Tibet

[Faux Real]

I've been taking note of many activist groups crying "Free Tibet". I'm not sure of the political situation within that place, and I'm hoping some of you can help clarify a position or two on the subject.

Do you support Tibetan independence from China? (Why or why not?)

[Led Zeppelin]

No because under the rule of the religious clique it was a feudalist hell-hole, and currently the main movement for liberation of Tibet is the former religious clique.

Besides, most people living in the Tibet area are of Chinese origin now.

[Random Precision]

If the Tibetan people want independence from China, then I fully support it. I do not think that their interests are very well represented by either the ruling state-capitalist government of the PRC, who want to keep them in, or the remaining exiled feudalists who claim they want independence. I think the Free Tibet movement is in terms of activist commitment just a step up from the animal rights movement, since there are so few native Tibetans in the west that there is no chance they will ever take over their own movement.

In any case, I certainly think the situation in Tibet isn't as bad as the US bourgeois media makes it out to be, as far as discrimination against natives and suppression of culture goes: http://www.hrw.org/pubweb/sperlingcont.html (from Human Rights Watch)

Also, here's a pretty good analysis of the history of China in Tibet and the challenges faced by workers and peasants in Tibet today, and those of the modern "Free Tibet" movement: http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html

I hope this helps.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 17, 2007 08:51 am
No because under the rule of the religious clique it was a feudalist hell-hole, and currently the main movement for liberation of Tibet is the former religious clique.

Besides, most people living in the Tibet area are of Chinese origin now.
Is that a joke?

You support an imperialist power repressing an independence movement?
There's obviously problems with the movement within Tibet, but far less than that within the Chinese Government.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 am
You support an imperialist power repressing an independence movement?
There's obviously problems with the movement within Tibet, but far less than that within the Chinese Government.
Ah! Finally a political subject I can debate you on instead of petty crap! :D

I'll try to keep it civil, hopefully I'll receive the same courtesy from you. :)



You support an imperialist power repressing an independence movement?

There is no independence movement within Tibet, and there hasn't been one for quite some time now. This of course had to do with actual political repression, but you and I both know that liberation struggles do not die out based on that alone.

China did not act as an imperialist power when it took over Tibet. Instead of exploiting the area, it invested heavily, basically building up the feudal relations of production to a point of industrialization. Just like how the Soviet Union acted when it took over Eastern-Europe.

Back when China was still a deformed workers' state, its role in Tibet economically was progressive and that is what eliminated any trace of an independence movement within the area. Now things have changed; China has economically taken on the road to capitalism, and in proportion to its increase of this behavior the people of Tibet are more exploited.

But times have changed. The majority of people living in Tibet are of Chinese origin now, and they are being equally exploited as people in the rest of the country. There is no super-exploitation or ethnic inequality in that area, at least not on a wide-scale.

Taking all this in considering, the taking over of Tibet by China was progressive, and that is why it was a good thing. I'm sure the vast majority of people living in Tibet would agree with me, given the fact that their life expectation has risen by a decade or two.


There's obviously problems with the movement within Tibet

There is no movement for independence within Tibet, other then a few ultra-nationalists who are sent there from without.

The majority of people who live in Tibet are of Chinese origin.


but far less than that within the Chinese Government.

And how is separating the working-class in the Tibet area from the rest of China beneficial to the liberation of it? It only does more harm, and there is no reason to call for it either because the two areas are now integrated into one nation-state.

[Ismail]

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) by Michael Parenti is a good read concerning this issue.

[Bilan]

Ah! Finally a political subject I can debate you on instead of petty crap! :D

I'll try to keep it civil, hopefully I'll receive the same courtesy from you. :)


:lol:
If it only were a subject i was overly confident on! haha


There is no independence movement within Tibet, and there hasn't been one for quite some time now. This of course had to do with actual political repression, but you and I both know that liberation struggles do not die out based on that alone.

I don't know about this, could you possibly provide sources to verify this claim?
I know for a fact that the former reasoning for it is true, and that there was mass repression from the Chinese government, but I don't know enough about this fact, so it's probably best to make assumptions on my part. :P


China did not act as an imperialist power when it took over Tibet. Instead of exploiting the area, it invested heavily, basically building up the feudal relations of production to a point of industrialization. Just like how the Soviet Union acted when it took over Eastern-Europe.

Arguably, all imperialist powers (not-neo-colonial ones, but many) have done that exact same thing. Britain did it to Australia from the period of 1788. That doesn't, however, mean it is not imperialism.
Essentially, the mass political repression that has been carried out in Tibet; taking control of the government and the economy, etc. are all characteristics of capitalist colonialism, and are pretty much the same thing.
The difference, perhaps, lies in the intentions of China.
And I don't think SU is a very good comparison, as they probably did more harm than good. :P



Back when China was still a deformed workers' state, its role in Tibet economically was progressive and that is what eliminated any trace of an independence movement within the area. Now things have changed; China has economically taken on the road to capitalism, and in proportion to its increase of this behavior the people of Tibet are more exploited.

Werd. But then naturally poses the question; though it might have been once good, it has now taken a turn for the worse, so why continue to support the imperialist rule of China over Tibet?



But times have changed. The majority of people living in Tibet are of Chinese origin now, and they are being equally exploited as people in the rest of the country. There is no super-exploitation or ethnic inequality in that area, at least not on a wide-scale.

sources??



And how is separating the working-class in the Tibet area from the rest of China beneficial to the liberation of it? It only does more harm, and there is no reason to call for it either because the two areas are now integrated into one nation-state.

I don't follow; has it of more harm?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 19, 2007 02:06 am

There is no independence movement within Tibet, and there hasn't been one for quite some time now. This of course had to do with actual political repression, but you and I both know that liberation struggles do not die out based on that alone.

I don't know about this, could you possibly provide sources to verify this claim?
Well there are some sources that say that it is "difficult to assess" (these are mostly the pro-movement sources), but since there hasn't been any action within the area claimed by the International Tibet Independence Movement for a decade (since 1989), it can be safely assumed that they have pretty much no presence in the area.

It is hard to verify how much support the independence movement has within the area, given the nature of the Chinese state, but I base that belief not only on the lack of activity of the movement that would have definitely been widely publicized by the international media, but also on the ethnic Chinese population within Tibet, which constitute the majority.


Arguably, all imperialist powers (not-neo-colonial ones, but many) have done that exact same thing. Britain did it to Australia from the period of 1788. That doesn't, however, mean it is not imperialism.
Essentially, the mass political repression that has been carried out in Tibet; taking control of the government and the economy, etc. are all characteristics of capitalist colonialism, and are pretty much the same thing.
The difference, perhaps, lies in the intentions of China.
And I don't think SU is a very good comparison, as they probably did more harm than good.

An imperialistic foreign policy does not necessarily mean that a nation is imperialist in the Marxist definition of the term, which is the one I used. For example when Iraq invaded Iran, it was being imperialist in terms of foreign policy, but its economy was far from imperialist, once again, in the Marxist definition of the term.

The Marxist definition includes an economic level of development and structure, one which China, the USSR, and other third world countries lack (or at least, lacked in the past tense, in the case of China).

Theoretically it may be a bit hard to understand, but it's pretty easy. Imagine that you were a Tibetan living in 1951, your own governmental system is feudal and highly oppressive, a small section of the population own 100% of the land, you are forced to work for them as a serf, and there is no room for dissent.

Now in China the same situation existed, but the new deformed workers' state enacted several progressive initiatives; redistribution of land, full equality for women and men, removal of the old incompetent nationalist zealots who ruled the country etc.

Would your life improve if the deformed workers' state invaded your territory and got rid of "all the old crap"?

You have to remember that the Chinese invasion was coupled with a massive influx of investment into the area, so the economic situation improved greatly. In the case of Britain and Australia the latter remained in a relative state of poverty until British companies started investing more in the industrial sector of the colony to improve extraction of resources for back home. The Chinese had no economic interest in the taking-over of Tibet, it cost them more economic resources than it got them.

The same was the case in Eastern-Europe. Compare Tibet and Eastern-Europe, invaded by deformed workers' states, to Africa, South-America and parts of Asia invaded (or under the control of) capitalist imperialist states.

The former were economically developed by the invasion, the latter were economically kept in poverty and exploited.

This is why I would not have opposed the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I would have opposed it if there was an actual movement of liberation within Tibet that was progressive, but there was none, the oppressive system of the area did not allow one to be in existence.


But then naturally poses the question; though it might have been once good, it has now taken a turn for the worse, so why continue to support the imperialist rule of China over Tibet?

Because there is no liberation movement and working to create one limited to the Tibetan working-class would seperate the Tibetan from ethnic Chinese working-class, which are by now already so bound up together in their interests that it would only harm the developtment of such a liberation movement.


sources??

Ironically the pro-Chinese sources consider a large portion of ethnic Chinese living in the area to be part of a "floating population", and count any child born in the area, regardless of the ethnicity of their parents, as a Tibetan. That's why the official sources claim that the majority are Tibetan, while the pro-indepedence movement sources claim otherwise.

In this case the independence movement has more reliable sources, given their relation to the situation.

Anyway, here are some sources:


Population of Tibet

Tibetan exiles claim 7 5 million Chinese now live in Tibet alongside six million Tibetans. These figures are unconfirmed, but recent Chinese figures confirm the trend. In addition, it was estimated that in 1992 there were 40,000 troops throughout Tibet
link (http://tibet.dharmakara.net/TibetFacts2.html)

For all the Chinese defined Tibetan autonomous areas (including the
TAR) we estimate the total non-Tibetan population to be between 2.5
to 3 million; figures based on Chinese statistics from 1990 claimed
the non-Tibetan total population to be 1.5 million; figures based on
Chinese statistics from 1990 claimed the total Tibetan population for
all the Tibetan autonomous areas to be 4.34 million.[they added the ethnic Chinese up as Tibetans]
note added

link (http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/tibet/D1-What-is-the-total-population-of-Tibet.html)

As for the figures on exploitation....it's pretty much impossible to calculate by what rate a person is exploited, but to the law the Tibetans are equal to the ethnic Chinese, so they would be paid equally.


I don't follow; has it of more harm?

Don't you agree that a single united movement for socialism/communism is more effective than two separate ones?

And given the fact that the working-classes of both areas are so bound up together economically, historically and culturally, there is no reason to have two separate movements, so it would be harmful in my opinion.