Log in

View Full Version : Where do we stand on Tibet.



Cyber Communist
4th December 2005, 17:07
Do socialists/communists/anarchists support:

1.) The current status quo, with Tibet under Chinese administration and a constituent member of the People's Republic of China.

2.) Support the 'Free' Tibet Campaign that is led by and supportive of the Dali Lama and the former Tibetan theocratic ruling class.

3.) Oppose both the Chinese occupation and the Tibetan Buddhist reactionaries and instead support the goal of a independent socialist Tibetan workers republic, with no role for Buddhism or the Dali Lama and the former theocratic regime.

I am going for option 3.

But option 1 is more progressive than the last option, given the very reactionary role that the Dali Lama once played when he used to rule Tibet as his own private fuedal despotism.

Nothing pisses me off more than those people who should know better, but still support and idolise the Dali Lama and the hellhole society he once ruled over.

bolshevik butcher
4th December 2005, 18:52
I'm with 3 as well. I dont support a powerful country attacking smaller ones. However, i am not supportive of repressive theocracies either. The dali lama was a vicious tyrant and the fact that the libreal left just took him on board is very telling.

Ric_god
4th December 2005, 20:03
I admit, I have little knowledge over this situation, though from what you have explained, I will also support 3. Though isn't the purpose of a Marxist country (arguably China), to spread (by force if needed) socialism?

Imperialization is wrong (but what if this imperialisation is Marxist?), but a country led by a sigular religion will only create new problems in my eyes. Lets just hope that if a true socialism can be reached, it too does not lead to oppression.

So, yes, I will agree with you and go with 3, but it raises the large debate of Marxist imperialisation. And, is China Marxist? Mabey others can expand on that.

redchrisfalling
4th December 2005, 21:29
I would like to support option three but Asian culture is VERY slow to change. The Dali Lama was a tyrant but I would perfer to see him in power then a continuation of that stalinist capitalist bulshit that is going on in China now.
So untill number three is realistic i will sayy i supportthe sepratists.

Creature
5th December 2005, 05:14
Pretty closed poll because everyone who is leftist is going to vote for option three.

RedStarOverChina
5th December 2005, 05:41
Tibetan workers republic,
Sounds nice but the mass majority of workers in Tibet are Han migrant workers.

Nothing Human Is Alien
5th December 2005, 10:52
Right. One it is.

Zeruzo
5th December 2005, 16:14
i vote for 1 too

h&s
5th December 2005, 16:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:14 PM
I admit, I have little knowledge over this situation, though from what you have explained, I will also support 3. Though isn't the purpose of a Marxist country (arguably China), to spread (by force if needed) socialism?

Imperialization is wrong (but what if this imperialisation is Marxist?), but a country led by a sigular religion will only create new problems in my eyes. Lets just hope that if a true socialism can be reached, it too does not lead to oppression.

So, yes, I will agree with you and go with 3, but it raises the large debate of Marxist imperialisation. And, is China Marxist? Mabey others can expand on that.
1. China is not socialist, and has never been, nor is it Marxist (it is debatable as to it whether it was ever Marxist).
China is a country with a centrally planned economy, but it is no longer socialistic. .Capitalism is rabid in its worst form throughout the cities.
2. It is not the duty of socialist nations to impose socialism by force - how can you force the working class to rise up and seize power and the means of production for themselves? Misunderstanding of that leads to a misunderstanding of the nature, the class nature, of socialism.
No. 3 is the only option.

bolshevik butcher
5th December 2005, 16:33
The only people of imposing socialism are the soverign working class. How can you impose democracy, equality and workers power?

h&s
5th December 2005, 16:36
/\ Have you joined the AWL?

bolshevik butcher
5th December 2005, 16:53
Eh no. Was that a slur or a serious suggestion coz i dont know what AWL is!

YKTMX
5th December 2005, 19:58
Number 2.

Number 3 is preferrable but is impossible without national liberation.

We support all national liberation struggles, which the Tibet situation obviously is.

Led Zeppelin
5th December 2005, 20:01
Option 3 of course.

TheComrade
5th December 2005, 20:05
I would say option 3 but it is, as others have said, a vain cause. Option 2 would be a more realistic option.

YKTMX
5th December 2005, 20:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:16 PM
I would say option 3 but it is, as others have said, a vain cause. Option 2 would be a more realistic option.
Yes, a 'vain cause' would be a good way of putting it.

The main point though is that 3 isn't an option without national liberation (2).

RedStarOverChina
5th December 2005, 20:35
So going feudal is the new ideal, eh? :(

The only reason one might oppose the Chinese rule in Tibet is the mass imigration from the rest of China that will eventually diminish Tibetan culture and take all the jobs from Tibetans. As for culture, I dont give a damn. As for the economic interest of the Tibetan people, I think the government is figuring out a way. But one should note that if a tibetan walks out of Tibet, he enjoys enormous benefits--so does the other 54 minorities in China. They get admitted into universities for a much lower mark; pay less tuition fees; and are not subject to "one child policy", so on and so forth. Tibet's natural resources will make sure that the central government is able to throw alot of cash back at Tibet.

Right now the central government is doing that already. The mere economical aid China gives to Tibet every year is 10 times more than the tax collected from Tibet.

Thats why Dalai acknowledged that its better for Tibet to stay within China.

RedStarOverChina
5th December 2005, 20:37
One can be sure that Tibet's independence is impossible. If it does declare independence under the Dalai Theocracy, it would immediately and inevitablly become a colony of india.

LA GUERRA OLVIDADA
5th December 2005, 23:22
Something of 3.

Reform Tibet into an independent state. Tibetan culture, language, and ethnicicty is completely different than that of China's. Being a Buddhist myself I am a strong supporter of Buddhist reform in Tibet and I want the way of life to be encouraged, just get the ruling class lamas out of there.

WUOrevolt
5th December 2005, 23:44
I support 3, although I have to admit that I am not terribly knowledgeable about the situitation, but I do know that China has pretty much imperialized Tibet and China is no socialist country, rather authoritarian state capitalism.

Severian
6th December 2005, 00:24
Originally posted by Cyber [email protected] 4 2005, 11:18 AM
Do socialists/communists/anarchists support:

1.) The current status quo, with Tibet under Chinese administration and a constituent member of the People's Republic of China.

2.) Support the 'Free' Tibet Campaign that is led by and supportive of the Dali Lama and the former Tibetan theocratic ruling class.

3.) Oppose both the Chinese occupation and the Tibetan Buddhist reactionaries and instead support the goal of a independent socialist Tibetan workers republic, with no role for Buddhism or the Dali Lama and the former theocratic regime.
Isn't that for Tibetans to decide, rather than for us?

It should be their decision whether to remain part of the Chinese state or become independent, and then it has to be their decision what kind of state it would be....

There's little realistic chance of a restoration of feudalism, as even the exiled serfowners seem to know.

The real current question is the attempt to gradually restore capitalism throughout the PRC, and the widespread workers resistance to that....

The international "Free Tibet" campaign has to be seen in that context, as part of applying pressure on China to push it further in the capitalist direction. Washington, Paris, London, etc., couldn't care much less about Tibet in and of itself.

And the right to self-determination of the various nationalities in the PRC has to be seen in that context too. It's necessary to challenge national oppression and Han chauvinism in the course of building a common fight by working people of different nationalities against the PRC regime and imperialist finance capital.

Anyway, here's something I once wrote on Tibet. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

ComTom
6th December 2005, 00:31
I think that the slaughter of millions of Tibetans is imperialism at best. There was no class struggle in Tibet so there is no reason the Chinese should of invaded to "spread a revolution". My opinion of the current situation is that I support autonomy of Tibet, but no indepedence, on the threat that the Tibetans would start receiving support from capitalist nations and build a millitary threat next to the people's state. The oppresion of Tibetans is unforgivable and is a downright sin against mankind.

RedStarOverChina
6th December 2005, 00:45
I think that the slaughter of millions of Tibetans is imperialism at best.You shouldnt trust every piece of American propaganda you hear about. The occupation of Tibet came at the price of around 5000 Tibetan corvees being killed, injured, or captured.

The suppression of Tibetan elitist uprisings later on had some casualties too but I wouldnt say the number is anywhere near "millions".

Sons_of_Eureka
6th December 2005, 00:48
I think Tibet should become a independant state with a relationship with mainland China similar to that of the EU nations to each other.Thus meaning that the Tibetan people would still enjoy ecconomic and social wellbeing on behalf of the of the Chinese.

I think Chinese involment in Tibetan politics should be minimalised and nothing like the current suituation in Hong Kong although pro-independent reactionary lamas should be smash if not by the Tibetan people by the Chinese.

The free Tibet movement is funded by the CIA and other imperialist organisations in order to promote ethnic sepratism and civil war in China.The lamas have a long line of supporting imperialist over the welfare of thier own people like the Mongolian warlords,National socialist germany and recently the US empire.Do not support these satanic infidel Lamas who advocate cultural supremacy,feudalism and slavery.

Personaly i think Maos liberation of Tibet was perfectly justified as i had support from the tibetan communist and Tibets leadership was one of the worst regimes the world has ever seen.

Some info on Tibet when it was 'free'.
http://www.geocities.com/mahabala_awake/tibet.html
http://www.tibet-china.org/serie_book/engl...et/rbch2_at.htm
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/tibet.html

Severian
6th December 2005, 01:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:42 PM
I think that the slaughter of millions of Tibetans is imperialism at best.
The slaughter of "millions" of Tibetans is a lie. There wouldn't be any Tibetans left if it was true; their population in the 1950s was only 1 or 2 million depending on what area you define as "Tibet". Source - none the number of Tibetans has greatly increased under PRC rule. (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq/)

The Dalai Lama's government in exile claims 1.2 million killed. This claim was endorsed by the U.S. government in the Tibet Policy Act of 2001.

Here's a refutation of that claim, from something I once wrote about that act:


The Act asserts that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese government. I did some looking around to try to determine if this number is accurate. Apparently the original source is the Tibetan government-in-exile, and they offer nothing to support their claims. I looked on various human-rights and anti-genocide websites - they do not mention this number. Neither does the Tibet Information Network, as far as I can tell. Or Tibetan exile and historian Tsering Shakya, in his book The Dragon in the Land of Snows. Maybe they're all a little embarassed at this exaggerated accusation.

The Tbetan government-in-exile sometimes mentions a Chinese secret document allegedly captured by Tibetan guerillas. This document says that 87,000 Tibetans were killed between March 1959 and October 1960.

The CIA was heavily involved in supporting the Tibetan guerillas, and the document passed through their hands. So one has to consider the possibility that they forged or modified it. But let's suppose it to be genuine.

The 1959-1960 uprising was the period of the heaviest fighting in Tibet. There was fighting earlier in Tibetan-inhabited areas east of the Dalai Lama's realm, but little fighting later aside from guerilla raids across the border from Nepal. Not only deaths in combat, but any killings of unarmed supporters of the rebels, would have been highest during this period.

There was some famine in eastern Tibetan areas in the late 1950's due to the sudden collectivization of agriculture and the so-called "Great Leap Forward." It should be kept in mind that famine was far from unknown before the Revolution.

And the Dalai Lama's realm - today's Tibet Autonomous Region - was insulated from these policies at the time. When agriculture was eventually collectivized in the Tibet Autonomous Region, it appears to have caused shortages but not famine - possibly because agriculture was proceeding normally in the rest of China by that time.

So it's kinda hard to get from those 87,000 to 1.2 million.

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

China's population-control policies are applied more loosely for Tibetans and other non-Han Chinese nationalities. Encarta Encyclopedia again: "However, women who belong to one of China's national minorities may not face the same level of pressure. In general, government policies allow non-Han peoples more cultural independence and permit them to have larger families." This is one reason that the non-Han Chinese nationalities are a growing part of China's population, today approaching 10%. Not exactly genocide.

There's two problems with false accusations of genocide:

1. They make it harder for truthful accusations of genocide to be believed (the "boy who cried wolf" effect).

2. The North American and West European governments have been trying to establish a precedent that military intervention into other countries' internal affairs can be justified in the name of stopping genocide.
In practice, I suspect, this would only apply to governments that were in conflict with their economic and strategic interests.

This is just one of many blatant examples of total dishonesty by the "Free Tibet" people and the Tibetan government-in-exile.

"No class struggle in Tibet" is also a pretty dubious assertion. The level might not have been that high - Tibetan peasants were pretty ground down.

But Tibetans weren't wholly incapable of revolt, either. A number of Tibetans joined the Long March when it passed through eastern Tibet, and a Tibetan "Soviet" government was set up in Garze, eastern Tibet, in 1936. It was suppressed by the Kuomintang after the Long March left the area.

(This was a Tibetan-inhabited area outside the Dalai Lama's realm in central Tibet.)

Revolution67
6th December 2005, 04:40
China should leave Tibet unconditionally. Let the Tibetans decide what is the best form of governance for them. China, a blemish on the communist ideals, will soon dis-integrate under its own contradictions, much to the releif of communists worldwide. Chinese expansionists gobbled Tibet in 1950s and stabbed India at the back by throwing the Panchsheel Agreement out of the window and treacherously attacked India and occupied large tracts of land in 1962 Sino-India war.

Tibet deserves her independence...PLA should get this thing in their thick skulls.

Correa
6th December 2005, 05:19
Which option would the Maoist in Nepal choose?

RedStarOverChina
6th December 2005, 05:26
Chinese expansionists gobbled Tibet in 1950s and stabbed India at the back by throwing the Panchsheel Agreement out of the window and treacherously attacked India and occupied large tracts of land in 1962 Sino-India war.
I'm not a nationalist, but thats a load of bullcrap.
Nehru refused all negotiations and then pushed his army way beyond the Mcmahon line in his "Napoleanic advance" (As Indian journalists called it) in an attempt to gain "more than he bargined for".
Even the Indian Communists supported China's counter strike.

Revolution67
6th December 2005, 05:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:07 AM

Chinese expansionists gobbled Tibet in 1950s and stabbed India at the back by throwing the Panchsheel Agreement out of the window and treacherously attacked India and occupied large tracts of land in 1962 Sino-India war.
I'm not a nationalist, but thats a load of bullcrap.
Nehru refused all negotiations and then pushed his army way beyond the Mcmahon line in his "Napoleanic advance" (As Indian journalists called it) in an attempt to gain "more than he bargined for".
Even the Indian Communists supported China's counter strike.
Source?

Socialist Nehru had so much faith in People's Republic of China, that he did not deem fit to have Indian Army garrisons deployed on the McMahon line. The Indian Ordanance factories were making tractors and buckets and defense spendings were minimal. If Nehru had any hegemonistic designs, the result of Sino-India war would have been different and not only Indians would have not lost a part of Laddhak, which is now known as 'Aksai Chin' but Indians would have also captured more than half of Tibet. Chinese have realised that Indians cannot be beaten now on the battleground like the way they were beaten up in 1962. Thats why China has given up its claim on the Indian state of Sikkim and would evetually give up on Arunachal Pradesh too. You are correct that Indian Communists hailed Chinese invasion at that time but now they refuse to say anything on that.

By the way, would you like to share some valid reasons for Chinese invasion of Tibet?

RedStarOverChina
6th December 2005, 06:30
Your thread is just full of historic inaccuracies but I'll take the time to point out some of them.

Source?India's China War by Neville Maxwell is a good read. It's quite fair.

actually, no he did not have "faith" in China.

that he did not deem fit to have Indian Army garrisons deployed on the McMahon line.
False. The exact same guy rejected Zhou Enlai's suggestion for both sides to pull back their troops 20 kilometers to avoid confrontation.

If Nehru had any hegemonistic designs, the result of Sino-India war would have been different and not only Indians would have not lost a part of Laddhak, which is now known as 'Aksai Chin' but Indians would have also captured more than half of Tibet.
which was Nehru's intention when his troops advances beyong the Mcmahon Line.

Thats why China has given up its claim on the Indian state of Sikkim and would evetually give up on Arunachal Pradesh too.
China never "claimed" Sikkim. It merely opposed India's annexation of Sikkim.

By the way, would you like to share some valid reasons for Chinese invasion of Tibet?
What else could China do? Who knows where Nehru was going to stop? There was nothing else that can be done: Nehru blocked all possibilty for any sort of negotiation, while his troops were penetrating deeper and deeper into Chinese territory by the day.

RedStarOverChina
6th December 2005, 06:42
By the way, would you like to share some valid reasons for Chinese invasion of Tibet?
Oh opps misread it. Sorry.

Simple. China considered Tibet a part of China and the battle in tibet was no different than other battles in the civil war. Tibet had, like what? 7 years of independence in the past 600 years or so. No single country ever recognized the Dalai Theocracy in the 40s.

Severian
6th December 2005, 11:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 12:53 AM
Tibet had, like what? 7 years of independence in the past 600 years or so. No single country ever recognized the Dalai Theocracy in the 40s.
Tibet was de facto independent from 1913 to 1950. But you're right that they did not have any international diplomatic recognition.

Severian
6th December 2005, 11:07
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 12:09 AM
Socialist Nehru had so much faith in People's Republic of China, that he did not deem fit to have Indian Army garrisons deployed on the McMahon line.
Not that old myth again - the supposed love for China of the so-called socialist Nehru.

As early as 1950, Nehru was shipping arms to Lhasa for use against the People's Liberation Army. That continued through the 50s and 60s in different forms - New Delhi's cooperation was necessary for the whole CIA op there.

Actions speak louder than words.

Revolution67
6th December 2005, 15:01
Though I have not read Neville Maxwell's book India's War with China, but I doubt if that scholarly work can be taken as it is. Maxwell has also been charged as Chinese apologists for aggression against India. Regarding "faith" that India had on China is evident from the slogan, which was quite popular in India inthe 1950s "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai' meaning 'Indians and Chinese are brothers.' Actually, India found new comradeship with China as both had become free republics at almost the same time. Though India tried not to put itself anywhere in the Eastern or the Western Bloc, but its tilt was clearly towards Kremlin.

If Nehru had any hegemonstic designs, then India would have annexed Sri Lanka, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan), Bhutan and Nepal first. There was literally no motivation or desire to capture Tibet. It was only when the Chinese invaded Tibet, that India grew wary of their expansionist designs and with the annexation of Tibet, India lost a buffer state. Before PLA came to power after defeating Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai Shek, Lhasa had a Chinese Mission. That means before communists came to power, China recognised Tibet as sovereign nation. In 1954, when India signed Panchsheel Agreement with PRC, it recognised Tibet as a part of China and willingly gave up its claim extra-territorial rights, it enjoyed in Tibet.

By the way, you might also visit this link: http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/1.htm
On the origins of Sino India war and the issue of Tibet.

h&s
6th December 2005, 15:55
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 5 2005, 05:04 PM
Eh no. Was that a slur or a serious suggestion coz i dont know what AWL is!
No slur mate, its just you're using their logo as your avatar. The AWL are a Trot party (mainly made up of teachers) within the Labour Party.

Hiero
6th December 2005, 16:13
There was no class struggle in Tibet so there is no reason the Chinese should of invaded to "spread a revolution".

That is the most outrageous and anti-marxist lie that has came out of this forum ever.

No country is safe from class struggle, it is a natural law that is dependant on the economic base. Tibets economic system was feudalism, the basic class structure was feudal lord (in the form of religious leaders) and the peasants. So the class struggle was the feudal lords against the peasants. There was no peace and harmony in Tibet, the ruling class were very violent in suppressing the class struggle from exloding into revolution.

With the revolution succesfull in the rest of China, in 1956 with the aid of the PLA the revolution was able to happen in the Tibet region. The peasants overthrew the feudal lords and freed themsevles from feudalism and religion.

I'm guessing you are one of thoose hippie buddhist types. I once believed that Tibet was a heaven on earth before 1956, untill i did a bit of research and changed my views. I advise you to do the same.

bolshevik butcher
6th December 2005, 18:32
Originally posted by h&s+Dec 6 2005, 04:06 PM--> (h&s @ Dec 6 2005, 04:06 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 5 2005, 05:04 PM
Eh no. Was that a slur or a serious suggestion coz i dont know what AWL is!
No slur mate, its just you're using their logo as your avatar. The AWL are a Trot party (mainly made up of teachers) within the Labour Party. [/b]
Aha i see, I'm in socialist appeal (marxist.com), which is a group that operates mainly within the labour party, but as for the logo i just liked it.

Severian
7th December 2005, 10:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:12 AM
T Regarding "faith" that India had on China is evident from the slogan, which was quite popular in India inthe 1950s "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai' meaning 'Indians and Chinese are brothers.'
One more time: actions speak louder.


There was literally no motivation or desire to capture Tibet. It was only when the Chinese invaded Tibet, that India grew wary of their expansionist designs and with the annexation of Tibet, India lost a buffer state.

Did I say they were out to "capture" Tibet? But they did arm the Lhasa government from the beginning.

Fundamentally, newly independent India took over Britain's role in relation to Tibet and other protectorates of British India. I've read up on Tibet in considerable detail, and everybody I've read agrees on that. You even mention their "extraterritorial privileges" in Tibet...inherited from the British. Those privileges were part of the humiliation the various imperialist powers imposed on a weak and disintegrating China.


Before PLA came to power after defeating Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai Shek, Lhasa had a Chinese Mission. That means before communists came to power, China recognised Tibet as sovereign nation.

Oh BS. The Kuomintang regarded that mission as their representative in a provincial capital. And everyone knew it. That's why, when the PRC was about to be founded, the Lhasa government expelled the Kuomintang rep as part of attempting to declare independence!

Note that they made little effort to do so before. Their hostility to being part of China was fundamentally class-driven - modern nationalism didn't exist in their medieval minds - they wanted to get away from the Chinese Revolution.

You might as well claim the Manchu recognized Tibet as independent since they sent representatives (amban) to their vassals in Lhasa! It's a wholly ridiculous argument.

The Kuomintang regarded Tibet as part of China, the CCP just inherited their view essentially. Even after relocating to Taiwan, the Kuomintang continued to regard Tibet as part of China.

RedStarOverChina
7th December 2005, 10:55
^I knew u'd refute those errors so I didnt bother writing another long post. :lol:

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog
7th December 2005, 12:56
If voting 3 means voting 2 as well then okay...so be it. But I will not vote for 2 because that's not the eventual goal although I realise it's a necessary step.