How Many Self-Immolating Tibetans Does It

[JeffLeeds]

On Wednesday morning in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, a Tibetan monk drenched in gasoline appeared in front of a Buddhist stupa popular among Tibetans and set himself aflame. At the time of writing, the young man, thought to be in his early 20s, is in critical condition. According to some reports, his fiery protest marks a grim milestone: it’s the 100th such self-immolation by a Tibetan to happen since 2009 (others suggest it’s the 99th or the 101st).

Whatever the ghastly metric, the act has become the signature tactic in recent years of Tibetans voicing their frustrations with Chinese rule. It carries a haunting moral cry no suicide bomber can match. When one downtrodden Tunisian set himself alight in December 2010, the spark of his despair and anger kindled uprisings that swept across the Arab world. Yet, 100 Tibetan self-immolations — and many deaths — later, little has changed.

Part of the problem is where these protests occur. The overwhelming majority takes place within the borders of China, either in Tibet proper or in Tibetan areas of neighboring Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces. Media access is heavily controlled and much of what we know comes from advocacy groups based outside. A white paper titled “Why Tibet Is Burning,” released last month by an institute affiliated with the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India, identifies by name 98 Tibetans who carried out self-immolations in China since February 2009. Many of those choosing to set themselves on fire are young teenagers and 20-somethings. They are farmers and aspiring clerics, nomads and students. In a foreword to the study, Lobsang Sangay, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Tibet’s exiles, urges Tibetans to “not to resort to drastic actions, including self-immolations, because life is precious.” But the study goes on to point the finger at Beijing:

The reason [for all the self-immolations] lies in China’s massive policy failure in Tibet over the course of more than 60 years of its rule. The revolution that is brewing in Tibet is driven by political repression, cultural assimilation, social discrimination, economic marginalization and environmental destruction.

China, of course, doesn’t see it this way. The likelihood of a Tibetan revolution — or even the rioting of not so long ago — is dwarfed by the specter of a Beijing crackdown. Authorities have already started detaining and jailing Tibetans they claim are “inciting” self-immolations; one such swoop earlier this month in the rugged province of Qinghai netted 70 suspects. Quoted by Chinese state media, a local official echoed China’s longstanding critique of any Tibetan dissent: “The Dalai Lama clique masterminded and incited the self-immolations. Personal information, such as photos of the victims, were sent overseas to promote the self-immolations.”

The Dalai Lama, the increasingly withdrawn spiritual leader of Tibetans-in-exile, has long promoted a “middle way” of dialogue and nonviolent resistance, and has also urged against Tibetans carrying out self-immolations. According to a BBC report last year, the steady toll of self-immolations was being interpreted by some angry Tibetans overseas as a sign that the Dalai Lama’s timid, largely failed policies of engagement ought to be given up. “Violence could now be the only option,” said one influential Tibetan activist to the BBC.

That’s a scenario that could spell even more trouble for Tibetan aspirations — resistance to Beijing has been met ruthlessly with arrests and media blackouts. No foreign government would risk their relationship with China over tacit support for an aspirational and unlikely Tibetan nation. The governments of India and Nepal, which play awkward hosts to generations of Tibetan exiles and dissidents, routinely crack the whip on Tibetan activists, breaking up protests and monitoring exile activity. Geopolitical conflagrations elsewhere — from the Senkaku Islands contested by Tokyo and Beijing to the South China Sea to NATO’s imbroglio in Afghanistan — have cornered the international community’s attention.

What’s left then is a lonely struggle. China touts the wealth and development it’s bringing to the Himalayan plateau, but Tibetans abroad see the hollowing out of their homeland, which faces a steady influx of Han Chinese settlers. Here’s the white paper from Dharamsala once more:

[Tibetans] look on with alarm and fear as Chinese settlers stream into Tibet, taking away Tibetan jobs, land and their very future — and in the process, transforming Tibetan towns and cities into so many Chinatowns … At the same time the Tibetan people see massive development activities undertaken on their land that bring little or no benefit to them and aimed, instead, to cart away Tibetan natural resources to a resource-hungry China. In fact the policies of the Chinese Communist By Ishaan Tharoor

[Paul Pott]

Is Han settlement part of an official policy of colonization to displace the Tibetans or is it largely voluntary immigration to a developing part of the country?

No two sources seem to agree on this.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well, before being taken over by China, Tibet was a brutal, feudal land. for more than 50 years, "Free Tibet" has been a rallying cry of anti-communism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, before being taken over by China, Tibet was a brutal, feudal land. for more than 50 years, "Free Tibet" has been a rallying cry of anti-communism.

Many Imperial projects are justified on the grounds of "civilizing" and "modernizing" some primitive and harsh society which seems inert despite the modernizing forces of technology and democracy. This justification is strikingly similar to the notion of the "White Man's Burden". Based on the current state of the Chinese government, there is no reason to think that being opposed to PRC rule equates to anti-communism. On the contrary, being ruled by a bunch of wealthy state Capitalists from Beijing is no more appealing than being run by the British Empire. Do we assume that all African nationalists opposed to British rule were motivated by a desire to return to a society dominated by chiefs and tribal warlords? Are the Tibetans not able to find modernity independently of a (Capitalist) Chinese state?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

[Tibetans] look on with alarm and fear as Chinese settlers stream into Tibet, taking away Tibetan jobs, land and their very future

THEY TOOK OUR JOBS! Get the Mexicans out of the USA! etc.

I hate whenever they do this. At first you think they come with some legitimate grievances and then they just turn it into some nationalist shit about the foreign poison ruining their pure lands and peoples.


Many Imperial projects are justified on the grounds of "civilizing" and "modernizing" some primitive and harsh society which seems inert despite the modernizing forces of technology and democracy. This justification is strikingly similar to the notion of the "White Man's Burden". Based on the current state of the Chinese government, there is no reason to think that being opposed to PRC rule equates to anti-communism. On the contrary, being ruled by a bunch of wealthy state Capitalists from Beijing is no more appealing than being run by the British Empire. Do we assume that all African nationalists opposed to British rule were motivated by a desire to return to a society dominated by chiefs and tribal warlords? Are the Tibetans not able to find modernity independently of a (Capitalist) Chinese state?

Of course, it does not mean you are anti-communist: but being supportive of ethnocentric rights and nationalist policies that are definately very prevalent (in both China and Tibet) is decidedly anti-communist.

Then again - being run by Beijing, or being run by an own clique of nationalist pricks in Lhasa? Difference being? Is there any socialist movement to speak of in Tibet, or becomes the association with the Capitalist Party of China of the name, so great that it has no chance?

"Free Tibet" is a rallying cry for anti-communism because of the association with China. Most using it will have little interest or understanding of the history.

But, most important: although I am very sure that any withdrawal of China from Tibet, should that ever happen, would not entail the return to power of the old priesthood, it would lead to few substantive changes. The new government would be, presumably, either West or India-aligned, probably developing some sort of "democratic parliament", while of course any real structure remains largely the same; simultaneously, it would lead to the rise of a fierce nationalist backlash and even more acute ethnic squabbles; possibly even deportations by a new nationalist government.

Fuck Tibet, Fuck the PRC.

[Revy]

I am fine with Tibetan independence so long as it's decided by a democratic vote of the Tibetan people, and the Tibetan gov't-in-exile has no role in the new Tibetan government. Also the equal rights of Han citizens/immigrants of Tibet must be protected. But first there would have to be evidence that a majority of Tibetans even favor independence. I don't think I've seen that.

[ind_com]

There was a communist movement in Tibet that faced brutal repression from the Lamaist rule. Hence, when China attacked, the oppressed Tibetan peasants and slaves did not oppose them. It was an act of liberation from the murderous Lamaist rule. The amount of instruments of torture and mutilation that were discovered in seemingly non-violent monasteries was astonishing. The whole country was filled with recaptured slaved who were abused and mutilated by the ruling classes. The overthrown rulers of Tibet took help of the CIA and sent spies inside Tibet, via India. But so great was the wrath of the liberated population that almost none of those who were sent to sabotage ever made it back alive. In general, every act of socialist offensive, in this case that of China, must be supported, whether it be against Tibet, or India.

Presently, China is state capitalist and an imperialist country. The Han dominated regions of China are the centers of Chinese imperialism, while the minority-inhabited Chinese regions as well as neo-colonial countries acting as market for Chinese goods are the peripheries of Chinese imperialism. Hence any progressive demand of national liberation in the part of the Tibetans is justified. The Lamaists are worse than the present Chinese ruling class, and are agents of American imperialism falsely claiming to represent the Tibetan masses. They do not have any support among the common masses of Tibet. It is the working class all over China that is the champion of progressive and militant struggles against the Chinese government.

[Zostrianos]

It was an act of liberation from the murderous Lamaist rule.

You mean those same liberators who took pleasure gang raping (http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ecaeybfrl1IC&pg=PA122&dq=tibet+chinese+soldiers+rape+wives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5NVKUdvzGuPC0QH044C4BQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=women%20were%20raped&f=false)Tibetan women before killing them?

While life in Tibet was no picnic under the Lamas, a lot of the accounts of brutal oppression prior to Maoist rule were overly exaggerated by the Chinese to justify their own misdeeds - see the report by the ICJ here:
http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html.

The wildest accounts I was able to find about the "murderous" regime of the Dalai Lama all come from official Chinese government sites and publications, not surprisingly.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Are there any (relatively) non-biased accounts of what life was like in Tibet before the PRC's expansion into the region?

[ind_com]

You mean those same liberators who took pleasure gang raping (http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ecaeybfrl1IC&pg=PA122&dq=tibet+chinese+soldiers+rape+wives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5NVKUdvzGuPC0QH044C4BQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=women%20were%20raped&f=false)Tibetan women before killing them?

While life in Tibet was no picnic under the Lamas, a lot of the accounts of brutal oppression prior to Maoist rule were overly exaggerated by the Chinese to justify their own misdeeds - see the report by the ICJ here:
http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html.

The wildest accounts I was able to find about the "murderous" regime of the Dalai Lama all come from official Chinese government sites and publications, not surprisingly.

You should go for something more stunning. How about the Chinese soldiers making sushi out of Tibetans? Or maybe fertilizing fields with boiled babies, as your comrade Berlusconi once said? Nowadays, accusing communists of cannibalism is the newest thing in the market, so please try it.

[ind_com]

Are there any (relatively) non-biased accounts of what life was like in Tibet before the PRC's expansion into the region?

In general the Chinese side is defended even by ortho-Trots, as you can see in this thread. There are very good Maoist accounts of Tibetan history, but since you might be looking for more tendency neutral sources, you can consider some of the sources cited in this wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy#Problem_of_.22Slavery .22

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do we assume that all African nationalists opposed to British rule were motivated by a desire to return to a society dominated by chiefs and tribal warlords?

Not usually; but then again, few of those movements were led by chiefs and warlords. Whereas the "Tibetan Government in Exile" is led by the remnants of the bloody Tibetan theocracy.


Are the Tibetans not able to find modernity independently of a (Capitalist) Chinese state?

Tibet seems to be as "modern" as any political entity in the region is; and while there is, of course, nothing sacred or necessary about the state ties between Tibet and China Proper, it seems to be the case that ordinary Tibetans do not wish to secede from the People's Republic. And even if they did, I doubt many of them would want to live under a feudal theocracy; my impression is that the Dalai Lama is considered a joke in Tibet, and were it not for anti-communist hysteria and orientalism, he would be considered a joke in "the West" as well.


You mean those same liberators who took pleasure gang raping (http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ecaeybfrl1IC&pg=PA122&dq=tibet+chinese+soldiers+rape+wives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5NVKUdvzGuPC0QH044C4BQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=women%20were%20raped&f=false)Tibetan women before killing them?

Liberation can be accompanied by excesses; I mean, if these events took place, they are to be condemned, but they do not change the progressive nature of the destruction of Lamaist rule. The Red Army also committed excesses when it liberated Eastern Europe; those excesses should not have been tolerated and they should have been severely punished, but they can not call the progressive nature of the destruction of fascism into question.

All of this, however, assumes that the events actually took place - the entire account reeks of anti-communist hysteria to me.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The Red Army also committed excesses when it liberated Eastern Europe

Did they liberate it now?

I guess forced collectivisation is pro-working class if it's put into practice for the 'greater good' of infrastructure in twenty years for a detached and irrational exploitative oligarchic national-chauvinist amoeba, Hm?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

You cannot separate out "national rights" in this case from the struggle of imperialism, against China. That is what this is about. I have no doubt that Tibet is better off under the CCP than as a pre-feudal theocracy. That is progress. Fuck the white man's burden shit. China did not go into Tibet to extract massive surplus value -- it has little to do with the colonization of Africa. With the WB logic, you wind up supporting the mullahs against the soviet backed PDPA reformers in Afghanistan, among the most reactionary forces in the world. All in the name of national rights? Also much the same as those who supported the captured nations crap about Eastern European countries being "colonized" by the USSR. It is reactionary stuff.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In general the Chinese side is defended even by ortho-Trots, as you can see in this thread. There are very good Maoist accounts of Tibetan history, but since you might be looking for more tendency neutral sources, you can consider some of the sources cited in this wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy#Problem_of_.22Slavery .22

That excerpt doesn't really lend credence to the claims that Tibet was some kind of ultra-brutal slave system pre-PRC governance, though.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There are two equally ridiculous arguments about Tibet. One is that all Chinese officials want is to obliterate Tibetan culture and language and will stop at nothing to do it, and the other is that Tibetan exiles are operating under some sinister agenda to bring Tibet back to feudal rule. Neither is true, and both stems from the propaganda view presented by the other.


Not usually; but then again, few of those movements were led by chiefs and warlords. Whereas the "Tibetan Government in Exile" is led by the remnants of the bloody Tibetan theocracy.


Actually, its the remnants of the autonomous Tibetan government under Mao, as well as a host of Tibetan refugees who dislike harsh Chinese state rule. Yeah, lest you folks forget, the PRC allowed the Dalai Lama to rule Tibet for another 10 years with Chinese state support. The PRC ended up getting sick of the Dalai Lama's anemic pace of reforms and what they saw as his theological distractions.

I've yet to see anyone make a convincing case that the Tibetan exiles want a return to feudalism. That argument is a fucking joke based on nothing more than Chinese state propaganda.



Tibet seems to be as "modern" as any political entity in the region is; and while there is, of course, nothing sacred or necessary about the state ties between Tibet and China Proper, it seems to be the case that ordinary Tibetans do not wish to secede from the People's Republic. And even if they did, I doubt many of them would want to live under a feudal theocracy; my impression is that the Dalai Lama is considered a joke in Tibet, and were it not for anti-communist hysteria and orientalism, he would be considered a joke in "the West" as well.
(1) Why do you believe that the Tibetan government in exile wants a return to feudalism? Where have they ever called for that?

(2) Don't you see that viewing all Tibetan Lamas as violent, scheming feudalists is actually more Orientalist?

(3) What do we use to base the idea that "ordinary Tibetans" support Chinese rule? It is a heavily policed area and there is actually a significant amount of unrest.



Liberation can be accompanied by excesses; I mean, if these events took place, they are to be condemned, but they do not change the progressive nature of the destruction of Lamaist rule. The Red Army also committed excesses when it liberated Eastern Europe; those excesses should not have been tolerated and they should have been severely punished, but they can not call the progressive nature of the destruction of fascism into question.
Excesses! What a great excuse. They were just "excesses". Were these "excesses" publicly confessed and apologized for? Did the victims receive compensation? An "excess" is just a word for a war crime which we want to ignore.



All of this, however, assumes that the events actually took place - the entire account reeks of anti-communist hysteria to me.It's funny how any account of state brutality by the US or some imperialist European power is assumed to have taken place but any account of state brutality by some state Capitalist dictatorship with a red flag is "anti-communist hysteria".


You cannot separate out "national rights" in this case from the struggle of imperialism, against China. That is what this is about. I have no doubt that Tibet is better off under the CCP than as a pre-feudal theocracy. That is progress. Fuck the white man's burden shit.

Why the fuck do people assume that without Mao and a bunch of armed Chinese invaders that the Tibetans would have never been able to attain modernity? The English, Chinese, Japanese, Russians and French could all get rid of feudalism on their own, but the Tibetans are too fucking stupid I guess?


China did not go into Tibet to extract massive surplus value -- it has little to do with the colonization of Africa. With the WB logic, you wind up supporting the mullahs against the soviet backed PDPA reformers in Afghanistan, among the most reactionary forces in the world. All in the name of national rights?Why do you think China went into Tibet? Was it really some noble goal of "liberating" the Tibetans? It's funny how Communists are so quick to accuse others of idealism, yet when the opportunity requires they attribute all sorts of idealistic nonsense to some dictatorship that they sympathize with.

They went into Tibet for strategic and economic resources. It provides a great defensive barrier on the South (as opposed to if Tibet became a part of India) and it allows them to have a clear frontier. It is also as convenient of a place as any to place industrial projects, and provides numerous hydrological resources and mining opportunities.


Of course, it does not mean you are anti-communist: but being supportive of ethnocentric rights and nationalist policies that are definately very prevalent (in both China and Tibet) is decidedly anti-communist.

Agreed - one group of ethnocentric rights and nationalist movements drives the other though - if the Tibetan language is getting overwhelmed due to the systemic dominance of Han Chinese language and culture, it will naturally create resistance by the Tibetans. Of course I won't go and endorse that Tibetan nationalism but it seems ahistorical to criticize Tibetan nationalism without trying to investigate whether or not it is rooted somehow in a response to Chinese policies.


Then again - being run by Beijing, or being run by an own clique of nationalist pricks in Lhasa? Difference being? Is there any socialist movement to speak of in Tibet, or becomes the association with the Capitalist Party of China of the name, so great that it has no chance?
This is a good point, but I don't think every Tibetan struggling against China is motivated by national separatism. The Dalai Lama himself gave up on full independence because, as he sees it, the two societies are too intertwined. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Tibet-part-of-China-Dalai-Lama/2005/03/14/1110649123769.html)

These days the Dalai Lama sounds more "socialist" than the bureaucrats of the Chinese state (albeit a pacifist one who would balk at a lot of the decisions the proletariat might have to take to liberate itself).



"Free Tibet" is a rallying cry for anti-communism because of the association with China. Most using it will have little interest or understanding of the history.Yes this is very true, especially with doe-eyed American celebrities.


But, most important: although I am very sure that any withdrawal of China from Tibet, should that ever happen, would not entail the return to power of the old priesthood, it would lead to few substantive changes. The new government would be, presumably, either West or India-aligned, probably developing some sort of "democratic parliament", while of course any real structure remains largely the same; simultaneously, it would lead to the rise of a fierce nationalist backlash and even more acute ethnic squabbles; possibly even deportations by a new nationalist government.
Ah, finally someone who understands that decolonization does not mean some strange return to the material conditions which existed before colonization. You'd think more Marxists would get that, but there you go.

I think the main point is that economically it would be economically indistinguishable from the current bourgeois government. In fact, Tibet is liable to push for good relations with China, or even merely an increased autonomous status within China, due to the strong economic links between the two. And as I mentioned before the Dalai Lama and people around him stopped calling for independence so much as greater autonomy, so you might see some kind of local socio-economic parliament with the PRC still basically running military and diplomatic affairs.


That excerpt doesn't really lend credence to the claims that Tibet was some kind of ultra-brutal slave system pre-PRC governance, though.

Even if it were, does it matter? A huge swath of India was one ruled by a powerful Feudal empire called the Maratha Empire. This empire was dismantled by the British in the 1700s and 1800s, and its nobility became the nobility of British India. This feudal aristocracy continued to exist until independence. Did Communists in the 1940s oppose Indian independence because the reactionary Indian feudal lords, who still had a great deal of wealth and influence, would inevitably have taken over again? Or in Vietnam. Vietnam at the time of conquest had a terrible, feudal government, and by the 40s was ruled by the French Imperialist bourgeoisie. We do not assume that the Vietnamese nationalist struggle against France was grounded in a desire to return to feudalism - on the contrary, that would be seen as nuts. It's a completely ahistorical understanding of how nations change over time.

Also, the Dalai Lama was still a teenager ruling a several-thousand-year-old civilization when the Tibetans were occupied, as was probably any other Tibetan exile young enough at the time of occupation to still be alive today, so it's ludicrous to think that all the Tibetan exiles are somehow responsible for these terrific crimes against humanity.

[ind_com]

Even if it were, does it matter? A huge swath of India was one ruled by a powerful Feudal empire called the Maratha Empire. This empire was dismantled by the British in the 1700s and 1800s, and its nobility became the nobility of British India. This feudal aristocracy continued to exist until independence. Did Communists in the 1940s oppose Indian independence because the reactionary Indian feudal lords, who still had a great deal of wealth and influence, would inevitably have taken over again?

The Indian feudal classes held power locally in the British Raj as well. They helped British imperialism to maintain its rule over India. In 1947, British imperialism did not leave India, but started ruling through these puppets that they had carefully trained. So there was no real regime change. The CPI was also centrally controlled by these agents of imperialism, so they hailed this fake transfer of power as 'independence', so that their imperialist masters could continue to exploit India. A real independence movement would have constituted the working classes seizing power. What happened in 1947 was nothing more than a drama to neutralize the rebellious Indian masses.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I know how the British Raj used the Rajas and caste law to rule India. However it was clearly not that older feudal class which took power in 1947. The Maharajas live off of renting their palaces to Bollywood directors for movie sets - the Ambani family right now has more wealth and power than any descendant of an Indian monarch.

My point is this - none of these countries actually restored their previous political systems once decolonization rolled around, because those political systems no longer had relevance to the economic relations which their states were in. Likewise, Tibet, if it ever somehow gained independence, would not somehow magically revert to pre-1950 political and economic models.

[Sasha]

You cannot separate out "national rights" in this case from the struggle of imperialism, against China. That is what this is about. I have no doubt that Tibet is better off under the CCP than as a pre-feudal theocracy. That is progress. Fuck the white man's burden shit. China did not go into Tibet to extract massive surplus value -- it has little to do with the colonization of Africa. With the WB logic, you wind up supporting the mullahs against the soviet backed PDPA reformers in Afghanistan, among the most reactionary forces in the world. All in the name of national rights? Also much the same as those who supported the captured nations crap about Eastern European countries being "colonized" by the USSR. It is reactionary stuff.

I'm pretty sure at least the Israeli Arabs and probably most Palestinians are better of working under Israeli rule now than what they used to have, black south Africans where also a lot better of under apartheid than most of their neighbours....

You see, this is why national-liberation and anti-impism is completely useless orientalist cherrypicking. We either support the liberation of all people from all leaders and nation states or you are just the "leftist" version of dick Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons...

[Crux]

Tibetans in revolt – what is the way forward? (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1961/)

psycho:
I'll have to disagree, although some anti-imp policy seems to be determined by that long tradition of what the maoists of the day used to call "social imperialism" namely an extension of soviet (and chinese) ruling clique geopolitics. This stance is complicated further by the apparent lack of any USSR and while some still orient to the PRC you would be hard pressed to find anyone seeing it as the leading light of the world revolution, the way it was seen in 60's and 70's.
That doesn't mean your "all or nothing" approach is more correct though, strategy and tactics still apply, the real question must be though strategy and tactics...towards what?

[TheEmancipator]

Many Imperial projects are justified on the grounds of "civilizing" and "modernizing" some primitive and harsh society which seems inert despite the modernizing forces of technology and democracy. This justification is strikingly similar to the notion of the "White Man's Burden". Based on the current state of the Chinese government, there is no reason to think that being opposed to PRC rule equates to anti-communism. On the contrary, being ruled by a bunch of wealthy state Capitalists from Beijing is no more appealing than being run by the British Empire. Do we assume that all African nationalists opposed to British rule were motivated by a desire to return to a society dominated by chiefs and tribal warlords? Are the Tibetans not able to find modernity independently of a (Capitalist) Chinese state?
I agree, but the doesn't mean we should somehow repress a people who want to emancipate themselves. Reminds me of Czechoslovakia...

[ind_com]

I know how the British Raj used the Rajas and caste law to rule India. However it was clearly not that older feudal class which took power in 1947. The Maharajas live off of renting their palaces to Bollywood directors for movie sets - the Ambani family right now has more wealth and power than any descendant of an Indian monarch.

My point is this - none of these countries actually restored their previous political systems once decolonization rolled around, because those political systems no longer had relevance to the economic relations which their states were in. Likewise, Tibet, if it ever somehow gained independence, would not somehow magically revert to pre-1950 political and economic models.

Since there was no regime change, your example still does not match the point you are trying to make, but I understand your argument. What I am expecting is not an exact reversal to the Lamaist stage, but a new puppet government under US imperialism that can bring back many evils of the Lamaist regime, while increasing the exploitation of Tibetans.

Also another interesting point to notice is that today wherever there is genuine and intense demand for national liberation, it usually breaks out in the form of militant struggle. The same is happening in north eastern India, Balochistan or Chechnya. I think given the militancy of the working class in China, when national liberation becomes a popular demand in Tibet, it will also take the form of guerrilla war.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I'm pretty sure at least the Israeli Arabs and probably most Palestinians are better of working under Israeli rule now than what they used to have, black south Africans where also a lot better of under apartheid than most of their neighbours....

You see, this is why national-liberation and anti-impism is completely useless orientalist cherrypicking. We either support the liberation of all people from all leaders and nation states or you are just the "leftist" version of dick Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons...
Strongly disagree. It is not all the same. And we can make choices as to what is historically progressive. Assuming that in every case nationalism is progressive makes no sense -- what about when there are competing nationalisms? Leninists support the right to national liberation only to the extent that it does not come into conflict with proletarian class interests. In the case of Tibet it is a no-brainer. The key for me is the class nature of the PRC. That they brought modern civilization to Tibet is obvious. I think the comparison to Israeli Arabs/Palestinians, who suffer extreme repression under the jackboot of Israeli/US imperialism and the lot of black South Africans is specious. The average Tibetan is not only materially better off, but probably has far more degrees of freedom in their lives than during the oft-lamented theocracy that existed before.

Of course if your main beef with Cheney is that he did not hold national rights above all others, then I guess that is an apt analogy. My main beef is that he was the imperialist pig in-chief of the US and its armed forces and liberally used them to expand US power.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Even if it were, does it matter?

Well, if it really were a brutal heinous theo-fascist slave system, which is the common refrain from some on the left over this issue, and the PRC ended this practice, then I'd say that would be somewhat of an improvement over what formerly existed. The problem is that I've never really seen anything about this topic that doesn't come from an unabashedly pro-PRC source, like that boob Michael Parenti.

That being said, I don't really have any regard for national liberation movements. I understand the appeal, but I don't really find them progressive at all.

[bcbm]

That they brought modern civilization to Tibet is obvious.

i think this is a really, really poor criteria to judge whether something was good and, as mentioned, is the cry of empire for centuries.


I think the comparison to Israeli Arabs/Palestinians, who suffer extreme repression under the jackboot of Israeli/US imperialism and the lot of black South Africans is specious.

well there are plenty of other historical examples of 'modern civilization' being brought to 'feudal theocracies' or whatever. take your pick


The average Tibetan is not only materially better off, but probably has far more degrees of freedom in their lives than during the oft-lamented theocracy that existed before.

'probably'

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Did they liberate it now?

They did; the dominance of the bureaucracy in the glacis states should not blind us to the objective character of the destruction of fascism.


I guess forced collectivisation is pro-working class if it's put into practice for the 'greater good' of infrastructure in twenty years for a detached and irrational exploitative oligarchic national-chauvinist amoeba, Hm?

Collectivisation is an indispensible part of the construction of communism in any society where small individual farming predominates in agriculture; the ruling bureaucracies of the glacis states implemented collectivisation in a confused or sporadic manner and should be criticised for it, but collectivisation, even forced collectivisation if the circumstances demand it, is necessary if the peasantry is to be eliminated as a class.


Actually, its the remnants of the autonomous Tibetan government under Mao, as well as a host of Tibetan refugees who dislike harsh Chinese state rule. Yeah, lest you folks forget, the PRC allowed the Dalai Lama to rule Tibet for another 10 years with Chinese state support.

Alright, and? I think no single poster supports, or even can support on pain of blatant inconsistency, everything Mao did. This autonomous government was still the continuation of the theocratic-feudal Tibetan regime.


I've yet to see anyone make a convincing case that the Tibetan exiles want a return to feudalism. That argument is a fucking joke based on nothing more than Chinese state propaganda.

The ideology of their "government in exile" is feudal enough; but due to the material circumstances, of course, there is no possibility of a restoration of feudalism in Tibet, for any extended period of time. A more likely scenario is that an "independent" Tibet would become a US or Indian puppet, with a capitalist economy and racist, semifeudal social policies. A Bhutan on a larger scale, if you will.


(2) Don't you see that viewing all Tibetan Lamas as violent, scheming feudalists is actually more Orientalist?

It might be, but I have never claimed that all lamas are scheming orientalist devils. That said, they are the clergy of an extremely reactionary religion; as such, they are more likely than not to hold certain attitudes and so on. But this has nothing to do with "the Orient"; it isn't as if Catholic or Greek Orthodox clergy are any different.


(3) What do we use to base the idea that "ordinary Tibetans" support Chinese rule? It is a heavily policed area and there is actually a significant amount of unrest.

What unrest? One or two people immolating themselves? Come, now, India is just as heavily policed as Tibet, but that does not seem to have deterred the Naxalites - because they have an actual popular movement backing them, not some vague dreams of a Heimat.


Excesses! What a great excuse. They were just "excesses". Were these "excesses" publicly confessed and apologized for? Did the victims receive compensation? An "excess" is just a word for a war crime which we want to ignore.

Why do people have this overwhelming need to twist my words? Those events, if they happened, were war crimes. But they can not call the progressive nature of the destruction of the Tibetan theocracy into account, no more than war crimes by the Red Army can call the progressive character of the destruction of fascism into account.


It's funny how any account of state brutality by the US or some imperialist European power is assumed to have taken place but any account of state brutality by some state Capitalist dictatorship with a red flag is "anti-communist hysteria".

That might have something to do with the fact that imperialist brutality is amply documented.

[blake 3:17]

In many senses, the Palestinian and Tibetan freedom struggles are parallel. I fully support both.

The garbage about China modernizing Tibet is only a bit different from the narrative of Israel, or the narratives of the US and Canada. This is the worst kind of reductionist Marxism.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

i think this is a really, really poor criteria to judge whether something was good and, as mentioned, is the cry of empire for centuries.



well there are plenty of other historical examples of 'modern civilization' being brought to 'feudal theocracies' or whatever. take your pick



'probably'
Since you are apparently uninterested in which class rules, it becomes all about who is weaker and who is beating up on whom. Empty moral categories, really. Generally speaking imperialism weakens the countries it dominates -- economically, and socially. This is generally not the case with the foreign support from the deformed workers states, because their aims are different. Was Cuba, for example, economically or socially weakened by its relationship to the USSR? Not so much. Did Soviet Central Asia suffer from being part of the USSR? Obviously not. If you start to lament the loss of old customs and ways of life it is a very short trip to longing for the "good old days" of chattel slavery for women and theocracy.

[blake 3:17]

Generally speaking imperialism weakens the countries it dominates -- economically, and socially. This is generally not the case with the foreign support from the deformed workers states, because their aims are different.

In the year 2013, do you think China's interest in Tibet is anything more than a land grab?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

In the year 2013, do you think China's interest in Tibet is anything more than a land grab?
I think it is a lot more complicated than that, comrade. I doubt they benefit a whole lot financially from the relationship.

[Crux]

Tibetans in revolt – what is the way forward?

Wednesday, 13 March 2013.
Chinese regime’s repression responsible for Tibetan self-immolations

chinaworker.info reporters

March 14 will mark the fifth anniversary of the protests across Tibetan-populated regions against suffocating political and religious repression by the Communist Party (CCP) regime. This also coincides with the anniversary, on March 10, of the crushing of the Tibetan revolt of 1959. Up to 200 people lost their lives in the countdown to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, in the most serious upheavals in Tibet since 1989. The protests began peacefully, until repression by the state triggered riots and serious inter-ethnic clashes between Tibetans and Han Chinese, and led many in China to support the subsequent crackdown.
http://www.chinaworker.info/get_img?NrArticle=1961&NrImage=7


Five years on, and the agony of Tibetans is expressed in a wave of horrific self-immolations. More than 100 ethnic Tibetans have set themselves on fire over the past two years in a shocking new method of protest against Chinese state repression. Of these suicides and attempted suicides, around one-fifth were just 18 years of age of younger.

Carrot and stick

The militarized response of the CCP dictatorship has failed to quell these protests and bring ‘stability’. Religious oppression always and everywhere reinforces the grip of religion rather than reducing it. This has been the experience throughout the Muslim world in the last quarter of a century and there are examples with other faiths. As we socialists warned five years ago, the intensified crackdown on Tibetan Buddhist religious institutions – many of which are now under military rule – and on all expressions of Tibetan ‘separatism’ such as pictures of the Dalai Lama, has further alienated large numbers of Tibetan youth especially.

Like a machine with just one setting, the CCP regime has only one answer to the current spate of political suicides – more repression! Last month a court in Gansu province sentenced three Tibetans to up to 15 years in prison after finding them guilty of “intentional homicide” for allegedly encouraging self-immolations. In Qinghai, over 70 have been arrested in recent weeks on similar charges. A 20-year old artist from Lhasa received two years in a labour camp for possessing digital photographs of two self-immolators.

Beijing’s strategy of adding some ‘carrots’ to the ‘stick’ of repression, by boosting investments into Tibetan regions, has not helped to alleviate the situation. Despite large-scale construction projects, especially into the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), in the past few years, the wealth gap has widened, with most Tibetans trapped at the bottom. Frenzied property speculation has pushed house prices out of reach of the majority in cities such as Lhasa, as in cities across China. A booming economy has mainly benefited the increasing numbers of Han Chinese and excludes Tibetans, especially the young, who more than ever move to other parts of China for work. Jiang Zemin’s famous slogan “grasping with both hands” – using repression and investment – translates into a stranglehold for the oppressed Tibetan masses.
The processes at work in Tibetan-populated regions resemble those across China as the gap between rich and poor reaches explosive levels. Land grabs to feed the urban property bubble are displacing rural communities without providing jobs or a sustainable alternative lifestyle. More than one million Tibetan herders have been resettled, many into urban compounds where they live on a small government grant. “People who live in these houses look at it like a jail,” one young Tibetan told the International Herald Tribune (25 February 2013).


Increasing nationalism

As with the street protests of five years ago, most self-immolations have occurred not inside the TAR, but in nominally ‘autonomous’ Tibetan-populated regions of provinces like Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu. “Today it is in Sichuan’s highlands that the authorities appear to be struggling most to contain simmering discontent among ethnic Tibetans,” reported The Economist. This represents a shift, and for Beijing a new strategic headache. In the past these regions were seen as comparatively ‘stable’, with good relations between ethnic communities including Han and Tibetans. The iron fist of CCP rule, and its ‘zero tolerance’ towards legitimate demands for religious and cultural freedom, have resulted in increased nationalism both among the majority and minority communities.

Riot police were called to quell violent clashes between Han and Tibetan students at a collage in Chengdu in late 2011, caused by Beijing’s educational policies which manifest nationalist and bureaucratic dogmatism. Han students at the school began posting online protests against Tibetan students receiving government subsidies. Among many Han students this perceived ‘favouritism’ caused great resentment. But at the same time Tibetan students feel aggrieved because they must study far from home – and in Mandarin – in order to obtain a university education. It shows incredible rigidity that the Chinese regime insists on Mandarin language teaching in higher education. This ignores the examples from many countries with multilingual education systems. Even Tibetan language classes operating outside the state-controlled education system have been closed by authorities.

Defeating dictatorship

The desperation that is driving Tibetan self-immolations is a product of the regime’s crackdown. It also reflects frustration among radicalised Tibetans after their Olympic-linked mass protests were isolated and thwarted in 2008. Many activists fighting for self-determination and for an end to Chinese state repression were surprised and disoriented by the refusal of the so-called ‘international community’ to raise its voice in support of Tibetan rights or support calls to boycott the Beijing games despite the widespread sympathy for the Tibetan cause among ordinary people overseas. But as socialists explained at that time, it was predictable that capitalist Western governments and institutions like the UN, which are tied through multi-billion dollar business contracts and trade links into a close economic relationship with the CCP dictatorship, would adopt a low-key approach over the events in Tibet and not allow this to interfere with business.

Whenever the capitalist powers intervene abroad to champion ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, these slogans are a cover of pure hypocrisy to hide their real aims, which are rooted in capitalism’s chase for markets, resources and profits. The disastrous US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not about ‘democracy’ but about oil, control of a vital region, and projecting US power. The Chinese regime supported the US in these conflicts, for its own great power reasons. The capitalist ‘international community’ has an appalling track record of betraying oppressed nationalities such as the Palestinians, Kurds and Rohingya. The Tibetan struggle ignores these historical lessons at its peril. Similarly, the Arab revolutions, when the masses of Egypt and Tunisia toppled military dictators, and the key role of independent unions and workers’ strikes in these struggles, hold vital lessons for Tibet’s future.

Socialists support the right of the Tibetan people to independence. We fight for full democratic rights in China and internationally, including freedom of religion, while underlining that separation of the state and religion is a vital democratic safeguard. But to win freedom from national oppression, the Tibetan youth especially must see their struggle as linked to the struggle of the working masses across China against the same one-party dictatorship. Working class unity and international solidarity are the key to success in this struggle, rather than false hopes in foreign governments and capitalist institutions.

For the same reasons, the ‘middle way’ strategy put forward by the exile Tibetan leadership and most vocally by the Dalai Lama, of hoped for negotiations and compromise with the CCP, will lead nowhere. Frustration over this abortive strategy has radicalised more and more Tibetan youth but is also one of the factors fuelling the wave of self-immolations. These reveal a feeling of powerlessness flowing from the lack of mass struggle and a viable strategy to take on the Chinese regime.

Similar vain hopes in the willingness or ability of the CCP leaders to negotiate are harboured by sections of the pan democratic leaders in Hong Kong. They falsely believe by practicing ‘moderation’ they can get special terms for Hong Kong, in return for accepting continued dictatorial rule on the Chinese mainland. By so doing they weaken, not strengthen, the struggle for democratic rights in Hong Kong, by turning away from the main force to achieve change – the gigantic but as yet unorganized working class of China. The CCP regime fears the break-up of China and for this reason resists granting political concessions to Tibet, just as it wants to curb Hong Kong’s increasingly radical ‘protest culture’, fearing any precedents that could encourage other regions to challenge Beijing’s control.

As many commentators have said recently, China’s new leaders face the spectre of ‘revolution’ if today’s grievous social contradictions and economic imbalances continue. While it has yet to build independent organisations, it is the working class, the real creator of wealth in society, that is the key to change in China and everywhere else.

It is towards this revolutionary perspective, for a democratic and socialist transformation in China, Tibet, and internationally, that the advanced Tibetan youth should turn their focus. Socialists stand for united working class struggle to win decent jobs, affordable homes and free healthcare. This requires democratic public ownership and planning of the economy. For this struggle to succeed, democratic fighting organisations are needed, students’ unions, women’s organisations and especially workers’ organisations, to elect representatives for the struggle, and decide policies, tactics and methods.

We stand for the immediate withdrawal of paramilitary forces from Tibetan areas, and a working class appeal to end the tragic self-immolations in favour of common struggle against the current system. We defend the right of all national and linguistic groups to use their mother tongue at school and in their interactions with government. We call for a truly free press, not monopolised by business interests or government, free from political censorship and with generous funding for minority language publications and broadcasting. Socialists stand for united struggle by working people of all nationalities against capitalist exploitation, for a genuine and voluntary socialist confederation of states throughout Asia, with the right of nations to self-determination, including to separate if this is their wish.

We warn that on a capitalist basis there can be no genuine national independence, especially for smaller states, only neo-colonial control by bigger powers (for example nominally independent Nepal, which neighbours Tibet, is bossed by both India and China). The struggle for freedom in Tibet can only succeed as a socialist struggle to remake the world!

[kashkin]

I think it is a lot more complicated than that, comrade. I doubt they benefit a whole lot financially from the relationship.

Actually yes, control over Tibet and Sinkiang have allowed China to increase links with the Central Asian republics, and more importantly gain access to their oil reserves. But more than that, Tibet is a massive airbase protected by mountains on at least one side. Any war with India will see long-range bomber fly over the Himalayas to the central Indian plain, while Indian aircraft would have to fly over the whole of China to reach the east coast.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Tibetans in revolt – what is the way forward?

Wednesday, 13 March 2013.
Chinese regime’s repression responsible for Tibetan self-immolations

chinaworker.info reporters

March 14 will mark the fifth anniversary of the protests across Tibetan-populated regions against suffocating political and religious repression by the Communist Party (CCP) regime. This also coincides with the anniversary, on March 10, of the crushing of the Tibetan revolt of 1959. Up to 200 people lost their lives in the countdown to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, in the most serious upheavals in Tibet since 1989. The protests began peacefully, until repression by the state triggered riots and serious inter-ethnic clashes between Tibetans and Han Chinese, and led many in China to support the subsequent crackdown.
http://www.chinaworker.info/get_img?NrArticle=1961&NrImage=7


Five years on, and the agony of Tibetans is expressed in a wave of horrific self-immolations. More than 100 ethnic Tibetans have set themselves on fire over the past two years in a shocking new method of protest against Chinese state repression. Of these suicides and attempted suicides, around one-fifth were just 18 years of age of younger.

Carrot and stick

The militarized response of the CCP dictatorship has failed to quell these protests and bring ‘stability’. Religious oppression always and everywhere reinforces the grip of religion rather than reducing it. This has been the experience throughout the Muslim world in the last quarter of a century and there are examples with other faiths. As we socialists warned five years ago, the intensified crackdown on Tibetan Buddhist religious institutions – many of which are now under military rule – and on all expressions of Tibetan ‘separatism’ such as pictures of the Dalai Lama, has further alienated large numbers of Tibetan youth especially.

Like a machine with just one setting, the CCP regime has only one answer to the current spate of political suicides – more repression! Last month a court in Gansu province sentenced three Tibetans to up to 15 years in prison after finding them guilty of “intentional homicide” for allegedly encouraging self-immolations. In Qinghai, over 70 have been arrested in recent weeks on similar charges. A 20-year old artist from Lhasa received two years in a labour camp for possessing digital photographs of two self-immolators.

Beijing’s strategy of adding some ‘carrots’ to the ‘stick’ of repression, by boosting investments into Tibetan regions, has not helped to alleviate the situation. Despite large-scale construction projects, especially into the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), in the past few years, the wealth gap has widened, with most Tibetans trapped at the bottom. Frenzied property speculation has pushed house prices out of reach of the majority in cities such as Lhasa, as in cities across China. A booming economy has mainly benefited the increasing numbers of Han Chinese and excludes Tibetans, especially the young, who more than ever move to other parts of China for work. Jiang Zemin’s famous slogan “grasping with both hands” – using repression and investment – translates into a stranglehold for the oppressed Tibetan masses.
The processes at work in Tibetan-populated regions resemble those across China as the gap between rich and poor reaches explosive levels. Land grabs to feed the urban property bubble are displacing rural communities without providing jobs or a sustainable alternative lifestyle. More than one million Tibetan herders have been resettled, many into urban compounds where they live on a small government grant. “People who live in these houses look at it like a jail,” one young Tibetan told the International Herald Tribune (25 February 2013).


Increasing nationalism

As with the street protests of five years ago, most self-immolations have occurred not inside the TAR, but in nominally ‘autonomous’ Tibetan-populated regions of provinces like Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu. “Today it is in Sichuan’s highlands that the authorities appear to be struggling most to contain simmering discontent among ethnic Tibetans,” reported The Economist. This represents a shift, and for Beijing a new strategic headache. In the past these regions were seen as comparatively ‘stable’, with good relations between ethnic communities including Han and Tibetans. The iron fist of CCP rule, and its ‘zero tolerance’ towards legitimate demands for religious and cultural freedom, have resulted in increased nationalism both among the majority and minority communities.

Riot police were called to quell violent clashes between Han and Tibetan students at a collage in Chengdu in late 2011, caused by Beijing’s educational policies which manifest nationalist and bureaucratic dogmatism. Han students at the school began posting online protests against Tibetan students receiving government subsidies. Among many Han students this perceived ‘favouritism’ caused great resentment. But at the same time Tibetan students feel aggrieved because they must study far from home – and in Mandarin – in order to obtain a university education. It shows incredible rigidity that the Chinese regime insists on Mandarin language teaching in higher education. This ignores the examples from many countries with multilingual education systems. Even Tibetan language classes operating outside the state-controlled education system have been closed by authorities.

Defeating dictatorship

The desperation that is driving Tibetan self-immolations is a product of the regime’s crackdown. It also reflects frustration among radicalised Tibetans after their Olympic-linked mass protests were isolated and thwarted in 2008. Many activists fighting for self-determination and for an end to Chinese state repression were surprised and disoriented by the refusal of the so-called ‘international community’ to raise its voice in support of Tibetan rights or support calls to boycott the Beijing games despite the widespread sympathy for the Tibetan cause among ordinary people overseas. But as socialists explained at that time, it was predictable that capitalist Western governments and institutions like the UN, which are tied through multi-billion dollar business contracts and trade links into a close economic relationship with the CCP dictatorship, would adopt a low-key approach over the events in Tibet and not allow this to interfere with business.

Whenever the capitalist powers intervene abroad to champion ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, these slogans are a cover of pure hypocrisy to hide their real aims, which are rooted in capitalism’s chase for markets, resources and profits. The disastrous US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not about ‘democracy’ but about oil, control of a vital region, and projecting US power. The Chinese regime supported the US in these conflicts, for its own great power reasons. The capitalist ‘international community’ has an appalling track record of betraying oppressed nationalities such as the Palestinians, Kurds and Rohingya. The Tibetan struggle ignores these historical lessons at its peril. Similarly, the Arab revolutions, when the masses of Egypt and Tunisia toppled military dictators, and the key role of independent unions and workers’ strikes in these struggles, hold vital lessons for Tibet’s future.

Socialists support the right of the Tibetan people to independence. We fight for full democratic rights in China and internationally, including freedom of religion, while underlining that separation of the state and religion is a vital democratic safeguard. But to win freedom from national oppression, the Tibetan youth especially must see their struggle as linked to the struggle of the working masses across China against the same one-party dictatorship. Working class unity and international solidarity are the key to success in this struggle, rather than false hopes in foreign governments and capitalist institutions.

For the same reasons, the ‘middle way’ strategy put forward by the exile Tibetan leadership and most vocally by the Dalai Lama, of hoped for negotiations and compromise with the CCP, will lead nowhere. Frustration over this abortive strategy has radicalised more and more Tibetan youth but is also one of the factors fuelling the wave of self-immolations. These reveal a feeling of powerlessness flowing from the lack of mass struggle and a viable strategy to take on the Chinese regime.

Similar vain hopes in the willingness or ability of the CCP leaders to negotiate are harboured by sections of the pan democratic leaders in Hong Kong. They falsely believe by practicing ‘moderation’ they can get special terms for Hong Kong, in return for accepting continued dictatorial rule on the Chinese mainland. By so doing they weaken, not strengthen, the struggle for democratic rights in Hong Kong, by turning away from the main force to achieve change – the gigantic but as yet unorganized working class of China. The CCP regime fears the break-up of China and for this reason resists granting political concessions to Tibet, just as it wants to curb Hong Kong’s increasingly radical ‘protest culture’, fearing any precedents that could encourage other regions to challenge Beijing’s control.

As many commentators have said recently, China’s new leaders face the spectre of ‘revolution’ if today’s grievous social contradictions and economic imbalances continue. While it has yet to build independent organisations, it is the working class, the real creator of wealth in society, that is the key to change in China and everywhere else.

It is towards this revolutionary perspective, for a democratic and socialist transformation in China, Tibet, and internationally, that the advanced Tibetan youth should turn their focus. Socialists stand for united working class struggle to win decent jobs, affordable homes and free healthcare. This requires democratic public ownership and planning of the economy. For this struggle to succeed, democratic fighting organisations are needed, students’ unions, women’s organisations and especially workers’ organisations, to elect representatives for the struggle, and decide policies, tactics and methods.

We stand for the immediate withdrawal of paramilitary forces from Tibetan areas, and a working class appeal to end the tragic self-immolations in favour of common struggle against the current system. We defend the right of all national and linguistic groups to use their mother tongue at school and in their interactions with government. We call for a truly free press, not monopolised by business interests or government, free from political censorship and with generous funding for minority language publications and broadcasting. Socialists stand for united struggle by working people of all nationalities against capitalist exploitation, for a genuine and voluntary socialist confederation of states throughout Asia, with the right of nations to self-determination, including to separate if this is their wish.

We warn that on a capitalist basis there can be no genuine national independence, especially for smaller states, only neo-colonial control by bigger powers (for example nominally independent Nepal, which neighbours Tibet, is bossed by both India and China). The struggle for freedom in Tibet can only succeed as a socialist struggle to remake the world!
How is it that these "socialists" wind up complaining that the Dalai Lama is not militant enough? WTF? Raising national independence above class interests is not Marxism. And in this case is no better than those fighting "Soviet Imperialism" in Cuba.

[Crux]

Did you even read the article?
"But to win freedom from national oppression, the Tibetan youth especially must see their struggle as linked to the struggle of the working masses across China against the same one-party dictatorship. Working class unity and international solidarity are the key to success in this struggle, rather than false hopes in foreign governments and capitalist institutions.

For the same reasons, the ‘middle way’ strategy put forward by the exile Tibetan leadership and most vocally by the Dalai Lama, of hoped for negotiations and compromise with the CCP, will lead nowhere. Frustration over this abortive strategy has radicalised more and more Tibetan youth but is also one of the factors fuelling the wave of self-immolations. These reveal a feeling of powerlessness flowing from the lack of mass struggle and a viable strategy to take on the Chinese regime.

[...]

As many commentators have said recently, China’s new leaders face the spectre of ‘revolution’ if today’s grievous social contradictions and economic imbalances continue. While it has yet to build independent organisations, it is the working class, the real creator of wealth in society, that is the key to change in China and everywhere else.

It is towards this revolutionary perspective, for a democratic and socialist transformation in China, Tibet, and internationally, that the advanced Tibetan youth should turn their focus. Socialists stand for united working class struggle to win decent jobs, affordable homes and free healthcare. This requires democratic public ownership and planning of the economy. For this struggle to succeed, democratic fighting organisations are needed, students’ unions, women’s organisations and especially workers’ organisations, to elect representatives for the struggle, and decide policies, tactics and methods.

We stand for the immediate withdrawal of paramilitary forces from Tibetan areas, and a working class appeal to end the tragic self-immolations in favour of common struggle against the current system. We defend the right of all national and linguistic groups to use their mother tongue at school and in their interactions with government. We call for a truly free press, not monopolised by business interests or government, free from political censorship and with generous funding for minority language publications and broadcasting. Socialists stand for united struggle by working people of all nationalities against capitalist exploitation, for a genuine and voluntary socialist confederation of states throughout Asia, with the right of nations to self-determination, including to separate if this is their wish.

We warn that on a capitalist basis there can be no genuine national independence, especially for smaller states, only neo-colonial control by bigger powers (for example nominally independent Nepal, which neighbours Tibet, is bossed by both India and China). The struggle for freedom in Tibet can only succeed as a socialist struggle to remake the world! "

Bolded the parts you forgot to read.

[conmharáin]

I don't think I ever found out the rest of the joke, much less the punch-line. What was it? "How many self-immolating Tibetans does it take to grill a chicken?" I'm guessing just one, right? Because he's on fire?

[blake 3:17]

I think it is a lot more complicated than that, comrade. I doubt they benefit a whole lot financially from the relationship.

I didn't say finances. It's territory.

[Sasha]

I don't think I ever found out the rest of the joke, much less the punch-line. What was it? "How many self-immolating Tibetans does it take to grill a chicken?" I'm guessing just one, right? Because he's on fire?

No, the punch line was, enjoy your infraction for trolling... Sheesh.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I didn't say finances. It's territory.

Are you in support of ethnic nationalism?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Did you even read the article?
"But to win freedom from national oppression, the Tibetan youth especially must see their struggle as linked to the struggle of the working masses across China against the same one-party dictatorship. Working class unity and international solidarity are the key to success in this struggle, rather than false hopes in foreign governments and capitalist institutions.

For the same reasons, the ‘middle way’ strategy put forward by the exile Tibetan leadership and most vocally by the Dalai Lama, of hoped for negotiations and compromise with the CCP, will lead nowhere. Frustration over this abortive strategy has radicalised more and more Tibetan youth but is also one of the factors fuelling the wave of self-immolations. These reveal a feeling of powerlessness flowing from the lack of mass struggle and a viable strategy to take on the Chinese regime.

[...]

As many commentators have said recently, China’s new leaders face the spectre of ‘revolution’ if today’s grievous social contradictions and economic imbalances continue. While it has yet to build independent organisations, it is the working class, the real creator of wealth in society, that is the key to change in China and everywhere else.

It is towards this revolutionary perspective, for a democratic and socialist transformation in China, Tibet, and internationally, that the advanced Tibetan youth should turn their focus. Socialists stand for united working class struggle to win decent jobs, affordable homes and free healthcare. This requires democratic public ownership and planning of the economy. For this struggle to succeed, democratic fighting organisations are needed, students’ unions, women’s organisations and especially workers’ organisations, to elect representatives for the struggle, and decide policies, tactics and methods.

We stand for the immediate withdrawal of paramilitary forces from Tibetan areas, and a working class appeal to end the tragic self-immolations in favour of common struggle against the current system. We defend the right of all national and linguistic groups to use their mother tongue at school and in their interactions with government. We call for a truly free press, not monopolised by business interests or government, free from political censorship and with generous funding for minority language publications and broadcasting. Socialists stand for united struggle by working people of all nationalities against capitalist exploitation, for a genuine and voluntary socialist confederation of states throughout Asia, with the right of nations to self-determination, including to separate if this is their wish.

We warn that on a capitalist basis there can be no genuine national independence, especially for smaller states, only neo-colonial control by bigger powers (for example nominally independent Nepal, which neighbours Tibet, is bossed by both India and China). The struggle for freedom in Tibet can only succeed as a socialist struggle to remake the world! "

Bolded the parts you forgot to read.
It is, at best, centrist claptrap. Also that is a rather odd formulation. Of course there can be national independence on a capitalist basis. If you mean that the bourgeoisies of small and semicolonial countries in this epoch will not be able to achieve even the gains of the bourgeois revolutions in developed countries and that they will be tied to and dominated by larger imperialist states, well okay.

But this is a trap. Obviously if there were a political movement, committed to a socialist Tibet, that was not simply going to provide a leftist cover for counterrevolution, then it would be supportable. But what you are going to wind up with, given the forces you support, is another Solidarnosc. Another stalking horse for imperialist intervention and conveyor belt of incredibly reactionary politics. Since you see no difference between the US and the PRC, this mistake is understandable, but lamentable. Did you learn nothing from Poland?

[bcbm]

Since you are apparently uninterested in which class rules

oh and which class rules in china?


Generally speaking imperialism weakens the countries it dominates -- economically, and socially.

after it 'modernizes' them


This is generally not the case with the foreign support from the deformed workers states, because their aims are different. Was Cuba, for example, economically or socially weakened by its relationship to the USSR? Not so much. Did Soviet Central Asia suffer from being part of the USSR? Obviously not.

invasion is now the same as 'foreign support?' interesting


If you start to lament the loss of old customs and ways of life it is a very short trip to longing for the "good old days" of chattel slavery for women and theocracy.

who is lamenting anything?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, if it really were a brutal heinous theo-fascist slave system, which is the common refrain from some on the left over this issue, and the PRC ended this practice, then I'd say that would be somewhat of an improvement over what formerly existed. The problem is that I've never really seen anything about this topic that doesn't come from an unabashedly pro-PRC source, like that boob Michael Parenti.

That being said, I don't really have any regard for national liberation movements. I understand the appeal, but I don't really find them progressive at all.

It was an isolated, poor, feudal economy, no more, no less. It was no more "fascist" than any other feudal society, nor was it any more brutal. What it needed was for its economy to open up to the world and have the opportunity to modernize. The Chinese state of course did do that to a point, but was it the necessary agent to do so, and do we support the argument that if Tibetans were left to their own devices that feudalism would somehow return as if it was in their blood? Was feudalism a response to their material conditions or something somehow essential to Tibetan Buddhism in an idealist sense?

I agree with you on national liberation but based on what you've posted before I'm guessing you also agree with me that one can easily sympathize with the conditions that lead people to think of it as a solution.



The ideology of their "government in exile" is feudal enough; but due to the material circumstances, of course, there is no possibility of a restoration of feudalism in Tibet, for any extended period of time. A more likely scenario is that an "independent" Tibet would become a US or Indian puppet, with a capitalist economy and racist, semifeudal social policies. A Bhutan on a larger scale, if you will.


This seems like more speculation than fact - what evidence do you have? The Dalai Lama gave up on independence as I mentioned in a previous reply because the economic and social links with China are too great. Tibet can't just break off ties with China, there are economic and social realities tying the two together on a deep level.


It might be, but I have never claimed that all lamas are scheming orientalist devils. That said, they are the clergy of an extremely reactionary religion; as such, they are more likely than not to hold certain attitudes and so on. But this has nothing to do with "the Orient"; it isn't as if Catholic or Greek Orthodox clergy are any different.What "attitudes"? Catholic and Orthodox priests take conservative views which seem obnoxious to leftists, but they aren't feudal. Most religious institutions which aren't insurrectionary offshoots are no more or less radical than the material conditions they were in. Tibetan politics of the pre-Chinese era reflected the conditions of that society not the evil plot of a sinister cabal of theocrats.


hat unrest? One or two people immolating themselves? Come, now, India is just as heavily policed as Tibet, but that does not seem to have deterred the Naxalites - because they have an actual popular movement backing them, not some vague dreams of a Heimat.
There have been substantial protests and unrest aside from self immolations across Tibet on numerous occasions. And the number of self immolations has been around 100.

I also don't know what you mean by saying that "India" is just as heavily policed as Tibet. India is a large, densely populated country with worse infrastructure than China. Also, the Naxalite area is a fairly heavily populated dense jungle and the Indian police have some serious questions of effectiveness.


Why do people have this overwhelming need to twist my words? Those events, if they happened, were war crimes. But they can not call the progressive nature of the destruction of the Tibetan theocracy into account, no more than war crimes by the Red Army can call the progressive character of the destruction of fascism into account.It doesn't change the fact that these actions were obviously avoidable and punishable and had nothing to do with "liberating" anyone. Why would a Tibetan farmer care that he is being liberated from feudalism when his wife is being raped and killed by a group of soldiers with no oversight?

Why was a Chinese invasion necessary to end Tibetan theocracy? Why was a police state in Tibet necessary to achieve it? Tibetan theocracy was a response to material conditions of isolation and low productivity. The argument that China needed to do what it did to modernize Tibet is weak because it assumes that Tibet needs China and because it ignores that the PRC has become a critical part of the global capitalist economy. Again, you can make the exact same argument about imperialism and decolonization. The British invasion of the Yoruba cities dismantled a bunch of slaving city states which committed terrible crimes against humanity, but it was never assumed by Leftists that a continued British presence was somehow a necessary component in maintaining the modernization of that area. When the British left, did Nigeria descend into a collection of slave republics? Does the fact that the cities of Nigeria are no longer slave states justify the British exploitation of that area and the application of centralized law and order against the indigenous population?


That might have something to do with the fact that imperialist brutality is amply documented. And the Chinese state does not commit brutal acts which have been amply documented too?



But this is a trap. Obviously if there were a political movement, committed to a socialist Tibet, that was not simply going to provide a leftist cover for counterrevolution, then it would be supportable. But what you are going to wind up with, given the forces you support, is another Solidarnosc. Another stalking horse for imperialist intervention and conveyor belt of incredibly reactionary politics. Since you see no difference between the US and the PRC, this mistake is understandable, but lamentable. Did you learn nothing from Poland?

Poland in 1980s=/=China in 2013.

Do say, what IS the difference between the Chinese and the US? The way their enterprises relate to labor is capitalist, the way they relate to other nation states is capitalist, the way they relate to their own citizens is capitalist, the ruling classes are capitalist ... both of these states are capitalist. The PRC has a red flag I guess ... praise to red flags! As long as a country with a red flag conquers an area, it doesn't matter if geopolitical posturing, economic exploitation and political repression occurs, because what happens there looks communist to anyone who doesn't think about it for more than half a second.

[Crux]

It is, at best, centrist claptrap. Also that is a rather odd formulation. Of course there can be national independence on a capitalist basis. If you mean that the bourgeoisies of small and semicolonial countries in this epoch will not be able to achieve even the gains of the bourgeois revolutions in developed countries and that they will be tied to and dominated by larger imperialist states, well okay.

But this is a trap. Obviously if there were a political movement, committed to a socialist Tibet, that was not simply going to provide a leftist cover for counterrevolution, then it would be supportable. But what you are going to wind up with, given the forces you support, is another Solidarnosc. Another stalking horse for imperialist intervention and conveyor belt of incredibly reactionary politics. Since you see no difference between the US and the PRC, this mistake is understandable, but lamentable. Did you learn nothing from Poland?
Or it's the leninist position on the right for national independence.
Yes, a semi-colony is not independent. Mind blowing stuff, I know.

And here you are acting as if the final trajectory of Solidarnosc was somehow inevitable, while leaving a caveat for a movement "committed to a socialist Tibet." Have you learned nothing from Poland?
"So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism," and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism," and that will be a social revolution!"- Lenin

Yes, we do not hang on to a nostalgic view of the PRC, it is, today, a capitalist state and an ascending imperial power. So it certainly has some things in common with the U.S, but no it doesn't mean they are "the same", states are not identical. But do tell me what you think the fundamental difference is.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Under the direction of the CCP, the PRC is more and more exploiting Tibetan territory for the benefit of the Han people and to the detriment of Tibetans. Seems directly analogous to the partition of Poland between the German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian empires. Therefore, supporting the CCP-controlled PRC is reductionism.

[blake 3:17]

Are you in support of ethnic nationalism?

If that means opposing the displacement of peoples, the theft of land, the destruction of language and culture, and supporting the self determination of peoples, then yes.

[conmharáin]

No, the punch line was, enjoy your infraction for trolling... Sheesh.

I apologize for trolling. I guess I figured any infractions would've been dealt with privately.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Or it's the leninist position on the right for national independence.
Yes, a semi-colony is not independent. Mind blowing stuff, I know.

And here you are acting as if the final trajectory of Solidarnosc was somehow inevitable, while leaving a caveat for a movement "committed to a socialist Tibet." Have you learned nothing from Poland?
"So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism," and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism," and that will be a social revolution!"- Lenin

Yes, we do not hang on to a nostalgic view of the PRC, it is, today, a capitalist state and an ascending imperial power. So it certainly has some things in common with the U.S, but no it doesn't mean they are "the same", states are not identical. But do tell me what you think the fundamental difference is.
In Poland there were groups claiming to be socialist and they all wound up tailing Solidarnosc. There is tremendous pressure in these situations to wind up tailing the most powerful (at the moment) opposition. I will read more about this "socialist" opposition, but formations that talk about socialism and cheer for counterrevoluiton are a dime a dozen.
Do they denounce the Dalai Lama and all of the reactionary "pro democracy" movement? Do they denounce any US involvement in Tibet? That would at least show some kind of promise.

As far as I know, your movement never recognized the Chinese Revolution as anything more than one for national liberation (please correct me if I am wrong). The fact that capitalism was overthrown, that there was a planned collectivized economy means so little to you and the political offspring of Tony Cliff. China is not yet capitalist -- And the Stalinist leadership of the PRC plays a very dangerous game. There is a real Chinese bourgeoisie and they are ready to come back at the right time. If there is a counterrevolution in China it will not be like the USSR where some of the bureaucrats became the new bourgeoisie. That was due, in part because there was no Russian bourgeoisie -- as they died off in foreign lands some time before 1991. I think in China, there will be a bloodbath of Communists. Unfortunately, without a political revolution in China, to start a course of revolutionary internationalism abroad and pro-worker policies at home, the PRC will remain vulnerable to counterrevolution. I do not have any faith in the Chinese leadership to change course.

As for Poland, I was politically active at the time of Solidarnosc's rise. It took only a month or so to deduce what it was about. One group on the left did that, the International Spartacist Tendency. They got it right, whatever you think of them. And this happened many, many times. While your tendency was cheering the Mullahs in Iran, the IST was saying, "Down with the Shah, Down with the Mullahs, workers to power. The tailing of Solidarnosc, Khomeini, and now the Tibet liberation movement winds up in betrayal of the proletariat. Again, since your class analysis of China is wrong, you are bound, repeatedly to make these kind egregious errors.

[Althusser]

How many self-immolating monks does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. Self-immolation can't change anything, which is why it's an honorable form of "resistance" by bourgeois idealist standards.

Praise of self-immolation over violence also ruins movies that would otherwise be pretty good.
s6LAS5T4FN8

EDIT: Don't mean to offend anyone... I'm still on that Revolutionary China flow.

[Aurora]

As far as I know, your movement never recognized the Chinese Revolution as anything more than one for national liberation (please correct me if I am wrong).
Crux is a CWI member last i checked, not part of the Cliffite tendency.
The majority CWI position on China is that it is still a deformed workers state but heavily deformed and involved in the development of a capitalist class capable of decisively taking the power, the quantitative changes in the economy will lead to a qualitative change in the political power but that this has not yet occurred and there is still a chance that rising workers struggles may halt or turn back the capitalist development with a revolution against the bureaucracy necessary to create a workers democracy and proletarian internationalism.
While i don't know Crux's exact position it seems to be part of the minority position which is that the PRC has completed the restoration of bourgeois power.

[Crux]

In Poland there were groups claiming to be socialist and they all wound up tailing Solidarnosc. There is tremendous pressure in these situations to wind up tailing the most powerful (at the moment) opposition. I will read more about this "socialist" opposition, but formations that talk about socialism and cheer for counterrevoluiton are a dime a dozen.
Do they denounce the Dalai Lama and all of the reactionary "pro democracy" movement? Do they denounce any US involvement in Tibet? That would at least show some kind of promise.
Yes. Again you would have known this had you read the article.


As far as I know, your movement never recognized the Chinese Revolution as anything more than one for national liberation (please correct me if I am wrong).You are wrong. (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/849/)
Also, since you apparently want to discuss that as well, a word on Poland (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1238/).


The fact that capitalism was overthrown, that there was a planned collectivized economy means so little to you and the political offspring of Tony Cliff.That's a nice strawman. Am I perhaps linking articles and debating you in vain? Are you at all interested in an actual debate?


China is not yet capitalist -- And the Stalinist leadership of the PRC plays a very dangerous game. There is a real Chinese bourgeoisie and they are ready to come back at the right time. If there is a counterrevolution in China it will not be like the USSR where some of the bureaucrats became the new bourgeoisie. That was due, in part because there was no Russian bourgeoisie -- as they died off in foreign lands some time before 1991. I think in China, there will be a bloodbath of Communists. Unfortunately, without a political revolution in China, to start a course of revolutionary internationalism abroad and pro-worker policies at home, the PRC will remain vulnerable to counterrevolution. I do not have any faith in the Chinese leadership to change course. Indeed there is a real chinese bourgeoisie. And many of them are members of the CCP leadership. So them not changing course is not a matter faith, it is a matter of class interest. The counter-revolution you speak of was effectivily carried out over the course of the last 25 years.


As for Poland, I was politically active at the time of Solidarnosc's rise. It took only a month or so to deduce what it was about. One group on the left did that, the International Spartacist Tendency. They got it right, whatever you think of them. And this happened many, many times. While your tendency was cheering the Mullahs in Iran, the IST was saying, "Down with the Shah, Down with the Mullahs, workers to power. The tailing of Solidarnosc, Khomeini, and now the Tibet liberation movement winds up in betrayal of the proletariat. Again, since your class analysis of China is wrong, you are bound, repeatedly to make these kind egregious errors.I am not in the IST, and I believe you are quite confused here.
The CWI did not tail Khomeini, indeed if memory serves there is a quite infamous Socialist Worker cover from that time.


Crux is a CWI member last i checked, not part of the Cliffite tendency.
The majority CWI position on China is that it is still a deformed workers state but heavily deformed and involved in the development of a capitalist class capable of decisively taking the power, the quantitative changes in the economy will lead to a qualitative change in the political power but that this has not yet occurred and there is still a chance that rising workers struggles may halt or turn back the capitalist development with a revolution against the bureaucracy necessary to create a workers democracy and proletarian internationalism.
While i don't know Crux's exact position it seems to be part of the minority position which is that the PRC has completed the restoration of bourgeois power.
Yes, although I believe the difference between the minority (in fact the majority position in both the chinese and swedish organization) and majority position has lessened since the discussion first emerged in 1998.
Here's an article from 2011 that sums up the majority position quite well. (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1517/)
But our shared position is nonetheless that there is an ongoing capitalist counter-revolution in China and that the chinese communist party is in fact leading that counter-revolution. The point of discussion is how far it has gone.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yes. Again you would have known this had you read the article.

You are wrong. (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/849/)
Also, since you apparently want to discuss that as well, a word on Poland (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1238/).

That's a nice strawman. Am I perhaps linking articles and debating you in vain? Are you at all interested in an actual debate?

Indeed there is a real chinese bourgeoisie. And many of them are members of the CCP leadership. So them not changing course is not a matter faith, it is a matter of class interest. The counter-revolution you speak of was effectivily carried out over the course of the last 25 years.

I am not in the IST, and I believe you are quite confused here.
The CWI did not tail Khomeini, indeed if memory serves there is a quite infamous Socialist Worker cover from that time.


Yes, although I believe the difference between the minority (in fact the majority position in both the chinese and swedish organization) and majority position has lessened since the discussion first emerged in 1998.
Here's an article from 2011 that sums up the majority position quite well. (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1517/)
But our shared position is nonetheless that there is an ongoing capitalist counter-revolution in China and that the chinese communist party is in fact leading that counter-revolution. The point of discussion is how far it has gone.
I am FULLY aware that you have no involvement with the IST, they are in contrast with your political forebears. But I will read the Polish link, thank you. The political conclusions of whom to support in China, and how to go about stem directly from the class analysis of the CCP. If it is capitalist, there is nothing to defend. If it is a D of the P, then defending that should be the first consideration. I apologize for not being thorough in my examination of the materials you have put forth. I am very busy at them moment but will try to read them in total, soon.

BTW, what was the CWIs postition on Khomeni?

[Philosopher Jay]

I am not sure what the protest symbol of setting one's self on fire means? That is perhaps a cultural problem. When prisoners go on a hunger strike, I understand it. They have no other choice but to give up their lives because of intolerable living conditions in their prison. However, practices such as setting oneself on fire or suicide bombing, are quite different. The person who sets himself on fire shows how little they care about their own bodies that they are willing to make a display out of themselves. It reminds me of the Roman general who was threatened with torture and, in response, calmly stuck his hand in a torch and let it burn to show his courage.

Suicide bombers and people who set themselves on fire simply do not move me. They show evidence that they are totally committed to their cause, but being committed to it does not make a cause just. I find it perverse and connect it more to mental illness than anything else.



Jay

[Crux]

I am FULLY aware that you have no involvement with the IST, they are in contrast with your political forebears. But I will read the Polish link, thank you. The political conclusions of whom to support in China, and how to go about stem directly from the class analysis of the CCP. If it is capitalist, there is nothing to defend. If it is a D of the P, then defending that should be the first consideration. I apologize for not being thorough in my examination of the materials you have put forth. I am very busy at them moment but will try to read them in total, soon.

BTW, what was the CWIs postition on Khomeni?
Well seeing as no wing CCP represents even a roll-back to the previous stalinist model, this analysis (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1797/) of CCP "left" Bo Xilai's rule in Chongqing makes that evidently clear, I think the conclusion is that the Chinese capitalist class today rules through the CCP. That does not mean that there may not be remains of the old state controlled economy worth defending, just as we would defend the remnants of the wellfare state here in Sweden. That these features of the Chinese economy still remain does, in my opinion, not change the fundamental character of the current regime.

From the Militant, February 1979. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1979/02/iran.htm)
"In this situation the main preoccupation of the CP has been to climb behind religious reaction and the Ayatollah in demanding the setting up of some sort of "Democratic Muslim Republic"."

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well seeing as no wing CCP represents even a roll-back to the previous stalinist model, this analysis (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1797/) of CCP "left" Bo Xilai's rule in Chongqing makes that evidently clear, I think the conclusion is that the Chinese capitalist class today rules through the CCP. That does not mean that there may not be remains of the old state controlled economy worth defending, just as we would defend the remnants of the wellfare state here in Sweden. That these features of the Chinese economy still remain does, in my opinion, not change the fundamental character of the current regime.

From the Militant, February 1979. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1979/02/iran.htm)
"In this situation the main preoccupation of the CP has been to climb behind religious reaction and the Ayatollah in demanding the setting up of some sort of "Democratic Muslim Republic"."
Ah, but Sweden has been capitalist for centuries whereas China had a revolution that overthrew capitalism. When was the counterrevolution, comrade?

The Militant article was interesting. It makes some of the essential points, but absolutely misses the grave threat that Khomeini represented to the working class. I will see if I can find Spartacist literature online written during that period -- it is immensely superior. Much clearer about the threat of the Mullahs, and sharper in its criticisms of the Iranian left. But I stand corrected, it is far better than Cliff's line at the time. Is there online material circa 1978 from your central org or theoretical journal?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

China is not yet capitalist -- And the Stalinist leadership of the PRC plays a very dangerous game.

China IS yet Capitalist. Their state-owned enterprises participate in the market and are Capital owned by the Capitalist government and managed by bourgeois Capitalists at the upper echelon of the party.


There is a real Chinese bourgeoisie and they are ready to come back at the right time. If there is a counterrevolution in China it will not be like the USSR where some of the bureaucrats became the new bourgeoisie. The real Chinese bourgeoisie is already in the politburo. The last premier of China, "Grandpa Wen" as they called him, was one of the world's richest men, and he was famous for being the most humble and least greedy of that generation of politburo members. If he was the most humble and least greedy, imagine what the more arrogant and greedy members were like.

The people at the apex of the Chinese state manage the world's largest capitalist enterprises and have gotten fabulously wealthy off of it. The idea that China is some kind of "worker's state" is a fucking joke ... if it is then the whole concept of a "worker's state" is utterly meaningless.


How many self-immolating monks does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. Self-immolation can't change anything, which is why it's an honorable form of "resistance" by bourgeois idealist standards.



I am not sure what the protest symbol of setting one's self on fire means? That is perhaps a cultural problem. When prisoners go on a hunger strike, I understand it. They have no other choice but to give up their lives because of intolerable living conditions in their prison. However, practices such as setting oneself on fire or suicide bombing, are quite different. The person who sets himself on fire shows how little they care about their own bodies that they are willing to make a display out of themselves. It reminds me of the Roman general who was threatened with torture and, in response, calmly stuck his hand in a torch and let it burn to show his courage.


Self-immolation is an effective form of protest in numerous cases. It exposes the suffering which people are dealing with in dramatic form and has instigated serious unrest and political change in history. Aside from eventually leading to the curbing of Catholic oppression in South Vietnam, the Tunisian uprising was instigated by such an event. There have also been copycats in Greece and Spain among other places. It is a form of protest which fundamentally recognizes that, as an individual, one has no power over their material conditions. At least in their death, they think, there is a chance that others will be compelled to move, or at least that the spirit of resistance will continue on some level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi


Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi (29 March 1984 – 4 January 2011; Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): محمد البوعزيزي‎) was a Tunisian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia) street vendor who set himself on fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation) on 17 December 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that he reported was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides. His act became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi#cite_note-nytimes1-2) and the wider Arab Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring), inciting demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia in protest of social and political issues in the country. The public's anger and violence intensified following Bouazizi's death, leading then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zine_El_Abidine_Ben_Ali) to step down on 14 January 2011, after 23 years in power.
The success of the Tunisian protests inspired protests in several other Arab countries, plus several non-Arab countries. The protests included several men who emulated Bouazizi's act of self-immolation, in an attempt to bring an end to their own autocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy) governments. Those men and Bouazizi were hailed by Arab commentators as "heroic martyrs of a new Middle Eastern revolution."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi#cite_note-nytimes2-3)
In 2011, Bouazizi was posthumously awarded the Sakharov Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakharov_Prize) jointly along with four others for his and their contributions to "historic changes in the Arab world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world)".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi#cite_note-recent-4) The Tunisian government honored him with a postage stamp.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi#cite_note-5) The Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) of the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) named Bouazizi as person of the year 2011http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc


Thich Quang Duc (English pronunciation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Speakerlink-new.svg/11px-Speakerlink-new.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Thich_Quang_Duc.ogg)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thich_Quang_Duc.ogg)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˌ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)tʃ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key) ˌ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)w (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ŋ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key) ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English) TICH KWONG DUUK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key); 1897 – 11 June 1963, born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_at_birth) Lam Van Tuc), was a Vietnamese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam) Mahayana Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana) monk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu) who burned himself to death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation) at a busy Saigon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_City) road intersection on 11 June 1963. Quang Duc was protesting about the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam) government led by Ngo Dinh Diem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem). Photos of his self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diệm government. Malcolm Browne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Browne) won a Pulitzer Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize) for his renowned photograph of the monk's death. After his death, his body was re-cremated, but his heart remained intact.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc#cite_note-k297-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc#cite_note-j148-2)
Quang Duc's act increased international pressure on Diệm and led him to announce reforms with the intention of mollifying the Buddhists. However, the promised reforms were not implemented, leading to a deterioration in the dispute. With protests continuing, the ARVN Special Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Republic_of_Vietnam_Special_Forces) loyal to Diệm's brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Nhu), launched nationwide raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%A1_L%E1%BB%A3i_Pagoda_raids) on Buddhist pagodas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoda), seizing Quang Duc's heart and causing deaths and widespread damage. Several Buddhist monks followed Quang Duc's example, also immolating themselves. Eventually, an Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Republic_of_Vietnam) coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup) toppled Diệm, who was assassinated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Diem) on 2 November 1963.


Suicide bombers and people who set themselves on fire simply do not move me. They show evidence that they are totally committed to their cause, but being committed to it does not make a cause just. I find it perverse and connect it more to mental illness than anything else.Why mental illness? It's obviously a response to incredible desperation, and in the case of Buddhist monks, it also involves their theology that one's individual self does not have intrinsic value (or any kind of essential existence). It would be a mistake to call self immolation an "idealistic" or "insane" form of protest because it ignores the kinds of conditions which make people take it up as an alternative to begin with.

[Crux]

Ah, but Sweden has been capitalist for centuries whereas China had a revolution that overthrew capitalism. When was the counterrevolution, comrade?

The Militant article was interesting. It makes some of the essential points, but absolutely misses the grave threat that Khomeini represented to the working class. I will see if I can find Spartacist literature online written during that period -- it is immensely superior. Much clearer about the threat of the Mullahs, and sharper in its criticisms of the Iranian left. But I stand corrected, it is far better than Cliff's line at the time. Is there online material circa 1978 from your central org or theoretical journal?
It would be fair to say that the groundwork for the counter-revolution was laid already in the late 1980's. I think the massacre in Tienanmen square has been a largely misunderstood event both by western journalists and among many on the left. While there were no doubt pro-capitalist elements, particularly among the students, I think it would be a mistake to characterize the entire movement as such, indeed I think it is a deliberate mistake both on the part of the apologists of the CPC regime and from western commentators. Crushing this movement with force was necessary for the regime to carry out neo-liberal reform while keeping the masses in check. The other motivation was, of course, to ensure that the bureaucracy could remain in power through this counter-revolution.
In both of these tasks the CCP was successful, and while it could well be argued that the counter-revolution is still ongoing I believe that from the end of 90's and forward there was a qualitative shift in the character of the CCP leadership. With Hu Jintaos presidency this development accelerated even further, this report on the Chinese NPC's (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1954/) latest meeting gives an indication how far it has gone.

And to bring it back to the subject at hand, namely Tibet, you are right that our analysis of the present regime in China and our view on Tibet are very much tied together, especially as Han-nationalism has risen to the fore as a method for the regime to split and repress the ever erupting protests from below.

I am inclined to agree, however the article was written prior to Khomeini actually seizing power, hindsight is 20/20. We are after all marxists not psychics. But in so far as the article deals with the character of the mullahs it does so correctly, meanwhile the Tudeh party condemned themselves for generations by tailing Khomeini.

If you do find them online please tell me, the Ted Grant archive was the only place I could think of.

I guess I should also add that I do not hold the Sparts in any high regard, I find their political analysis and method to be beyond parody and fundamentally rotten. I try not to throw the epithet "sect" around as much as some others might do, but when it comes to the the sparts I do think it applies to the full. Like Marx said: "The sect seeks its raison d'être and its point d'honneur not in what it has in common with the class movement, but in the particular shibboleth distinguishing it from that movement." Their position on pedophilia comes to mind. I'll leave it at that.

[MP5]

I honestly hate these morons you get in the west who support a "free" Tibet. They seem to know nothing of the politics at all, they love the Dalai Lama despite knowing nothing of the feudalistic rule before the Maoists took over and they all seem to love the Beastie Boys which is another thing that does not endear me to them.

While i support the rights of all people in a struggle for national liberation i do not support people who want to revert a nation back to a feudal shithole ruled by self appointed holy men. That is not liberation or democracy that is simply swapping capitalist rulers for far worse ones.

[bcbm]

'i support the rights of all people in a struggle for national liberation except for the ones who don't do what i want'

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It would be fair to say that the groundwork for the counter-revolution was laid already in the late 1980's. I think the massacre in Tienanmen square has been a largely misunderstood event both by western journalists and among many on the left. While there were no doubt pro-capitalist elements, particularly among the students, I think it would be a mistake to characterize the entire movement as such, indeed I think it is a deliberate mistake both on the part of the apologists of the CPC regime and from western commentators. Crushing this movement with force was necessary for the regime to carry out neo-liberal reform while keeping the masses in check. The other motivation was, of course, to ensure that the bureaucracy could remain in power through this counter-revolution.
In both of these tasks the CCP was successful, and while it could well be argued that the counter-revolution is still ongoing I believe that from the end of 90's and forward there was a qualitative shift in the character of the CCP leadership. With Hu Jintaos presidency this development accelerated even further, this report on the Chinese NPC's (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1954/) latest meeting gives an indication how far it has gone.

And to bring it back to the subject at hand, namely Tibet, you are right that our analysis of the present regime in China and our view on Tibet are very much tied together, especially as Han-nationalism has risen to the fore as a method for the regime to split and repress the ever erupting protests from below.

I am inclined to agree, however the article was written prior to Khomeini actually seizing power, hindsight is 20/20. We are after all marxists not psychics. But in so far as the article deals with the character of the mullahs it does so correctly, meanwhile the Tudeh party condemned themselves for generations by tailing Khomeini.

If you do find them online please tell me, the Ted Grant archive was the only place I could think of.

I guess I should also add that I do not hold the Sparts in any high regard, I find their political analysis and method to be beyond parody and fundamentally rotten. I try not to throw the epithet "sect" around as much as some others might do, but when it comes to the the sparts I do think it applies to the full. Like Marx said: "The sect seeks its raison d'être and its point d'honneur not in what it has in common with the class movement, but in the particular shibboleth distinguishing it from that movement." Their position on pedophilia comes to mind. I'll leave it at that.
Don't want to get into a discussion about the SL. I am well aware of your disgust for them. The SL correctly analyzed the situation in Iran BEFORE Khomeini came to power -- you must give them credit for that. And that was a very unpopular position on the left at the time. In fact, certain Iranian leftists in the US threatened forums that the SL was giving at the time about the situation in Iran. The ran front page headlines that said, "Down with the Shah, Down with the Mullahs!" Did the Militant do anything like that (not a leading question, I really don't know). As for Tudeh, their cadre were mostly exterminated after they helped administer and stabilize Khomeini's regime for about a year or so.

I think we have sparred on the issue of the bourgeois state decreeing what defines acceptable sexual behavior. I know it is off topic, I apologize to the other comrades, but you slandering the SL shouldn't go unchallenged. Again I was around when fellatio was against the law in dozens of states (a law used to persecute/prosecute homosexuals) -- was that okay? The SL's basic position is that it is not for the bourgeoisie to legislate sexual behavior. It is all about a much more open view of sexuality than you possess. And of course, the welfare of all involved is always an issue. Coercion and violence are crimes. What we are really talking about are statutory rape laws that are, again, primarily used against gays, although sometimes applied more generally. Is it for you to say that a 20 year-old and a 15 year-old should not have sex, and if they do, it constitutes rape?

[Red Commissar]

I honestly hate these morons you get in the west who support a "free" Tibet. They seem to know nothing of the politics at all, they love the Dalai Lama despite knowing nothing of the feudalistic rule before the Maoists took over and they all seem to love the Beastie Boys which is another thing that does not endear me to them.

While i support the rights of all people in a struggle for national liberation i do not support people who want to revert a nation back to a feudal shithole ruled by self appointed holy men. That is not liberation or democracy that is simply swapping capitalist rulers for far worse ones.

Not all people who are showing concern about the tibetan issue want a restoration of feudal rule. Yes, there is a lot of ignorance concerning how Tibet was before China and the Dalai Lama, but that shouldn't discount criticism of the PRC's policies towards Tibetans and other minorities. There was a time when the PRC was helping to dismantle the old system of Tibet and helping it move into a better direction, but nowadays it just seems to be an excuse for moving in Han Chinese from other parts of the country and exploiting the remaining residents.

One could also argue on similar grounds that the United Kingdom was a positive force in South Asia, and discount criticism by arguing groups agitating for independence were led by reactionary types wanting to return back to an old system. This was indeed the case in subcontinent early years with events like the sepoys in the 1857 Rebellion. Did that mean though that there wasn't legitimate grievances from the people steadily coming under British control? Or more recently with Kurds in places like Iraq and Syria whose governments were seen as progressive and self-declared socialists? Heck, this card is even brought out when people try to argue Israel is the more civilized and modern compared to Palestinians. We shouldn't ignore the real problems in those regions, criticism of Chinese policies in Tibet shouldn't be seen as supporting Dalai Lama and religious-feudalism, this is a false equivalency if not strawman.

[Crux]

Don't want to get into a discussion about the SL. I am well aware of your disgust for them. The SL correctly analyzed the situation in Iran BEFORE Khomeini came to power -- you must give them credit for that. And that was a very unpopular position on the left at the time. In fact, certain Iranian leftists in the US threatened forums that the SL was giving at the time about the situation in Iran. The ran front page headlines that said, "Down with the Shah, Down with the Mullahs!" Did the Militant do anything like that (not a leading question, I really don't know). As for Tudeh, their cadre were mostly exterminated after they helped administer and stabilize Khomeini's regime for about a year or so.

I think we have sparred on the issue of the bourgeois state decreeing what defines acceptable sexual behavior. I know it is off topic, I apologize to the other comrades, but you slandering the SL shouldn't go unchallenged. Again I was around when fellatio was against the law in dozens of states (a law used to persecute/prosecute homosexuals) -- was that okay? The SL's basic position is that it is not for the bourgeoisie to legislate sexual behavior. It is all about a much more open view of sexuality than you possess. And of course, the welfare of all involved is always an issue. Coercion and violence are crimes. What we are really talking about are statutory rape laws that are, again, primarily used against gays, although sometimes applied more generally. Is it for you to say that a 20 year-old and a 15 year-old should not have sex, and if they do, it constitutes rape?
My point was rather about their fundamentally sectarian methods, strategy, tactics and outlook. For instance 5(!) articles defending Roman Polanski and indeed their weird obsession with celebrities in general are symptomatic of this (to quote them: "We usually figure we’re doing something right when we get cancelled subscriptions").
That they might have a correct conclusion now and again is quite secondary when their method is rotten. Anyway we're off on a tangent now and not one I intend to take any further.

The Khomeini part I feel I have already responded to the best of my ability, I don't know where to find old issues of the Militant online, but again Grant's article does condemn the Mullahs and the left that tailed them.

Now about Tibet...?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

China IS yet Capitalist. Their state-owned enterprises participate in the market and are Capital owned by the Capitalist government and managed by bourgeois Capitalists at the upper echelon of the party.

The real Chinese bourgeoisie is already in the politburo. The last premier of China, "Grandpa Wen" as they called him, was one of the world's richest men, and he was famous for being the most humble and least greedy of that generation of politburo members. If he was the most humble and least greedy, imagine what the more arrogant and greedy members were like.

The people at the apex of the Chinese state manage the world's largest capitalist enterprises and have gotten fabulously wealthy off of it. The idea that China is some kind of "worker's state" is a fucking joke ... if it is then the whole concept of a "worker's state" is utterly meaningless.





Self-immolation is an effective form of protest in numerous cases. It exposes the suffering which people are dealing with in dramatic form and has instigated serious unrest and political change in history. Aside from eventually leading to the curbing of Catholic oppression in South Vietnam, the Tunisian uprising was instigated by such an event. There have also been copycats in Greece and Spain among other places. It is a form of protest which fundamentally recognizes that, as an individual, one has no power over their material conditions. At least in their death, they think, there is a chance that others will be compelled to move, or at least that the spirit of resistance will continue on some level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc

Why mental illness? It's obviously a response to incredible desperation, and in the case of Buddhist monks, it also involves their theology that one's individual self does not have intrinsic value (or any kind of essential existence). It would be a mistake to call self immolation an "idealistic" or "insane" form of protest because it ignores the kinds of conditions which make people take it up as an alternative to begin with.
Well, I disagree based on the relationship the bureaucrats have to the means of production (they don't own it). They have most certainly laid the groundwork for counterrevolution, but as I said earlier, they are not likely to come through it unscathed. That being said, their behavior is criminal and they will hopefully have to answer for their crimes.

As for self-immolation as a form of protest -- it is the most desperate defeatist, and despairing one I can imagine. And you think it is great because it somehow sparked the "Arab Spring"? Which, btw, has not exactly lead to social revolution anywhere. Revolutionaries do not commit suicide in symbolic acts -- and when they die it is seen as a loss to the revolution. This Monks act was not in support of anything progressive -- looking to the freaking clergy as agents of liberation in the 21st century is a distant cry from Marxism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, I disagree based on the relationship the bureaucrats have to the means of production (they don't own it). They have most certainly laid the groundwork for counterrevolution, but as I said earlier, they are not likely to come through it unscathed. That being said, their behavior is criminal and they will hopefully have to answer for their crimes.


Ownership does not need to be based on some literal property title. It stems from one's ability to use one's control over an institution to exact surplus labor from the enterprise. It is a social, not a legal relationship - the legal language merely makes it de jure.

Their behavior is not always criminal, in fact often enough it is perfectly legal in China. That is the problem with the Chinese system - it is not a worker's state but a free market state, ruled not by workers but by the upper echelons of the party elite.



As for self-immolation as a form of protest -- it is the most desperate defeatist, and despairing one I can imagine. And you think it is great because it somehow sparked the "Arab Spring"? Which, btw, has not exactly lead to social revolution anywhere. Revolutionaries do not commit suicide in symbolic acts -- and when they die it is seen as a loss to the revolution. Maybe the Arab Spring did not lead to "social revolution" (that is arguable), but neither did the Paris Commune. No strike, street protest, occupation, formation of a worker's council or anything like that was ever successful against the forces of reaction before the Russian Revolution (and the Russian Revolution was a failure in the long-term anyhow). Nor is the "Arab spring" over. Instead of just making moralistic judgments about past acts, we should interpret their actions sympathetically while offering serious and mature critiques that help future movements avoid the same mistakes.

I don't care if someone commits a suicidal act out of desperation, they can still be "revolutionary". There is no need to define "revolutionary" in a moralistic Catholic way, as if there are certain kinds of protest which preclude one from really being a "Revolutionary". The Arab Spring was not a failure because it was initiated by a suicide (if it has been a failure thus far it is because of the structural advantages that institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood have had). If a person kills themselves for some political cause that a significant minority or a majority of the population support, then their act can have relevance. A person doesn't need to be living to move people to revolution.


This Monks act was not in support of anything progressive -- looking to the freaking clergy as agents of liberation in the 21st century is a distant cry from Marxism.I don't particularly care how "Marxist" I seem - I don't base my ideology solely on whether Karl Marx would have agreed with me on everything (let alone whether 21st century followers of Marx would have agreed with me on everything). He wasn't my Moses, he was just a visionary political scientist. I find it weird how he is used in a quasi-religious way. Anyhow, I think its a farther cry from Marxism to say that some state like China with a nationalized industry but a market economy led by rich bureaucrats is a "worker's state" (I guess because they have a red flag, a mummified leader and party propaganda that includes the occasional hammer and a sickle somewhere on it?)

Fighting oppression of religious communities by the State or by a privileged religious community is justified. I guess its good to fight Islamophobia in the US or antisemitism in Europe but who cares that the US puppet Diem government attacked Buddhists with physical force? Religious discrimination is a tool of the ruling class and should be opposed by Leftist political movements.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Ownership does not need to be based on some literal property title. It stems from one's ability to use one's control over an institution to exact surplus labor from the enterprise. It is a social, not a legal relationship - the legal language merely makes it de jure.

Their behavior is not always criminal, in fact often enough it is perfectly legal in China. That is the problem with the Chinese system - it is not a worker's state but a free market state, ruled not by workers but by the upper echelons of the party elite.

Maybe the Arab Spring did not lead to "social revolution" (that is arguable), but neither did the Paris Commune. No strike, street protest, occupation, formation of a worker's council or anything like that was ever successful against the forces of reaction before the Russian Revolution (and the Russian Revolution was a failure in the long-term anyhow). Nor is the "Arab spring" over. Instead of just making moralistic judgments about past acts, we should interpret their actions sympathetically while offering serious and mature critiques that help future movements avoid the same mistakes.

I don't care if someone commits a suicidal act out of desperation, they can still be "revolutionary". There is no need to define "revolutionary" in a moralistic Catholic way, as if there are certain kinds of protest which preclude one from really being a "Revolutionary". The Arab Spring was not a failure because it was initiated by a suicide (if it has been a failure thus far it is because of the structural advantages that institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood have had). If a person kills themselves for some political cause that a significant minority or a majority of the population support, then their act can have relevance. A person doesn't need to be living to move people to revolution.

I don't particularly care how "Marxist" I seem - I don't base my ideology solely on whether Karl Marx would have agreed with me on everything (let alone whether 21st century followers of Marx would have agreed with me on everything). He wasn't my Moses, he was just a visionary political scientist. I find it weird how he is used in a quasi-religious way. Anyhow, I think its a farther cry from Marxism to say that some state like China with a nationalized industry but a market economy led by rich bureaucrats is a "worker's state" (I guess because they have a red flag, a mummified leader and party propaganda that includes the occasional hammer and a sickle somewhere on it?)

Fighting oppression of religious communities by the State or by a privileged religious community is justified. I guess its good to fight Islamophobia in the US or antisemitism in Europe but who cares that the US puppet Diem government attacked Buddhists with physical force? Religious discrimination is a tool of the ruling class and should be opposed by Leftist political movements.
You are the one that has the impressionistic view of what constitutes a revolution. Marxism is a method -- you don't borrow a little here or a little there -- either you are applying it correctly or not. Fighting religious persecution is fine, but the context and meaning of such fights are not all equal. In the case of Tibet, the monks and Lamas are religious reactionaries. They should be free to peacefully play at their mystical games as long as they do not take part in political activities or oppress the Tibetan peasantry. If they are trying to overthrow the gains of the Chinese Revolution in Tibet, that is another story. And isn't it true that the freaking monk set fire to himself? Fighting Islamophobia in the US and Western Europe is, of course, very important.

Comparing the Arab Spring to the Paris Commune is absurd. They are, unfortunately not analogous. An uprising by the workers of Paris in favor of socialism vs. amorphous uprisings that place all manner of bourgeois parties, some very reactionary, in power seem qualitatively different to me. To quote Trotsky, "We must begin by calling things by their right names."

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You are the one that has the impressionistic view of what constitutes a revolution. Marxism is a method -- you don't borrow a little here or a little there -- either you are applying it correctly or not.

Marxism is supposed to be a scientific perspective on social science, philosophy and class struggle. It is not some religious perspective. It is open to change and internal debate, as long as the basic focus on the fact that real value is produced by the laboring classes and the importance of analysis of how these laboring classes can organize politically and economically to build an economic model which serves their interests.


Fighting religious persecution is fine, but the context and meaning of such fights are not all equal. In the case of Tibet, the monks and Lamas are religious reactionaries. They should be free to peacefully play at their mystical games as long as they do not take part in political activities or oppress the Tibetan peasantry. If they are trying to overthrow the gains of the Chinese Revolution in Tibet, that is another story. What do you base this idea that they are "religious reactionaries" on? Cite particular reactionary demands that they have made (like the rollback of worker's rights, the reinstitution of monastic theocracy, the reintroduction of serfdom, or something like that). Without citing specific demands that they are making which are obviously reactionary in nature, it seems that you are just parroting Chinese propaganda. To argue that Tibetan monks are all somehow still feudalists despite feudalism ending 50-60 years ago is to basically ignore the real material conditions of Tibet, Tibetans and the Tibetan exile community. The Lamas gave up political power some time ago (including the Dalai Lama, the former leader of the whole theocracy)

There are reactionary Buddhists out there, but Tibet is not the problem. They are in places like Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka where Buddhism has institutional control and a particular agenda which contradicts minority rights. I am much more worried about those monks than a bunch of exiles in North India and groups of monks in Tibet who for the most part commit violence upon their own bodies.


And isn't it true that the freaking monk set fire to himself?So? The monks are not looking for your moral approval, they are looking to end what they see as persecution against their faith.


Fighting Islamophobia in the US and Western Europe is, of course, very important. While fighting discrimination against Buddhists I guess is just reactionary?



Comparing the Arab Spring to the Paris Commune is absurd. They are, unfortunately not analogous. An uprising by the workers of Paris in favor of socialism vs. amorphous uprisings that place all manner of bourgeois parties, some very reactionary, in power seem qualitatively different to me. To quote Trotsky, "We must begin by calling things by their right names."I'm not saying that they are the same, just that the ability of the forces of reaction to triumph in situations like these is no basis for a moralistic critique of everyone involved. There were many socialists, radical workers and leftists pushing for the Arab spring, and they did not just give up when the Islamist parties like the Brotherhood won one election, either in Tunisia or Egypt. Also you are basically ignoring all of the historical conditions which ensured that the forces of reaction had more ability to exploit the Arab Spring for their political ends.

[Crixus]

When are the Abrahamic religions going to start this self immolating business? In my experience I've found Buddhists to be just as pious and self righteous as Christians. Not my cup of tea.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Marxism is supposed to be a scientific perspective on social science, philosophy and class struggle. It is not some religious perspective. It is open to change and internal debate, as long as the basic focus on the fact that real value is produced by the laboring classes and the importance of analysis of how these laboring classes can organize politically and economically to build an economic model which serves their interests.

What do you base this idea that they are "religious reactionaries" on? Cite particular reactionary demands that they have made (like the rollback of worker's rights, the reinstitution of monastic theocracy, the reintroduction of serfdom, or something like that). Without citing specific demands that they are making which are obviously reactionary in nature, it seems that you are just parroting Chinese propaganda. To argue that Tibetan monks are all somehow still feudalists despite feudalism ending 50-60 years ago is to basically ignore the real material conditions of Tibet, Tibetans and the Tibetan exile community. The Lamas gave up political power some time ago (including the Dalai Lama, the former leader of the whole theocracy)

There are reactionary Buddhists out there, but Tibet is not the problem. They are in places like Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka where Buddhism has institutional control and a particular agenda which contradicts minority rights. I am much more worried about those monks than a bunch of exiles in North India and groups of monks in Tibet who for the most part commit violence upon their own bodies.

So? The monks are not looking for your moral approval, they are looking to end what they see as persecution against their faith.

While fighting discrimination against Buddhists I guess is just reactionary?

I'm not saying that they are the same, just that the ability of the forces of reaction to triumph in situations like these is no basis for a moralistic critique of everyone involved. There were many socialists, radical workers and leftists pushing for the Arab spring, and they did not just give up when the Islamist parties like the Brotherhood won one election, either in Tunisia or Egypt. Also you are basically ignoring all of the historical conditions which ensured that the forces of reaction had more ability to exploit the Arab Spring for their political ends.
I well understand the historical circumstances of the Arab Spring. I am saying that the left both in these countries and around the world tailed the Arab Spring. They did not fight for a revolutionary program independent from bourgeois and petite bourgeois nationalist forces. And this kind of shit has happened again and again in the past hundred years. Ostensible Marxists tailing after reform movements -- not fighting for an independent proletarian internationalist perspective. The cost has been immeasurable. I deeply admire the people fighting against these repressive regimes. But unless armed with a program that can transcend the current situations they find themselves in, that is revolutionary Marxism, their struggles will have been in vain. That REALLY sucks.

I think you are naive to think that the Dalai Lama and his followers want to institute some kind of republican democracy. I don't think that is what their real program is. Look at who they are. What are their ideals and their goals based on. These are religious leaders. Any movement associated with them will be reactionary in the current context of Tibet and will be used by forces that would like to destroy the PRC and REALLY open it up to imperialist domination. And true capitalism. If it was the catholic church, you might actually be able to see this more clearly.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I well understand the historical circumstances of the Arab Spring. I am saying that the left both in these countries and around the world tailed the Arab Spring. They did not fight for a revolutionary program independent from bourgeois and petite bourgeois nationalist forces. And this kind of shit has happened again and again in the past hundred years. Ostensible Marxists tailing after reform movements -- not fighting for an independent proletarian internationalist perspective. The cost has been immeasurable. I deeply admire the people fighting against these repressive regimes. But unless armed with a program that can transcend the current situations they find themselves in, that is revolutionary Marxism, their struggles will have been in vain. That REALLY sucks.


I think a parallel can be drawn with the various protest and strike movements which came before the Russian Revolution. These protests were not unified around a workable program of revolution but it introduced people to the tactics and methods of struggle. Yes, without a serious program of material liberation the working class will never actually solve the contradictions which keep it economically marginalized. However we can recognize how these movements destroy or at least discredit powerful institutions, create room for working class organization and create opportunity for social liberation, no matter how remote. Yes, it is true that the Arab spring has thus far been hijacked by reactionaries. However these reactionaries have failed to solve the contradictions, or even convince the populace that they have been solved, which merely creates the conditions for more radical protests elsewhere.



I think you are naive to think that the Dalai Lama and his followers want to institute some kind of republican democracy. I don't think that is what their real program is. Look at who they are. What are their ideals and their goals based on. These are religious leaders. Any movement associated with them will be reactionary in the current context of Tibet and will be used by forces that would like to destroy the PRC and REALLY open it up to imperialist domination. And true capitalism. If it was the catholic church, you might actually be able to see this more clearly.The Dalai Lama was barely past puberty by the time he became Mao and the PRC's vassal, as are probably any monks alive today. I think the reactionary nature of religion is contingent on the material conditions of the worshippers and the connection of the church with real political and economic power. It seems like a movement away from materialism to argue otherwise. In Europe today, nobody would take seriously the idea that Dominicans and Franciscans are the vanguards of feudalism because they are completely alienated from the levers of economic power, and those monks do not concern themselves with having such influence either.

As for your example of the Catholic church - yes most Bishops and Cardinals are reactionary, but many Catholic workers won't want every priest or bishop driven into exile and there have been priests and bishops who are quite sympathetic with radical movements.

As far as I'm concerned the PRC is an imperialist power with a fully Capitalist economic model, albeit a state-dominated market economy and not a Milton Friedman neoliberal one. The PRC is not a worker's state, and there's no way that Tibet is returning to feudalism whether or not it is occupied by China, given increased autonomy or if it gains full independence.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Comparing the Arab Spring to the Paris Commune is absurd. They are, unfortunately not analogous. An uprising by the workers of Paris in favor of socialism vs. amorphous uprisings that place all manner of bourgeois parties, some very reactionary, in power seem qualitatively different to me. To quote Trotsky, "We must begin by calling things by their right names."

The Paris Commune was a left republican revolt driven largely by the artisan & semi-artisan class, not a (proletarian) worker's revolt in favor of socialism.

[Crux]

China: New leadership rejects democratisation (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6231)