Tibet

[MKS]

What is the leftist stance on the issue of Tibetan independence? Do communists support the tyrannical imposition of the Chinese government? Would it be anti-communist to support the Tibetan freedom movement? Does the fact that the Tibetans are heavily religious become a factor when making a decision on the issue?


Torture in Tibet (http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/stoptorture/index.html)

[redstar2000]

13 pages on Tibet...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=32169&hl=tibet (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32169&hl=tibet)

Enjoy. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[maoist_revolution]

Tibet should be a Left-wing Religious democracy

This also made me think about Israel is should be a neutral country where Palistinians and the Jewish can live I think that will stop the problems there.

[RedStarOverChina]

lol...the problem with Palistinians and Israelis is that they simply CANT live together in harmony under this situation. However, Hans and Tibetans can.

[maoist_revolution]

well they deserve to live in anger then if they cant be mature enough to live together

[Severian]

Tibet's been discussed to death. See the thread Redstar linked.

But what about Molvania? (http://www.molvania.com.au/molvania/bground.html) Shouldn't they be liberated from Elbonian oppression and allowed to return to their idyllic life untouched by modern dentistry?

[bolshevik butcher]

Dam, the page isn't showing up, could you give me a basic ezplanation of the situation?

[Severian]

Link works fine for me.

But here, try this one. (http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.jsp?fid=2&tid=34534063)

[Yazman]

Tibet should be free, but if you want tyrannical, then simply read about the rule of the Lamas previous to chinese occupation.

Yes I believe Tibet should be free, but I am opposed to a new theocratic rule, as it would only result in ruin as it did the last time.

[Wurkwurk]

Of course it should be free. China is an imperialist power in Tibet, there against the will of the Tibetan people and illegally as well.

They are ruling though oppression and tyranny - any man with a common sense and half a heart would let Tibet be free.

[Hiero]

Tibet should be a Left-wing Religious democracy

How can you have the name "maoist_revolution" and not take a Maoist stance.

What happen in Tibet happen in every province in China. Its not like one day China decided to "invade" a country.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:30 AM
Of course it should be free. China is an imperialist power in Tibet, there against the will of the Tibetan people and illegally as well.

They are ruling though oppression and tyranny - any man with a common sense and half a heart would let Tibet be free.
Oh yea? Have u been to Tibet?

I have.

And I find it increasingly annoying to hear these increasingly meaningless slogens.

[slim]

I remember a few years ago the BBC put on an hour long programme about soldiers living in small warzones across the world. The warzones that never make it to the news.

They had child soldiers in Africa, the child who they filmed was killed a week later by one of his comrades in an argument over cigarettes.

Tibet also featured in it. There was a group of communists with flintlocks in the hills trying to survive against the national army with rifles.

[bolshevik butcher]

sorry, but wasn't that nepal? I remember that programme, im sure it was nepal. And yes tibet should be free, from religous and chinese tyranny, it should bea democracy.

[slim]

Sorry clenched fist, youre totally correct, it was nepal. Thanks for correcting me, i would have felt like a right prat if it was left there too long.

Cheers again.

[bolshevik butcher]

glad to be of help! :P

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:22 PM
Tibet should be a Left-Wing Religious Democracy.
And that goes up makin' sense HOW? :rolleyes:
Your reply is full of oxymorons:
"Left-Wing Religious" is like "Christian Communist".
"Religious Democracy" is like "Church and State".
It just doesn't work...fool. Religion opposes the left-Wing
and vice versa, and Religion HATES democracy...they'd
rather have the old foolish despotism again, I'd vager,
with shamans and priests in noble-rule of the society,
high on the ladder of power! BAH! Religion implies
classes <_<

[slim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:12 PM
Your reply is full of oxymorons:
"Left-Wing Religious" is like "Christian Communist".
Hey&#33;

Im a catholic yet i am also a leftist. It happens.

[redwinter]

The invasion of Tibet by China was akin to the invasion of the Confederacy by the Union during the U.S. Civil War. Tibet was a lot worse off in the 1940s than the Southern USA was in the same decade. Bringing back the CIA agent Dalai Lama as another religious dictator doesn&#39;t sound like a utopia to me like some people have it sound like.

Check out The True Story of Maoist Revolution in Tibet
by Mike Ely at http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/tibet/tib-in.htm and read for yourself.

[ice87]

Its not so much as whether you support communism or not by supporting the independence of Tibet. In my opinion this has very little to do with the political system of China, but rather the unity of the nation.

Suppose, hypothetically, that there was a free California movement in the United States. The US government would not grant independence. Likewise the same thing happens in China. The government would not sacrifice the unity of the state by satisfying the demands of a group of very few.

[RedStarOverChina]

Not to mention those few separarists do not represent the will of the Tibetan people

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:49 PM
Its not so much as whether you support communism or not by supporting the independence of Tibet. In my opinion this has very little to do with the political system of China, but rather the unity of the nation.

Suppose, hypothetically, that there was a free California movement in the United States. The US government would not grant independence. Likewise the same thing happens in China. The government would not sacrifice the unity of the state by satisfying the demands of a group of very few.
Surkey if a majoraty of calafornians wanted indpependance thne a referendom would should be held and if hte yes vote won then calafornia should beocme independant?

[RedStarOverChina]

of course it should. But that has nothing to do with the issue of Tibet since the majority of Tibetans dont want independence.

[Redmau5]

of course it should. But that has nothing to do with the issue of Tibet since the majority of Tibetans dont want independence.

And you would know this how ?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:08 PM
of course it should. But that has nothing to do with the issue of Tibet since the majority of Tibetans dont want independence.
yeh,m prove it, what are you gonna use some made up chinese government figures? If tibetan&#39;s really don#t want indpependance then why not hold a referendom? A real free dmeocratic reforendum. That would shut all of us up.

[RedStarOverChina]

what are you gonna use some made up chinese government figures?

Im not gonna use figures since u wouldnt believe me anyways. I guess u would have preferred to have made up CIA figures. Suits ur taste alot better.



And you would know this how ?
Because even tho the feudal lords screamed out of their lungs for independence, the Tibetan people refused to co-operate.

The livingstandard of Tibetans experienced a significant boost over the past 20 years. with religious freedom being granted, the Tibetans are living harmoniously with other Chinese nationalities like the way it had often been in the past.

Now, I would support for more Tibetan autonomy, but I think it can only be achieved when the Tibetan "gusanos" die off.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by slim+May 28 2005, 04:18 PM--> (slim @ May 28 2005, 04:18 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 04:12 PM
Your reply is full of oxymorons:
"Left-Wing Religious" is like "Christian Communist".
Hey&#33;

Im a catholic yet I am also a leftist. It happens. [/b]
I suppose you also even support organized religion, don&#39;t chou? How very "leftist" of you, bah&#33; <_<

[slim]

I am a catholic. I am leftist.

My religious values and my political values do not interfere with eachother. After all, political values are not just for my own good, they are what i believe to be the best for everyone.

As for supporting organised religion, it is not a leftist thing to judge someone for their religion so i could question your integrity.

[bolshevik butcher]

People can be religous and leftist, this sort of religous facism that is witnessed on this board doesn&#39;t to marxism any favours.

[Hiero]

My religious values and my political values do not interfere with eachother

Yes they do.

You can never become a marxist as you can never understand historical materialism. Thus you can never truely understand class war.

[RedStarOverChina]

a leftist does not necessarily mean a Marxist, no?

The conscientious of those that are religious have my support. In the process of our struggle, we have no choice but to allie ourselves with all other conscientious people to fight the worst enemies, one at a time.

We need a concentration of firepower in warfare. Politics is warfare without bloodshed, thus it also require a concentration of firepower. Its not a hard idea to grasp, but the some of our righteous Marxists often lose the grasp of reality.

[Topcat]

Politics and releigion should never come into contact.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh i think i&#39;d agree with that. Politics and religon combined have done plenty of horrible things.

[slim]

My religious and political beliefs do not clash. I dont see why the belief that i eat the body of Christ has any relevence to my political beliefs. I dont agree with the Church on a lot of things, im not a robot, i can make my own mind up about things.

I am a libertarian so the whole pope thing doesnt matter. People should be free to practise whatever religion they want.

I dont see how you can oppose my religion anyway when every now and then a communist claims that Jesus was a communist. The word hypocrites arrives here.

[El_Revolucionario]

FREE TIBET lol :)

However, if Tibet separates, they should be democratic, and not elect the dalai lama as president or leader like that stupid Vatican City that elects the Pope as ruler.

[slim]

Exactly. A religious leader should be just that, they should lead a religion not a country.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, that&#39;s true, didn&#39;t the dali lama say that he didn&#39;t want to be the leader of tibet anyway?

[Maynard]

I think the common sense position, as has been pointed out, would be to hold a referendum free from any outside control, with the will of the majority being accepted, much like East Timor. If it is voted for, then Tibetans themselves should chose their leader, again like East Timor.


Tibet should be a Left-wing Religious democracy
Why not just a secular democracy? Separation of church and state is a good thing, is it not?



CIA agent Dalai Lama
CIA agent? That&#39;s a new one, have you any source for this?



In my opinion this has very little to do with the political system of China, but rather the unity of the nation What sort of "leftist" supports national unity, whatever the hell that means, over self determination. The Indonesian government used the same type of talk to justify their occupation of East Timor, same with the Russians in Chechnya, should we support those actions as well?


Suppose, hypothetically, that there was a free California movement in the United States. The US government would not grant independence.
That may be true for the US government but would leftists, as a grouping, support independence if California voted for it. I would most defiantly, the rights of a population is surely more important than the rights of any government.


Not to mention those few separarists do not represent the will of the Tibetan people

I would like to see a source for this as well. It is more likely to be believed if you provide a source rather than just one statement.


However, if Tibet separates, they should be democratic, and not elect the dalai lama as president
Let us say that he runs and is voted in, by a majority of the population, that is just as democratic as anyone else being elected, correct?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:53 AM

CIA agent Dalai Lama
CIA agent? That&#39;s a new one, have you any source for this?
It&#39;s a very old one, finally admitted by both the CIA and the exiled serfowning theocrat himself.

LA Times Article (http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1998/9/16_2.html)

For more information:
Article by yours truly on Tibet (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

See also the old thread Redstar linked.

[RedStarOverChina]

The Tibetan government had no choice but to agree to Chinese troops entering Tibet. In exchange, Mao&#39;s government promised to respect local self-government , and, more importantly, not to touch the property and privileges of the hereditary nobility and the religious hierarchy. In essence, the so-called Communist Party of China promised there would be no social revolution in Tibet.


thats not exactly true. the Communists promised not to touch the property and privileges of the nobility for FIVE YEARS. After 5 years(1956), they introduced the land reformation.

[codyvo]

The way I&#39;ve always seen it, borders are made way too important, if a group of people want to be their own self-governing society why should anyone else have any say in the matter, and I&#39;m sure their are times when situations get way more complex but why does nationality matter so much?

[El_Revolucionario]

http://www.one-world-is-enough.net/acatalog/tibet.JPG

HAHA&#33; Take THAT, Maoists and Stalinists&#33; :D

[Severian]

"the Communists promised not to touch the property and privileges of the nobility for FIVE YEARS. After 5 years(1956), they introduced the land reformation."

Uh,no. The agreement said:

"11. In matters relating to various reforms in Tibet, there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central Authorities. The Local Government of Tibet should carry out reforms of its own accord, and when the people raise demands for reform, they must be settled through consultation with the leading personnel of Tibet." source (http://www.tibetinfo.net/publications/docs/spa.htm)

There is nothing about "five years" anywhere in it. The Lhasa feudalists of course carried out only token "reforms". The real land reform, the abolition of serfdom, did not occur until 1959, after the feudal elite and monks had rebelled against the PRC. See the sources in my article and in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32169)

I know what I&#39;m talking about, on this topic more than most.

[RedStarOverChina]

I got your photo right here, El_Revolucionario&#33;