Log in

View Full Version : Mao - Not Communist?



Technique3055
24th September 2005, 18:10
I've always been told that communism has never existed. I've always believed so myself.

I've done research on all of the standard "communist" nations people bring up. It's gotten so redundant that they name the same few nations over and over again, and I can very simply say the exact same response to each. I've got good reasoning why the USSR, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia aren't/weren't communist (There are more, but they are the most mentioned).

But of all the research I've done, one question still remains - Why is China (particularly Mao's China) not truly communist?

Hegemonicretribution
24th September 2005, 18:15
The simple answer is the existance of a state at all. The state can exist, but only in socialism. Communism is what would have existed when China was free (if this would have hapened is another thing altogether).

celticfire
26th September 2005, 14:00
First of all, Mao was an awesome communist revolutionary and thinker. He led the Chinese people against fuedalism and fascism (Japan). He developed the New Democratic theory, and established a socialist society in Asia. There are many lies and deciets about Mao, and they should be taken with a grain of salt. Mao did make mistakes, but he never killed 70 million or 20 million or whatever number the bourgeoisie feel like pulling out of their ass that day. They also liberated women and raised them to legally equals among men and working to make that a reality and made good leaps in doing so.

China was socialist, communism is by definition a stateless, classless society. It was on the socialist road before the revisionist (Marxist-Leninist in name, capitalist in deed) took over around 1976. Many people don't know that Maoists were in the crowd with the protestors at TIANANMEN SQUARE (http://rwor.org/i/china/tian5.htm).

Here is a good link:
http://rwor.org/s/china.htm

Socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism in which contraidctions like mentel/menual labor are broken down, but many still remained in China as they admitted.

Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia were never really socialist, but they were national struggles against imperialism and it is important to remember that they were all colonial lands before. Korea is run by a despotic fuedal Monarchy, Cuba is dictated by Fidel, Vietnam has state capitalists and Cambodia was just a bloody mess! LOL, but a suggest you read this on Pol Pot and Cambodia:

Straight Talk on the Trial of Pol Pot (http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm) by Mike Ely.

YKTMX
26th September 2005, 15:00
If the question is: did Mao personally believe in "Communism", then no one can really know. The only way we can really judge him is by asking a serious of questions, such as:

Which social forces did Mao and the CP represent?

Was China under Mao socialist?

The first one is quite simple. Mao's CP was an agent of Soviet foreign policy. They were the representatives of the Soviet ruling class (led by Stalin) in Asia. The Soviet ruling class was a counter-revolutionary Imperialist phenomenon. Therefore, what you get in China after the revolution is an almost verbatim reproduction of the Soviet Union. Incidentally, many people excuse Mao by saying "well, it's diffirent in China because it was peasant country" - which is rubbish. When the Bolsheviks led working class revolution in Russia, it was almost 95% peasant!

In China, you get all the worst aspects of the Soviet Union, but, unlike Stalin, Mao had no discernible workers' movement to crush. His China moved quite rapidly to State capitalism, and with it the socio-political aspects of Stalinism; the police state, perpetual paranoia, venal bureaucracies, famine, a pervertion of Marxist language and, of course, a even more disgusting personality cult than Stalin's.

Consequently, when Khrushchev makes his big speech attacking Stalin and Stalinism, Mao has to respond. His China is almost identical to Stalin's Soviet Union, so the growth of any coherent anti-systemic movement in the Soviet Union would automatically threaten his own power.

Therefore, he criticises the Soviet Union, inventing nonsense about revisionism and social fascism for an ideological cover. He also launches the Cultural revolution, which ensures, for the time being, that the Chinese will be in a sufficient state of terror for his personal rule to continue.

The break with the SU leaves China isolated, however. So, quite quickly, it tries to forge some sort of alliance with the Imperialist powers, as well as half-hearted attempts to link itself with similar peasant nationalist movement, such as Cuba.

Above all: BASTARD.

romanm
26th September 2005, 15:00
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM for the Maoist Internationalist Movement.. Also, the Maoist forums at marxleninmao.proboards43.com ..

Short answer: Mao was a communist.

bunk
26th September 2005, 15:03
Mao was a former high-up Kuomintang officer yet he persecuted others and their families for simply having been in the Kuomintang youth league?

OleMarxco
26th September 2005, 15:18
So. What you're sayin', is, basicly....
We should support totalarianism, because...
Someone who was an totalarian, might have....
Made some decent results and the facts of killin's are not...
Exactly correct, and'uh, perhaps vanguard-control is easier...
:rolleyes:

Get lost ;)

Hiero
26th September 2005, 16:55
YKTMX, you didn't actually say what social,economic and political programs of Mao's was wrong.

YKTMX
26th September 2005, 17:08
I said he copied the social, political and economic structures of state capitalist Russia.

Whether one defines that as "wrong" is a matter of opinion.

RedStarOverChina
26th September 2005, 17:33
I dont think there should be any doubt that Mao was a communist. What is in doubt, however, is wether or not he's actually a Marxist (this is what the scholars has been arguing about thro out ages). One of the reasons why that is, is because Mao's disagreements with traditional Marxists on the issue of Negation of the Negation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm). Mao doesnt think it exists.

I dont think the term state capitalism exists. To me, it's just a word made up by a small group of the communists who are unwilling to face Marxist-Leninists'(who were communists) historic failures.

Government's involvement in factories was NOT the primary reason for the failure of the socialist countries of 1900s.

When production's primary goal was not to make profit but to fulfill the need of the people(as the way it was in Marxist-Leninist countries), it is nothing to do with capitalism.

Some of us just have to face history and come up with a more scientific conclusion.

RedStarOverChina
26th September 2005, 17:35
Mao was a former high-up Kuomintang officer

WHAT? This Mao bashing thing is really getting rediculous.

YKTMX
26th September 2005, 18:14
I dont think the term state capitalism exists. To me, it's just a word made up by a small group of the communists who are unwilling to face Marxist-Leninists'(who were communists) historic failures.


OK, I'd like to just outline this here because there seems to be a little confusion on the board generally about what "state capitalism" means.

As RSOC righty pointed out, production under capitalism is based on competition and the drive for profit. Under socialism it is based on human need, and on the democratic will of the producers.

Now, the theory of state capitalism posits that in China and the Soviet Union, though there was no "internal" profit or "competition", these states were in direct competition with the capitalist world.

So, just like when Ford is forced to reduce its workers' conditions because GM has, the Soviet Union and China is forced to quickly accumulate capital and build up militarily at the expense of consumption to compete with the U.S and Germany. This means that they have to attack living conditions and so on.

This arises, in the first instance, not because Stalin and Mao were "bad people" neccessarily (though there's lots of evidence they were), but because the ruling classes they represent are forced to compete with the West.

The term itself means that the "state" is the "one big capitalist", competing on a global scale with the other capitalist states.


When production's primary goal was not to make profit but to fulfill the need of the people(as the way it was in Marxist-Leninist countries), it is nothing to do with capitalism.


You see, but that's just rhetoric that has been debunked decades ago. The idea that the Soviet Union increased steel production by 400% or whatever, while neglecting food and consumer goods, because production there was based on the "need of the people" is just ridiculous.


Some of us just have to face history and come up with a more scientific conclusion.


Like what? It was great until Krushchev and the Gang of Four fucked it up? Very scientific.

RedStarOverChina
26th September 2005, 18:28
Now, the theory of state capitalism posits that in China and the Soviet Union, though there was no "internal" profit or "competition", these states were in direct competition with the capitalist world.

Fair enough. Thats a valid arguement--but there is a word for that kind of economy---Mercantilism. You dont have to go so far as to create another word so that people would associate it with capitalism. I agree that the soviet union WAS in fact competing against the capitalist nations--which in my belief led to the birth of colonialism. However that does not explain why you lable China, Cuba, Vietnam etc as "State Capitalists". As we all know those countries used to shut themselves out of the world economy and practice only humanitarian aids with the outside world. (and when you see these countries helping others, you get the feeling that there are really, really miserable economies out there)


This arises, in the first instance, not because Stalin and Mao were "bad people" neccessarily (though there's lots of evidence they were), but because the ruling classes they represent are forced to compete with the West.

I disagree even tho I couldnt care less. up2u, I guess.


Like what? It was great until Krushchev and the Gang of Four fucked it up? Very scientific.
Does that sentense have any empirical value or is it just to prove that ur sense of humor is lame as usual?

YKTMX
26th September 2005, 18:34
Does that sentense have any empirical value or is it just to prove that ur sense of humor is lame as usual?

It's called satire.

viva le revolution
26th September 2005, 18:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:31 PM
If the question is: did Mao personally believe in "Communism", then no one can really know. The only way we can really judge him is by asking a serious of questions, such as:

Which social forces did Mao and the CP represent?

Was China under Mao socialist?

The first one is quite simple. Mao's CP was an agent of Soviet foreign policy. They were the representatives of the Soviet ruling class (led by Stalin) in Asia. The Soviet ruling class was a counter-revolutionary Imperialist phenomenon. Therefore, what you get in China after the revolution is an almost verbatim reproduction of the Soviet Union. Incidentally, many people excuse Mao by saying "well, it's diffirent in China because it was peasant country" - which is rubbish. When the Bolsheviks led working class revolution in Russia, it was almost 95% peasant!

In China, you get all the worst aspects of the Soviet Union, but, unlike Stalin, Mao had no discernible workers' movement to crush. His China moved quite rapidly to State capitalism, and with it the socio-political aspects of Stalinism; the police state, perpetual paranoia, venal bureaucracies, famine, a pervertion of Marxist language and, of course, a even more disgusting personality cult than Stalin's.

Consequently, when Khrushchev makes his big speech attacking Stalin and Stalinism, Mao has to respond. His China is almost identical to Stalin's Soviet Union, so the growth of any coherent anti-systemic movement in the Soviet Union would automatically threaten his own power.

Therefore, he criticises the Soviet Union, inventing nonsense about revisionism and social fascism for an ideological cover. He also launches the Cultural revolution, which ensures, for the time being, that the Chinese will be in a sufficient state of terror for his personal rule to continue.

The break with the SU leaves China isolated, however. So, quite quickly, it tries to forge some sort of alliance with the Imperialist powers, as well as half-hearted attempts to link itself with similar peasant nationalist movement, such as Cuba.

Above all: BASTARD.
Well comrade, as a fellow marxist-leninist with slight maoist leanings let me attempt to reply to your assertions.
To discern whether Mao really personally beleived in communism is rather superflous, just take a look at his writings, Whether material reality is applicable here is a matter of debate, each country presents it's own problems. For eg, Guevara as minister of industry attemted to introduce heavy industry in Cuba with disastrous results, which ultimately had to be reversed.
Mao was against soviet influence in the chinese communist party since the beginning. That's why he sidelined the russian-educated 28B group. During the peroid os guerrilla warfare, he was at odds with the party top leadership who, influenced by soviet advisors insisted that the people's liberation army fight not protracted warfare, but positional warfare, i.e defend positions already taken, instead of the concept of the mobile army, which ultimately succeeded. Before dying, even Stalin admitted the mistaken position the soviet advisors took when attempting to guide the CCP.
An admiration of Stalin at that time is nothing extra-ordinary, Even Guevara expressed a deep sense of adoration and respect for Stalin. Fidel too lined Cuba with the soviet Union. Same it was with Mao.
Incidentaly, concerning Khruschev's big speech, i am sorry, was he revolutionary? 'cause i could have sworn....
Everybody could tell that Khrischev was revisionist, that's why even Guevara wanted Cuba to side with China. Now this was Cuba, on the other side of the world, i am sure that China, a neighbour of russia's could have seen it coming.
The cultural revolution, Mao did make a mistake, he hired young turks to carry it out. But given their youthful enthusiasm they went too far. This isn't new phenomena in China. During the Boxer rebellion in China, what started out as a protest campaign against foreign missionaries turned into a hunt for anything western. But nobody doubts the intention of that movement when it started.
An alliance with the imperialists? After just one visit by Nixon? Sure doesn't explain the west's backing of Taiwan throughout this peroid, nor the arms shipments to that island, nor does it explain the armament of south Korea, Wasn't China oin the side of the north? Not to forget Vietnam.
Peasant-nationalist movement? Just take a look at the health statistics of Cuba sweet heart and it's literacy level! For a guy that claims to be leninist tyou sure do have a negative attitude towards movements in the third world, which is what leninism is! Movements in the third world! I am sure the other 'leninists' smoking pot at your place would agree with you.

Above all: read a book!

bunk
26th September 2005, 20:52
The cultural revolution? He just gave indirect speeches encouraging young Red Guards to run rampage indiscriminately. Most of the party's officials and revolutionary veterans were labeled counter-revolutionary. -Well hey, don't leavfe yourself out Mao, just because of your grudges against intellectuals.His policies that helped starve peasants. His indocrination of the people, witch-hunt of school teachers leaving students to pour over the people's daily and his silly little red book? Persecuting people with remote links to Kuomintang when they joined up for the sole reason of defeating the Japanese.

kurt
27th September 2005, 08:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:26 PM
YKTMX, you didn't actually say what social,economic and political programs of Mao's was wrong.
Mao didn't have a chance, material reality stacked the cards pretty high against him.

Hiero
27th September 2005, 15:59
Josh you mised the whole point of Cultural revolution. The aim to remove thoose who would revert China to capitalism, which is what happen. It wasn't a aim to run rampage around the country for the goal to kill people Mao had a grudge agaisn't. Though history did prove that the cultural revolution didn't have a real leadership outside of its ideological leader.

-JakeH-
27th September 2005, 17:05
Originally posted by viva le revolution+Sep 26 2005, 12:20 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Sep 26 2005, 12:20 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 02:31 PM
If the question is: did Mao personally believe in "Communism", then no one can really know. The only way we can really judge him is by asking a serious of questions, such as:

Which social forces did Mao and the CP represent?

Was China under Mao socialist?

The first one is quite simple. Mao's CP was an agent of Soviet foreign policy. They were the representatives of the Soviet ruling class (led by Stalin) in Asia. The Soviet ruling class was a counter-revolutionary Imperialist phenomenon. Therefore, what you get in China after the revolution is an almost verbatim reproduction of the Soviet Union. Incidentally, many people excuse Mao by saying "well, it's diffirent in China because it was peasant country" - which is rubbish. When the Bolsheviks led working class revolution in Russia, it was almost 95% peasant!

In China, you get all the worst aspects of the Soviet Union, but, unlike Stalin, Mao had no discernible workers' movement to crush. His China moved quite rapidly to State capitalism, and with it the socio-political aspects of Stalinism; the police state, perpetual paranoia, venal bureaucracies, famine, a pervertion of Marxist language and, of course, a even more disgusting personality cult than Stalin's.

Consequently, when Khrushchev makes his big speech attacking Stalin and Stalinism, Mao has to respond. His China is almost identical to Stalin's Soviet Union, so the growth of any coherent anti-systemic movement in the Soviet Union would automatically threaten his own power.

Therefore, he criticises the Soviet Union, inventing nonsense about revisionism and social fascism for an ideological cover. He also launches the Cultural revolution, which ensures, for the time being, that the Chinese will be in a sufficient state of terror for his personal rule to continue.

The break with the SU leaves China isolated, however. So, quite quickly, it tries to forge some sort of alliance with the Imperialist powers, as well as half-hearted attempts to link itself with similar peasant nationalist movement, such as Cuba.

Above all: BASTARD.
Well comrade, as a fellow marxist-leninist with slight maoist leanings let me attempt to reply to your assertions.
To discern whether Mao really personally beleived in communism is rather superflous, just take a look at his writings, Whether material reality is applicable here is a matter of debate, each country presents it's own problems. For eg, Guevara as minister of industry attemted to introduce heavy industry in Cuba with disastrous results, which ultimately had to be reversed.
Mao was against soviet influence in the chinese communist party since the beginning. That's why he sidelined the russian-educated 28B group. During the peroid os guerrilla warfare, he was at odds with the party top leadership who, influenced by soviet advisors insisted that the people's liberation army fight not protracted warfare, but positional warfare, i.e defend positions already taken, instead of the concept of the mobile army, which ultimately succeeded. Before dying, even Stalin admitted the mistaken position the soviet advisors took when attempting to guide the CCP.
An admiration of Stalin at that time is nothing extra-ordinary, Even Guevara expressed a deep sense of adoration and respect for Stalin. Fidel too lined Cuba with the soviet Union. Same it was with Mao.
Incidentaly, concerning Khruschev's big speech, i am sorry, was he revolutionary? 'cause i could have sworn....
Everybody could tell that Khrischev was revisionist, that's why even Guevara wanted Cuba to side with China. Now this was Cuba, on the other side of the world, i am sure that China, a neighbour of russia's could have seen it coming.
The cultural revolution, Mao did make a mistake, he hired young turks to carry it out. But given their youthful enthusiasm they went too far. This isn't new phenomena in China. During the Boxer rebellion in China, what started out as a protest campaign against foreign missionaries turned into a hunt for anything western. But nobody doubts the intention of that movement when it started.
An alliance with the imperialists? After just one visit by Nixon? Sure doesn't explain the west's backing of Taiwan throughout this peroid, nor the arms shipments to that island, nor does it explain the armament of south Korea, Wasn't China oin the side of the north? Not to forget Vietnam.
Peasant-nationalist movement? Just take a look at the health statistics of Cuba sweet heart and it's literacy level! For a guy that claims to be leninist tyou sure do have a negative attitude towards movements in the third world, which is what leninism is! Movements in the third world! I am sure the other 'leninists' smoking pot at your place would agree with you.

Above all: read a book! [/b]
I have to agree with what Viva said. Che himself visited both the Soviet union and China, finding China to be much more representative of a peoples struggle. I don't believe Mao represented any sort of elite class in anyway, in fact I do believe he sought to represent the people. Upon study of Mao's actions and all that he tried to accomplish, it is clear to me what he had in mind.

He did not believe in Stalinism, his "cultural revolution" cannot be thought of as indicitive of Stalinism in anyway. Stalinism implies a sort of police state ideal, where fear was used to erradicate Stalinist opposition. The cultural revolution mentality desired for people, all people to be vigilant of social deviences that would ultimately destroy such a delicate society. Rather than trying to impliment fear, Mao sought to educate. Of course you can debate whether or not it is just to Re-educate anyone in any extent, but in reality every human being needs to have a base belief system that is socially enlightened and imbued with tolerance (just not tolerance for exploitation).

One great thing I've heard of Mao and his cultural revolution:

He attempted to impliment a system in which the peasantry could report any general being far too luxurious in their lifestyle while being a representative of the people. In reality Mao had quite a lot of difficulty enforcing this, because how do you switch the loyalties of this mans soldiers?

In my opinion Mao honestly did try to transform China, but his means were limited. Many of the military men he could not root out betrayed his idea of China. I've also heard that toward the end of his life he tried to introduce someone as his replacement, but no generals would follow his command. Ultimately he had to give control to a man whom he believed had a 50/50 chance of either fucking up the nation, or keeping it on his track. We can easily see where this ended up.

As a man who greatly respects Che Guevara and his opinions, the fact that he touted China as the ideal communist movement rather than the Soviet Union meant a lot to me. This ideal made me do some research, from which it is quite apparent the differences between the two nations. Che spoke often of the luxurious lifestyles Soviet representatives lived, obviously in a very negative way. When he travelled to China he had nothing bad to say, and was quite proud of the struggle taking place there.

-JakeH-

viva le revolution
27th September 2005, 17:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:34 PM
Mao was a former high-up Kuomintang officer yet he persecuted others and their families for simply having been in the Kuomintang youth league?
LOL.... This is really cracking me up! Dude, put down the bong!
Are we now allowed to make stuff up?
But i must commend your dedication to say shit about Mao, i mean to go till the extent of inventing fairytales!
Like i said to a previous poster: Read a book!

Axel1917
27th September 2005, 17:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:41 PM
I've always been told that communism has never existed. I've always believed so myself.

I've done research on all of the standard "communist" nations people bring up. It's gotten so redundant that they name the same few nations over and over again, and I can very simply say the exact same response to each. I've got good reasoning why the USSR, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia aren't/weren't communist (There are more, but they are the most mentioned).

But of all the research I've done, one question still remains - Why is China (particularly Mao's China) not truly communist?
Mao was a Stalinist. There was nothing communist about him.

I would recommend reading works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky to get an idea of what communism really is. http://www.marxists.org is loaded with such works.

viva le revolution
27th September 2005, 17:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:51 PM

Mao was a Stalinist. There was nothing communist about him.

I would recommend reading works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky to get an idea of what communism really is. http://www.marxists.org is loaded with such works.
I think he would be better off judging that for himself. If he is interested in social-democracy he can join a trotskyite movement.
But seriously i would suggest reading Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Fidel and Guevara to find out more about the science of communism. Luxembourg is also a good source. What you must understand is that communism is a science, based in reason and rationality. Marx wasn't a prophet nor was lenin or mao, they weren't infallible. Each gave his theory and future writers expanded on it according to developments in their own countries/revolutions.
Their writings were aimed at their own population/followers. Little of their work can be understood properly by outsiders. For example, Trotsky's and Stalin's works are basically just an ego-war that just got out of control. Both of their writings have heavy refrences to incidents that cannot be understood unless one is already familiar with the russian revolution or Russian history for that matter. My advice, don't go by cryptic feuds that took place half a century ago, it makes no difference. Each had their own reasons for their actions.
Those who say that Mao was a stalinist have yet to offer proof of such an accusation. Not just blanket statements. Why else would Mao's writings be also displayed on the source you mention? :o
Perhaps the guy who runs the site is fascist! :lol: ,or stalinist at the very least! :D

HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen
27th September 2005, 19:53
"First of all, Mao was an awesome communist revolutionary and thinker. He led the Chinese people against fuedalism and fascism (Japan)."

So, the fact that he conquered Tibet is totally unimportant? I'm all for anti-imperialism, but all this guy wanted was to hold on to power. Nowhere does it say in any communist literature that conquering other lands is a communist thing to do.

Nothing Human Is Alien
27th September 2005, 19:54
The site is run by Trotskyists, and all sorts of authors are presented, because it is after all, an archive.

Axel1917
3rd October 2005, 18:01
Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 27 2005, 05:21 PM
Those who say that Mao was a stalinist have yet to offer proof of such an accusation. Not just blanket statements. Why else would Mao's writings be also displayed on the source you mention? :o
Perhaps the guy who runs the site is fascist! :lol: ,or stalinist at the very least! :D
You can't be serious about this, can you? Do you even know of Mao's actions and such?

Trotsky's writings being a product of an "ego war"? You can't be serious? What kind of unscientific nonsense is that?

viva le revolution
3rd October 2005, 18:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:32 PM


You can't be serious about this, can you? Do you even know of Mao's actions and such?

Trotsky's writings being a product of an "ego war"? You can't be serious? What kind of unscientific nonsense is that?
I am familiar with Mao's actions and the thought behind them, not only focusing on the line, 'mao was the devil incarnate'. I am familiar with some of his writings and what i have studied so far is profound. I prefer not to go into the line that 'mao loved starving and killing peasants, the very base on which his party rested, just for the heck of it!" If you have a debate, please, i implore you to to do so within the realm of reason and not the usual child-like stance many have taken in the past.
Not just Trotsky's, but Stalin's as well. In this case, i am referring to his writings at the time of his exile, particularly his biography of Stalin written by him while in exile. His conjecture is that Stalin was such a bastard because he was beaten up as a kid by his dad a lot. This is just childish whining. As if a political opponent sent into exile will write an impartial biography of your life. THAT i my opinion, would be unscientific.
Although both have their moments, such as Stalin's national question thesis and Trotsky's works with the exception of petty bickering and demonisation of Stalin, sitting in the states by the way.

Xian
8th October 2005, 02:13
What did Mao have in mind for Tibet? Didn't he know the people wanted China out?

Warren Peace
8th October 2005, 03:46
What did Mao have in mind for Tibet? Didn't he know the people wanted China out?

They also didn't want to be enslaved in the name of His Almight Holy Worshipfullness The Dalai Lama. Pre-Mao Tibet was a feudal state where slavery was common, the Dalai Lama himself owned around 4,000. Also, Tibet was historically part of China. Mao's goals in Tibet were to fight feudalism and reuinte the Chinese people.