, a certain degree of political autonomy would help the Tibetans to preserve their cultural heritage and language. It would benefit China greatly to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement with the government in exile before the Dalai Lama dies, and more hardline elements emerge.

As for the successor of the Dalai Lama, if he wants to rationalize the Lama system by choosing the next one instead of sending out monks to look for "auspicious signs", that's his prerogative and would be a progressive development in the religion. So it is ironic that a "scientific" government would try to force the Buddhists to maintain an ancient metaphysical system


I myself would be prefer him getting shot down in front of his precious flocl.

That's disgusting. I don't like the pope, I wouldn't want him killed, especially in front of his followers.

[Obs]

Cuba is more than happy to receive envoys from the Vatican including the Pope himself, and the Catholic Church is far more reactionary than the Dalai Lama. So why does China denigrate his religious and spiritual role? Maybe we don't agree with every part of Vajryana Buddhism, but we can discuss it rationally instead of barring him from the country and treating Tibet like a police state
That's probably because, while Cuba has never been under the direct rule of the Catholic church, a huge part of China has a pretty unfortunate history with the Lamas. Starvation, slavery, that shtick.

[RedStarOverChina]

Red Star-I agree with the notion that he was a young man when the Chinese took over, and can't be blamed for not modernizing his state overnight, though I am perhaps more sympathetic still to him and his historical position.Well, no one expects him to modernise Tibet overnight, certainly not me. But in the end he actively supported the aristocracy in resisting change, despite promising to do the opposite (and kissing Mao's ass while at it). That was his defining act.

Again, it's unclear how much he could have done against the lamas and the aristocracy without risking being assassinated like his father and many other Dalai Lamas before him, so I cut him some slack there. But I think he could have afforded to be more neutral instead of blantantly pro-reaction.

Last I heard from the negotiations, he only wants autonomy, and the main sticking points between the two sides are how much autonomy, and how much area would exist under this autonomous authority.What he's asking is nothing short of independence in reality. Demanding a withdraw of Chinese troops from Tibet is essentially a recognition of Tibet's sovereignty. Plus, we all know how this will end. You don't need to look any further than Kosovo.


He has the right to return to Lhasa and take on a spiritual role of some type, and that it would do a lot to quiet the constant dissent simmering in parts of Tibet. I highly doubt that.

I've been to parts of Tibet Autonomous Region. The biggest issue among common Tibetans are unemployment, economic inequality and bad education system. Dalai Lama doesn't come to mind.

Of course, Dalai Lama boasts his influence in TAR and surrounding regions every time a protest occurs; and the Chinese government gladly blame it on the Dalai Lama to deflect the blame and to cover up the failures of their policies.

So Dalai Lama's influence tend to get exagerated.

Even if Dalai Lama's return would quell Tibetan dissent stemming from their economic and social woes, do we really want that?

Also, nothing has led me to believe that Tibetan culture was under any kind of threat except from that of Capitalism and globalisation which we all face.


So it is ironic that a "scientific" government would try to force the Buddhists to maintain an ancient metaphysical systemYes, but on the other end it is also ironic that a government-in-exile that claims to protect Tibetan tradition also breaks with it for political expedience.

[Robocommie]

I think it's important to note that history is incredibly murky at the best of times, and even moreso when a given narrative is being promoted by a nation-state which also happens to be a global superpower. Triply so when that narrative makes that superpower look so gosh darn benevolent. I think it's quite possible (probable, actually) that the Tibetan people should generally be seen as sub-altern, whose true desires and interests are represented neither by the PRC or the Tibetan lamas.

And that's all I want to say because there's something about this subject on this forum that gets people howling at the moon.

[Queercommie Girl]

Meanwhile, from "our comrades" in China:

"On Monday, China had stated that the Dalai did not have a right to choose his successor and must follow the religious tradition of reincarnation." - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/132089/india/dalai-lama-exit-a-bid-to-counter-china.html

Who is saying China today is genuinely socialist?

Besides, you don't seriously think the Chinese government believes in reincarnation do you? It's just a tactical rhetoric.

[Queercommie Girl]

Cuba is more than happy to receive envoys from the Vatican including the Pope himself, and the Catholic Church is far more reactionary than the Dalai Lama. So why does China denigrate his religious and spiritual role? Maybe we don't agree with every part of Vajryana Buddhism, but we can discuss it rationally instead of barring him from the country and treating Tibet like a police state


I wouldn't go as far as that, but while I generally defend Maoist China from supporters and sympathisers of the Dalai Lama (not necessarily China today which is a different matter), I also think some people in the West tend to focus more on the crimes of Buddhism than they would ever do on the crimes of Christianity. There may be an element of cultural ethnocentrism in this, as even today, many workers in the West are still Christians, so they hesitate to make any radical critique of Christianity, yet don't mind the same being done for Buddhism.

The feudal system in pre-revolutionary Tibet was obviously very reactionary, but I really don't see how it's any worse than right-wing political Islam or Christianity.

If people here on RevLeft criticised right-wing political Islam to the same extent as people are criticising Tibetan Buddhism now, some people would no doubt call them Islamophobes, so why is Buddhism any different? Any notion that Christianity or Islam are somehow "intrinsically more progressive/less reactionary" than Buddhism is just total and pure BS.

In other words, basically the situation in an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia today really isn't better than how it was like in Old Tibet.

BTW Communist China never opposed Buddhism or even Tibetan Buddhism in general, but only the reactionary feudal landlordist Lamaist system in Old Tibet. There was a period during the Cultural Revolution when things got a bit out of hand, but there was no racism involved, because Chinese Buddhist and Daoist temples in Han areas were likewise smashed up. Most of the Red Guards who went around smashing Tibetan Buddhist temples were ethnic Tibetans, not Han Chinese.

[Rowan Duffy]

It has already been established fact that the Dalai Lama did not have any personal influence on state legislation because fo eth largest part of his reign he was considered a minor without any worldly power within the government.

It has also been established that as soon as he did he re-implemented the controll of the bodies instituted by his father against slavery and corporal punishment.

So your argument goes nowhere to disprove my statement.

You do realise that you're defending a theocratic monarch based on the fact that he's not as bad as his father (but really wasn't given the opportunity to be tested with real power).

The institution of monarchy is part of the problem in the first place. If we could rely on monarchs to be wise it would at least have some validity. However, we can't do so, and in fact the power of monarchy creates a division of interests that structurally tends towards manufacturing individuals who will grossly abuse power.

Whether there are peasants who support monarchy is irrelevant. There were loads of peasants during the French revolution who supported the monarchy. There are loads of poor people who support the pope. That doesn't make them sensible, or something which socialists of any stripe should have truck with.

Honestly, I think it's a very strange position for an anarchist to be taking. I think it's a good thing that he abdicated, but it sure took him long enough. Next maybe he can stop with the whole act of being some super-wise enlightened reincarnation.

[Sir Comradical]

Do you just make up stuff as you go or something?

Urban Han Chinese---Those living in cities and towns---are only allowed to have one child. Rural population are allowed to have a second child if the first one is a girl.

The Family Planning Policy (dubbed One Child Policy in the West) do NOT apply to ethnic minorities. At all.

It's always the same ignorant, ill-informed blatherings in every single Tibet-related debate.

I was pretty sure this was/is the case. My bullshit detector went right off when hindsight alleged that this policy was being imposed on the Tibetan population exclusively. Still, I look forward to checking his sources.

[The Red Next Door]

Red Star-I agree with the notion that he was a young man when the Chinese took over, and can't be blamed for not modernizing his state overnight, though I am perhaps more sympathetic still to him and his historical position.

I also agree with the idea that he wants some kind of theocratic restoration to be absurd. He's a smart man, he knows it wasn't the Shangri La that westerners often think. Last I heard from the negotiations, he only wants autonomy, and the main sticking points between the two sides are how much autonomy, and how much area would exist under this autonomous authority. I've heard nothing from him about restoring the old system of Lama-based theocracy.

He has the right to return to Lhasa and take on a spiritual role of some type, and that it would do a lot to quiet the constant dissent simmering in parts of Tibet. As well as this, a certain degree of political autonomy would help the Tibetans to preserve their cultural heritage and language. It would benefit China greatly to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement with the government in exile before the Dalai Lama dies, and more hardline elements emerge.

As for the successor of the Dalai Lama, if he wants to rationalize the Lama system by choosing the next one instead of sending out monks to look for "auspicious signs", that's his prerogative and would be a progressive development in the religion. So it is ironic that a "scientific" government would try to force the Buddhists to maintain an ancient metaphysical system



That's disgusting. I don't like the pope, I wouldn't want him killed, especially in front of his followers.

what is even more diguesting, what he have done to people or my comment.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Which is true according to Tibetan tradition.

Because communists are great upholders of religious tradition.


Who is saying China today is genuinely socialist?

There are people and organizations that believe that, unfortunately.


Besides, you don't seriously think the Chinese government believes in reincarnation do you? It's just a tactical rhetoric.

They probably believe it about as much as they believe that they're "building socialism."

[The Vegan Marxist]

There are people and organizations that believe that, unfortunately.

Wrong. These organizations, and those of us a part of them, recognize what is left of the socialist system in China and choose to defend such against imperialist threats. We are very much against the choice of having a mixed economy in China and both recognize and oppose the rising capitalist policies in China. Next time get your facts straight.

[Dimentio]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-india-dalailama-idUSTRE7290UK20110310

Apparently the Dalai Lama is going to step down from his long, historical, brutal leadership over the Tibetan people. Stating that he believes now is the right time for Tibet to elect a leader "democratically," coincidentally (and I say that under loose terms) after witnessing the world rise up against brutal US-backed dictatorships.

"As early as the 1960s, I have repeatedly stressed that Tibetans need a leader, elected freely by the Tibetan people, to whom I can devolve power." Except the fact that you DIDN'T step down from power since the 60's, and continued torturing your own people, all while trying to overthrow China's socialist rule, with the help of the CIA. So...why didn't you step down if you've been talking about it for the past....5 decades!?

It doesn't have anything to do with the Arab protests. The guy is pretty old, and the USA might not afford to support him any more. Moreover, he has been pretty powerless since 1959. It is not an actual government he has led, more an exile government.

[AmericanSocialist]

Why is this current Dalai Lama so demonized? He wrote a friggin hymn in honor of Mao. It seems like he genuinly wants freedom for tibetans.

[Kassad]

Why is this current Dalai Lama so demonized? He wrote a friggin hymn in honor of Mao. It seems like he genuinly wants freedom for tibetans.

The Dalai Lama was the overseer of Tibetan feudalism before the liberation of Tibet during the Chinese Revolution. This article from Liberation News describes the tyrannical rule of the Buddhist ruling class led by the Dalai Lama: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/08-04-01-china-tibet-ussponsored-coun.html

The Dalai Lama gives lip service to communism and revolutionaries, yet in practice, he was a wealthy landowner and a slaveholder. He doesn't deserve socialists support.

[Queercommie Girl]

Since the 1700s, this process was to be conducted under the supervision and approval of an official from the Chinese government.


Technically, the Manchu Qing regime is not really Chinese. Han Chinese people never ruled Tibet. Han and Tibetans alike were under Manchu domination during the Qing. (Manchus were the top caste, Mongols and Hans were the 2nd caste, other minority groups like Tibetans, Zhuang etc were the lowest caste - the Eight Banners only had Manchu, Mongol and Han people in it, other ethnic groups couldn't join, and it was always the Manchu aristocrats who controlled everything)

Look at the borders of China during the Ming Dynasty, that's the real Han Chinese territory. The whole idea of the People's Republic, like the Soviet Union of Lenin, was to create a socialist federation of all the nations who were historically a part of the Manchu empire, not to create another empire in which one ethnic group (like the Han, or someone else) dominates the rest.

This is why I insist on the line that China never liberated Tibet (which is Han nationalist propaganda), only Maoists did. And Maoists fundamentally are internationalists.

Mao Zedong always spoke very explicitly against Han nationalism.

[Princess Luna]

Why is this current Dalai Lama so demonized? He wrote a friggin hymn in honor of Mao. It seems like he genuinly wants freedom for tibetans.
Maybe because when he was in power the average Tibetan lived in extreme poverty and was still required to pay money to the Dalai Lama and his ilk who lived in palaces adorned with golden staircases or risk punishment. Not to mention anybody who threatened or even questioned his rule was imprisoned.

[RedStarOverChina]

Technically, the Manchu Qing regime is not really Chinese.

I'm pretty sure the Manchus considered themselves Chinese. Just not Han Chinese. That was their whole rationale behind ruling China---That they were Chinese in the broad sense just as the founders of Zhou Dynasty which was another ethnic group that invaded China Proper from the west.

Han Chinese people never ruled Tibet.I don't see how that is relevant---Although many of the Ambans---Qing officials stationed in Lhasa were Han Chinese.

This is why I insist on the line that China never liberated Tibet (which is Han nationalist propaganda), only Maoists did. And Maoists fundamentally are internationalists.I wouldn't call liberation of Tibet an "internationalist act". On the contrary the CCP occupied Tibet under the nationalist belief that Tibet was part of China---which was true only in the sense we understand nationhood and sovereignty today. Back in the Qing Dynasty, sovereignty was not at all clearly defined.

That's why there is a lot of ambiguity concerning the status of Tibet.


The Communists under Mao did not occupy Tibet to liberate the serfs and the slaves---In fact they did not know about the down-right horrendous condition of the lower classes until they went in there. In fact, even AFTER their knowledge of slavery in Tibet they did not press the Tibetan ruling class for fear of inciting separatism.

Other than taking in a number of escaped slaves, they pretty much left the aristocracy to their gruesome business of abusing slaves.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm pretty sure the Manchus considered themselves Chinese. Just not Han Chinese.


The Manchus killed millions of people in their quest to conquer China. Remember the massacre of 800,000 people in Yangzhou? That's even more people killed than what the Japs did in Nanjing during WWII.

Had the Japs succeeded in conquering China, they would have considered themselves "another Chinese dynasty" too.

Even the Spanish conquistadors in South America considered themselves to be the "heirs" of the Incas to some extent. This would have been much more evident if it wasn't for the diseases that wiped out most of the natives.

It's funny that some Marxists would firmly support Chinese national liberation against Western imperialism, but not so much against the "native imperialism" of the Manchu Qing and the Mongol Yuan. Why don't you tell me what is the concrete difference between Manchus conquering China and the British conquering Hong Kong, apart from the fact that the former is based on landlordism while the latter is based on capitalism?



That was their whole rationale behind ruling China---That they were Chinese in the broad sense just as the founders of Zhou Dynasty which was another ethnic group that invaded China Proper from the west.
The difference with the Zhou Dynasty is that the Zhou Dynasty never set up a caste system, but the Mongols and Manchus did. There was a clear caste system in the Qing Dynasty, Han men were forced to cut off their hair and wear them Manchu-style, had although Manchu men could marry Han women, Han men, being inferior, could not marry Manchu women.

Also, according to linguistics and anthropology, both the Shang and Zhou were Sinitic (Chinese-speaking) peoples, whereas Mongols and Manchus belong to a completely different ethno-linguistic family (the Altaic). Therefore the Zhou was not really a "different ethnic group", the Zhou conquest of Shang was more like one ancient Greek city-state conquering another city-state, or one Anglo-Saxon kingdom taking over another one. Linguistically Shang and Zhou were no more different than Mandarin and Cantonese today.



I don't see how that is relevant---Although many of the Ambans---Qing officials stationed in Lhasa were Han Chinese.
Relevant because Chinese nationalist claims over Tibetan territory has nothing to do with real socialism.



I wouldn't call liberation of Tibet an "internationalist act". On the contrary the CCP occupied Tibet under the nationalist belief that Tibet was part of China---which was true only in the sense we understand nationhood and sovereignty today. Back in the Qing Dynasty, sovereignty was not at all clearly defined.

There is a lot of ambiguity concerning the status of Tibet.
The PRC was established on the same lines as Lenin's USSR - a federation of autonomous Soviet territories. Technically Tibet was an autonomous region. The PRC is not in any sense a historical continuation of the old Yuan and Qing Dynasties, only with Han people now occupying the top caste instead of the Mongols and Manchus.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Communists under Mao did not occupy Tibet to liberate the serfs and the slaves---In fact they did not know about the down-right horrendous condition of the lower classes until they went in there. In fact, even AFTER their knowledge of slavery in Tibet they did not press the Tibetan ruling class for fear of inciting separatism.

Other than taking in a number of escaped slaves, they pretty much left the aristocracy to their gruesome business of abusing slaves.


Well I'm only a semi-Maoist, so I don't think the Maoist system was perfect in those days.

I'm making a normative point, not just a descriptive one. For genuine Marxists to use any arguments based on Chinese nationalism, except in the case of China's own national liberation against imperialism, is completely unacceptable.

If the only reason for China to hold onto Tibet was the Chinese nationalist justification, then frankly Tibet should become independent. As Marxist-Leninists, the only system we should support would be the original Soviet system of a federation of nations under Lenin.

[RedStarOverChina]

The difference with the Zhou Dynasty is that the Zhou Dynasty never set up a caste system, but the Mongols and Manchus did.

What? :confused:

The Zhou Dynasty invented the caste system.

[RedStarOverChina]

The PRC is not in any sense a historical continuation of the old Yuan and Qing Dynasties, only with Han people now occupying the top caste instead of the Mongols and Manchus.
That's simply factually false. The PRC has never, under any circumstance excluded the Qing Dynasty from the other Chinese Dynasties. They even more controversially cosidered Genghis Khan and the Yuan Dynasty as "Chinese".

The PRC clearly sees itself as a continuation from the Qing Dynasty. It has apologized to its neighbours for crimes and aggressions committed against them under the Qing Dynasty, as well as holding on to a border based on that of the Qing Dynasty.

Hence the claim on Tibet.

[Queercommie Girl]

What? :confused:

The Zhou Dynasty invented the caste system.

If you are referring to the traditional system of "shi, nong, gong, shang", then that was a system of social class, not a system of ethnic caste.

There was no systematic racism during the Zhou Dynasty, only class oppression. Both the Zhou and the Shang were Sinitic peoples anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's simply factually false. The PRC has never, under any circumstance excluded the Qing Dynasty from the other Chinese Dynasties. They even more controversially cosidered Genghis Khan and the Yuan Dynasty as "Chinese".

The PRC clearly sees itself as a continuation from the Qing Dynasty. It has apologized to its neighbours for crimes and aggressions committed against them under the Qing Dynasty, as well as holding on to a border based on that of the Qing Dynasty.

Hence the claim on Tibet.

I'm certainly not uncritical of the PRC, including the PRC under Mao. Because appeals to nationalist arguments like this deviates from Marxism-Leninism, which rejects nationalism.

The only thing that should be "inherited" would be the unequal treaties signed by the Qing and the complete refutation of them.

Lenin originally agreed to return to China the lands taken by Tsarist Russia, but Stalin, being somewhat of a Russian chauvinist nationalist, decided not to give them back to the PRC.

I'm making a normative point, not just a descriptive one. I'm stating what should be the case, rather than just what is the case.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, no one expects him to modernise Tibet overnight, certainly not me. But in the end he actively supported the aristocracy in resisting change, despite promising to do the opposite (and kissing Mao's ass while at it). That was his defining act.

Again, it's unclear how much he could have done against the lamas and the aristocracy without risking being assassinated like his father and many other Dalai Lamas before him, so I cut him some slack there. But I think he could have afforded to be more neutral instead of blantantly pro-reaction.
What he's asking is nothing short of independence in reality. Demanding a withdraw of Chinese troops from Tibet is essentially a recognition of Tibet's sovereignty. Plus, we all know how this will end. You don't need to look any further than Kosovo.


I don't really want to excuse his actions in defense of the aristocracy, but I think I can forgive it like I can forgive the leaders of any of these minorities from being suspicious of powerful socialist-inspired central authority hundreds of miles away. From an outsider perspective, it is easy to say that they came to "modernize" Tibet, but from an insider perspective its easy to see why they would fear the Chinese as much as any other group which has resisted outsiders. As for whether his demands would lead to independence, I don't think he would be able to split it off from China practically.



I've been to parts of Tibet Autonomous Region. The biggest issue among common Tibetans are unemployment, economic inequality and bad education system. Dalai Lama doesn't come to mind.

Of course, Dalai Lama boasts his influence in TAR and surrounding regions every time a protest occurs; and the Chinese government gladly blame it on the Dalai Lama to deflect the blame and to cover up the failures of their policies.

So Dalai Lama's influence tend to get exagerated.

Even if Dalai Lama's return would quell Tibetan dissent stemming from their economic and social woes, do we really want that?
I don't think you can underrate people's cultural demands. It seems like the Catholic Church in Poland, for instance, was a major factor in the fall of the pro-Soviet government. Nor would limiting cultural discontent limit their social and economic discontent, but it would make it easier to handle since it wouldn't have the cultural component.

Although its an interesting point you make about both the PRC and the Dalai Lama having an interest in exaggerating their role.

I went to Daramsala, India, and basically got the "other" perspective on all this from you (who went to Tibet itself). Obviously the exile community was more anti-chinese, so i obviously took their statements with a grain of salt, but they said that they had complaints both with the legal system, the economic system, and the cultural policies of the Chinese government. They didn't seem racially opposed to the Han or ideologically opposed to Communism. People I talked to also said they supported the Dalai Lama's message that Tibet should remain a part of China.


Also, nothing has led me to believe that Tibetan culture was under any kind of threat except from that of Capitalism and globalisation which we all face.I think local autonomy is a positive force in defending culture, both from Capitalism and from a hegemonic culture.

Anyhow, I've heard Lhasa is now a Han-majority city or will be soon, while the Chinese government regulates the right of Chinese people to move to big cities elsewhere (the hukou system I think its called?). It would make more sense to limit the number of people moving to ethnic minority cities than places like Beijing. And the Tibetans accuse the Chinese of preferring other Chinese workers. If the area becomes majority Han, it will pressure local Tibetans to abandon their language as well as assimilating culturally. There were recent protests in one of the provinces next to Tibet when Tibetans complained of a unilateral decision to change the school language to Mandarin.

Capitalism would obviously exacerbate that, especially if the mandarin speaking migrants tend to be economically better off than the locals (adding further incentive for them to "assimilate")


I wouldn't go as far as that, but while I generally defend Maoist China from supporters and sympathisers of the Dalai Lama (not necessarily China today which is a different matter), I also think some people in the West tend to focus more on the crimes of Buddhism than they would ever do on the crimes of Christianity. There may be an element of cultural ethnocentrism in this, as even today, many workers in the West are still Christians, so they hesitate to make any radical critique of Christianity, yet don't mind the same being done for Buddhism.

The feudal system in pre-revolutionary Tibet was obviously very reactionary, but I really don't see how it's any worse than right-wing political Islam or Christianity.

If people here on RevLeft criticised right-wing political Islam to the same extent as people are criticising Tibetan Buddhism now, some people would no doubt call them Islamophobes, so why is Buddhism any different? Any notion that Christianity or Islam are somehow "intrinsically more progressive/less reactionary" than Buddhism is just total and pure BS.

In other words, basically the situation in an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia today really isn't better than how it was like in Old Tibet.


This is true, I see anti-Imperialists criticizing the Dalai Lama in a way that they never criticize Islamic or Christian leaders. "Anti-imperialists" support governments that execute homosexuals and religious minorities, but if you say "maybe the Dalai Lama isn't that bad" they jump on you. Of course, spiritual traditions tend to be used to justify traditional class relations, especially in a feudal society, and people are somehow shocked that Buddhism was used in the same manner.

Anyway, from what I've read from him, the Dalai Lama has become a sort of semi-socialist or social democratic person since losing power. He certainly sounds at least as "socialist" as a Chinese government which lacks worker's democracy and believes in private capitalism. His statements are definitely more socially democratic than the actions of the Ayatollah of Iran, at least in regards to sexual rights and possibly the rights of workers too, if his arguments are to be believed. People also seem to deny the ability of religious leaders to change their opinions over their life :P


BTW Communist China never opposed Buddhism or even Tibetan Buddhism in general, but only the reactionary feudal landlordist Lamaist system in Old Tibet. There was a period during the Cultural Revolution when things got a bit out of hand, but there was no racism involved, because Chinese Buddhist and Daoist temples in Han areas were likewise smashed up. Most of the Red Guards who went around smashing Tibetan Buddhist temples were ethnic Tibetans, not Han Chinese.I've heard this before, but I could see why someone would mistake the excesses of the Cultural Revolution and other incidents as a state policy of violence against their beliefs.



That's probably because, while Cuba has never been under the direct rule of the Catholic church, a huge part of China has a pretty unfortunate history with the Lamas. Starvation, slavery, that shtick.

The Catholic church was an active participant in the repression of the people in Latin America. Certainly, feudalism in Latin America was just as bad. And the Catholic Church purged liberation theologians from its institutions in Latin America, and still does, while it accepts Bishops and priests who take money from drug gangs or corrupt politicians.

[Robocommie]

I want to point out one thing about Tibet in relation to what folks are saying about the serfdom; remember that the population of Tibet is right now about 40% nomadic or semi-nomadic. This proportion was probably higher prior to the urbanization which began after the Chinese occupation.

Keep in mind Tibet is not exactly a breadbasket, it's on a high plateau and the soil is not the best in the world, it's also extremely dry. Even now the farmers in Tibet are basically engaged in subsistence agriculture.

The point I'm trying to make is that even during the time of the Lamas, Tibet's population consisted of a large number of nomads who didn't really owe labor service to anyone. They owned their own land and a lot of the anti-Maoist guerillas drew from those populations. That needs to be considered when talking about Tibet.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It doesn't have anything to do with the Arab protests. The guy is pretty old, and the USA might not afford to support him any more. Moreover, he has been pretty powerless since 1959. It is not an actual government he has led, more an exile government.

All I was stating was that there's a possible correlation, because the entire world is rising up for democracy, or at least more democratic institutions. It would eventually rise in Tibet as well. And I'm sure the Dalai Lama doesn't want that on his hands.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Robocommie-interesting point, I think a lot of people just take the PRC propaganda at face value without investigating the historical conditions of Tibet pre-independence or today for that matter. People often forget the Tibetan people themselves in this, and the arguments on both sides (pro and anti lama) seem equally reductionist.

On the topic of the tibetan people, China closed off Tibet to tourists for the anniversary of protests this year. Apparently not all Tibetans feel so "liberated"


Why is this current Dalai Lama so demonized? He wrote a friggin hymn in honor of Mao. It seems like he genuinly wants freedom for tibetans.

I didn't know this. Funny. Is there a link to the hymn anywhere?

[Queercommie Girl]

The point I'm trying to make is that even during the time of the Lamas, Tibet's population consisted of a large number of nomads who didn't really owe labor service to anyone. They owned their own land and a lot of the anti-Maoist guerillas drew from those populations. That needs to be considered when talking about Tibet.


I wouldn't romanticise nomadic peoples though. The Mongols and Manchus were nomadic or semi-nomadic, but they still initiated some of the worst kinds of brutal conquests in history. (Though it's true that by the time the Mongol and Manchu conquests began, they already had a firm state structure based on the total rule of the military aristocracy - e.g. like the Eight Banners Army in the Manchu Qing Dynasty, so they were never "pure nomads" like the Tibetans, who were much more peaceful)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wrong. These organizations, and those of us a part of them, recognize what is left of the socialist system in China and choose to defend such against imperialist threats. We are very much against the choice of having a mixed economy in China and both recognize and oppose the rising capitalist policies in China. Next time get your facts straight.Are you and whatever sect you belong to the only people on earth? There are people and organizations that think China is socialist.

[NGNM85]

It's a real testament to the derangement common to the radical Left the degree of invective and venom inspired by the Dalai Lama; an avowed pacifist who has never actually had any real institutional power and has just abdicated whatever authority he ever, indeed, posessed, over the Chinese government; a brutal police state that executes a paltry six or seven thousand people, annually.

[Tim Finnegan]

liberation of Tibet
Ugh.


It's a real testament to the derangement common to the radical Left the degree of invective and venom inspired by the Dalai Lama; an avowed pacifist who has never actually had any real institutional power and has just abdicated whatever authority he ever, indeed, posessed, over the Chinese government; a brutal police state that executes a paltry six or seven thousand people, annually.
I agree. It takes some iron-clad blinkers to find the simple continued existence of the office more worthy of complaint that the profound abuses of power which the Communist Party has been responsible for on a daily basis since the civil war.


All I was stating was that there's a possible correlation, because the entire world is rising up for democracy, or at least more democratic institutions. It would eventually rise in Tibet as well. And I'm sure the Dalai Lama doesn't want that on his hands.
Want what in his hands? There's little way he could hold less power in Tibet than he did anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree. It takes some iron-clad blinkers to find the simple continued existence of the office more worthy of complaint that the profound abuses of power which the Communist Party has been responsible for on a daily basis since the civil war.


The CCP's "abuses of power" are nothing compared with the abuses of power that have continuously occurred in the United States ever since its formation.

Exactly how many native Americans did the US kill, and how many blacks did the US enslave?

For all the problems of Stalinism, I'd rather have Stalinism than Western imperialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's a real testament to the derangement common to the radical Left the degree of invective and venom inspired by the Dalai Lama; an avowed pacifist who has never actually had any real institutional power and has just abdicated whatever authority he ever, indeed, posessed, over the Chinese government; a brutal police state that executes a paltry six or seven thousand people, annually.


What's even more deranged is for any leftist to have the illusion that Western imperialism can really help the people of Tibet, or anyone else, in any way.

What's even worse than continued Chinese rule in Tibet would be Western imperialist intervention in the region.

[Tim Finnegan]

The CCP's "abuses of power" are nothing compared with the abuses of power that have continuously occurred in the United States ever since its formation.

Exactly how many native Americans did the US kill, and how many blacks did the US enslave?
I'm not sure why that's relevant. The CCP is not immediately juxtaposed to the USA, as their occupation of Tibet is to the current government-in-exile.


What's even more deranged is for any leftist to have the illusion that Western imperialism can really help the people of Tibet, or anyone else, in any way.

What's even worse than continued Chinese rule in Tibet would be Western imperialist intervention in the region.
It's hardly a choice between the two. Surely, the concept of "national liberation" is not alien to you? :confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

Please do not tell me that we have' Free Tibet' people on this forum too. Oh, that takes the cake.

Surely one can be against both the Chinese government and the Tibetan rule that preceded it, without resorting to a defense of the fucking Dalai Lama. While you cannot be too damn harsh on him because he was young when the Chinese entered, what he represents is a past regime that should've been taken down a long, long time before 1949.

Where on Earth are pro-Tibet people getting their facts about the former Tibetan rule? I took a Tibetan Buddhist course in college with a pretty strong professor in the field and even he said that Tibet pre-1949 was a feudal hellhole.

[Geiseric]

One being against the chinese rule doesn't mean one is pro-U.S. Somebody can be against those both and be in favor of an independent democratic tibet, Chinese government basically is western style economic imperialism by this point.

[Robocommie]

Where on Earth are pro-Tibet people getting their facts about the former Tibetan rule? I took a Tibetan Buddhist course in college with a pretty strong professor in the field and even he said that Tibet pre-1949 was a feudal hellhole.

The thing is, in history there is no such thing as facts. You learn this more and more the more time you spend in academic history. Talking about facts imply that the answers are all written down somewhere in a book. That's maybe half true, but mostly the reality is that history is about competing narratives, most of which have been promoted by somebody at some time or another because it was politically useful. The job of historians is to try and sift out the likely reality of events while being aware that they themselves cannot be immune to bias. Be wary of anyone who tells you a line of history that makes them come out smelling like roses. Be doubly wary when that line of history is promoted by the powerful.

In any case, I've read a bit about the historiography of Tibetan history and it seems like there's a bit of a war going on right now, it's something of a quagmire. Furthermore, it's not just divided between East vs. West or Communist vs Capitalist, so it's very complicated. And I'll piss off both sides right now by opining that based on what I read, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[Robocommie]

I wouldn't romanticise nomadic peoples though. The Mongols and Manchus were nomadic or semi-nomadic, but they still initiated some of the worst kinds of brutal conquests in history. (Though it's true that by the time the Mongol and Manchu conquests began, they already had a firm state structure based on the total rule of the military aristocracy - e.g. like the Eight Banners Army in the Manchu Qing Dynasty, so they were never "pure nomads" like the Tibetans, who were much more peaceful)

I'm not romanticizing nomads, frankly nomadism has always been a harsh, demanding way of life that cultures have generally adopted because it was necessary in their region. I'm just trying to make the point that the situation in Tibet was and is more complicated than simply serfs vs. landlords.

But naturally nomads are not somehow inherently peaceful, in fact a certain amount of raiding is pretty common in most nomadic societies as a survival tactic. Not to mention that world history has been dramatically changed several times by invasions of nomadic peoples sweeping out of central Asia. But I don't see any reason to cast it as somehow more prone to militancy either. After all, agricultural societies throughout history from Sumeria to the United States have been prone to grand campaigns of subjugation and imperialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure why that's relevant. The CCP is not immediately juxtaposed to the USA, as their occupation of Tibet is to the current government-in-exile.


It's relevant given the US's poor prior record, and the empirical fact that many tendencies of the Tibetan independence movement are literally backed by the US.



It's hardly a choice between the two. Surely, the concept of "national liberation" is not alien to you? :confused:


It is a choice, since if you look at recent history, US imperialist intervention always tends to make things worse, whichever region it is. Iraq and Afghanistan comes to mind.

In principle I support national liberation of all peoples, but I certainly don't support every instance of a "national liberation movement" on the ground in the concrete sense if I know that it will make things even worse for the workers and peasants.

I am a pragmatist and an utilitarianist. Abstract national rights pale in front of concrete socio-economic rights. What's on your flag isn't as important as the food in your plate.

For instance, ever since the former Soviet Union broke up, things have been even worse for the workers of the former Central Asian Soviet republics. They are hit even harder than Russian workers. If China breaks up now, that's how it's going to end up, and it's going to be even worse than in Russia's case, and worse for Tibetans than for the Han. The USSR was still a deformed worker's state for a Marxist-Leninist like me, and its downfall was not a revolutionary event, but a counter-revolutionary event, despite all the problems of Stalinism and revisionism.

That's something stupid Western liberals in their ivory towers don't grasp - the empirical concrete situation on the ground. I always lean more on the side of empiricism than dogmatism when it comes to politics. Is there any worth at all in being independent (other than a "buzz feeling" perhaps) if you can't even fucking feed yourself?

[Queercommie Girl]

But naturally nomads are not somehow inherently peaceful, in fact a certain amount of raiding is pretty common in most nomadic societies as a survival tactic. Not to mention that world history has been dramatically changed several times by invasions of nomadic peoples sweeping out of central Asia. But I don't see any reason to cast it as somehow more prone to militancy either. After all, agricultural societies throughout history from Sumeria to the United States have been prone to grand campaigns of subjugation and imperialism.

What you need to understand is that in the case of historical East Asia, the Xiongnu, Mongol and Manchu empires were very explicit state societies, completely dominated by the military aristocracy, and not just a "bunch of simple nomads" like the Tibetans. That is to say, just like settled peoples, nomads aren't intrinsically state-less at all, and are certainly capable of forming militaristic state societies.

I'm not saying nomads are necessarily intrinsically more militaristic. For instance the semi-nomadic Tibetans are on the whole generally more peaceful than the settled Han Chinese. I'm saying it is possible for nomads and semi-nomads to establish oppressive state societies, just like it is possible for settled peoples to do so. The idea that nomads can't form states and classes is completely ridiculous, because in the Mongols' case for instance, the elite clans centred around Genghis Khan monopolised nearly all of the livestock and grazing lands the Mongols owned as a whole. That's the ownership of the means of production no different from any settled class society.

The Manchu Eight Banner Army's military atrocities, such as the killing of 800,000 civilians in Yangzhou, and the genocide against the Western Mongol tribes, certainly aren't just some "sporadic acts of plundering", but a systematic brutal compaign of military terror conducted by a state and class society ruled by a military aristocracy. The Manchu state was formed decades before they ever conquered any parts of Ming China.

In fact, even the Tibetans formed a state called the Tubo Kingdom during China's Tang Dynasty period. But the Tibetans always retained some semi-tribal elements.

On the other hand, completely settled and non-nomadic peoples can also be completely state-less. E.g. the native American tribes (majority of them), and the Celtic and Basque peoples in pre-historic Europe.

"State" and "Stateless" have nothing to do with whether one is nomadic or not.

[Robocommie]

Iseul, I'm aware of all this, and I'm not ignorant of Mongolian and Jurchen/Manchu history. Nor am I trying to assert that nomadic tribes can't establish state hierarchies or classes. I'm a bit puzzled as to where this lecture came from.

[RadioRaheem84]

For one thing, I am wondering why Anarchists are defending a religious figure who represents an old feudal caste system? The history of Tibetan Buddhism was not a peaceful monkish religion, but one of land grabs and horrible brutality against serfs and peasants. Even if you want to believe that the truth is somewhere in between what Chinese government sources say or what Tibetan activists say, I would hope self professed Anarchists would still see that even a middle road pre-1949 Tibet was no Shangri-La.

Why does the Dalai Lama get a pass? Because he is a pet liberal icon?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Radioraheem-you don't need to hold any illusions about pre-1949 Tibet to sympathize with the Dalai Lama.

Did Feudal Tibet suck? Of course. Feudalism sucks. Name one Feudal system which was actually kind to the peasants, especially a feudal system in a harsh environment. Peonage was an exceptionally tough system, and this is why even those early socialists preferred capitalism to feudalism. But feudalism is a stage of social development! Because it was so remote, Tibet took far longer to modernize, and was still far more backward than other parts of the world by the 1940s. The Dalai Lama was a kid who took over a 1000 year old political system, and was removed from power while still a young man.

I don't think a defense of the dalai lama necessarily implies support to the social system which underpinned the social structure.

[GPDP]

For one thing, I am wondering why Anarchists are defending a religious figure who represents an old feudal caste system? The history of Tibetan Buddhism was not a peaceful monkish religion, but one of land grabs and horrible brutality against serfs and peasants. Even if you want to believe that the truth is somewhere in between what Chinese government sources say or what Tibetan activists say, I would hope self professed Anarchists would still see that even a middle road pre-1949 Tibet was no Shangri-La.

Why does the Dalai Lama get a pass? Because he is a pet liberal icon?

Have you not noticed they already dodged the question by bringing up the abuses of the CCP?

Hey, I got a great idea. How about instead of supporting the break up of China as advocated by groups funded by the USA, and instead of defending the nationalism of the CCP, we advocate for a revolution spanning ALL of China, resulting in a truly socialist Chinese federation that would include Tibet?

[GPDP]

Radioraheem-you don't need to hold any illusions about pre-1949 Tibet to sympathize with the Dalai Lama.

Did Feudal Tibet suck? Of course. Feudalism sucks. Name one Feudal system which was actually kind to the peasants, especially a feudal system in a harsh environment. Peonage was an exceptionally tough system, and this is why even those early socialists preferred capitalism to feudalism. But feudalism is a stage of social development! Because it was so remote, Tibet took far longer to modernize, and was still far more backward than other parts of the world by the 1940s. The Dalai Lama was a kid who took over a 1000 year old political system, and was removed from power while still a young man.

I don't think a defense of the dalai lama necessarily implies support to the social system which underpinned the social structure.

...and all of this makes defending the dalai lama worthwhile how?

Moreover, to NGNM85: Aren't you one of those militant atheist types? I should be especially surprised to see you come to the defense of the dalai lama, but somehow I am not in the slightest.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hey, I got a great idea. How about instead of supporting the break up of China as advocated by groups funded by the USA, and instead of defending the nationalism of the CCP, we advocate for a revolution spanning ALL of China, resulting in a truly socialist Chinese federation that would include Tibet?

This would be the ideal. Who is against this?


...and all of this makes defending the dalai lama worthwhile how?


Because despite his association with the feudal past of Tibet, he does hold cultural relevance and has actually worked since his overthrow to make Tibetan Buddhism more philosophical and modern, as well as articulate a vision for Tibetan culture which eschews violence and exploitation regardless of the past traits of the system. Maybe he's not perfect, but I'm not going to condemn him outright. History involves a dialectical process of change, and it certainly seems that "history" has forever altered the nature of the Tibetan Buddhism of the 50s, for better or for worse. I won't defend him against the charge that he was a part of a horrible feudal system that desperately needed a reform, but i will defend him against the charge that he is the manifestation of some historical force of evil or that his perspective on the world has no value.

[RadioRaheem84]

Weren't he and his family involved with CIA sponsored reactionary militias after the intervention in Tibet by China?

This is the guy that doesn't believe in violence but was on the CIA payroll?

I really wouldn't want to hear what this guy has to say about the world.

[Tim Finnegan]

I really wouldn't want to hear what this guy has to say about the world.

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.
...
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

Did I just bloooooow your mind? ;)

[Robocommie]

Did I just bloooooow your mind? ;)

Hah, no, it's been brought up many times and many of the people in this thread have dissected and destroyed it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Heh, yeah, I sort of guessed that. I just like being difficult. :lol:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

RadioRaheem-he admitted that there was a CIA-backed Tibetan army in the 60s, and he said it was a mistake to touch the CIA's money because its subverted their national struggle for rights to Cold War intrigue. He's able to admit they made a mistake. Again, maybe he's not perfect, but while those who idolize him go too far in ignoring his flaws, his critics don't really consider the context when they bash him.

[Queercommie Girl]

For one thing, I am wondering why Anarchists are defending a religious figure who represents an old feudal caste system? The history of Tibetan Buddhism was not a peaceful monkish religion, but one of land grabs and horrible brutality against serfs and peasants. Even if you want to believe that the truth is somewhere in between what Chinese government sources say or what Tibetan activists say, I would hope self professed Anarchists would still see that even a middle road pre-1949 Tibet was no Shangri-La.

Why does the Dalai Lama get a pass? Because he is a pet liberal icon?


It is true however that Tibet before the Mongol Yuan Dynasty was still semi-tribal and it wasn't a fully established state society like the Xiongnu and Mongol nomadic empires or the settled Han Chinese Dynasties, and hence less oppressive generally speaking.

So there is nothing about Tibetan Buddhism intrinsically that is very reactionary, the Lamaist theocracy was originally set up by the Mongols and didn't always exist in Tibet.