Your views on the situation in Tibet? [Archive]

Asoka89

15th March 2008, 21:52

By the way tradional Tibetan culture (hierarchy, theocracy etc) is one thing, but the ideas of Buddhism and the ideas of the current Lama are different.

The Dalai Lama is a self-proclaimed "Buddhist Marxists", he supports the goal of Communism and he simply wants some form of self-governance for the people of Tibet.

Precisely because we are internationalists we argue for full equality between nations, and that such equality can only be established by granting oppressed nations the right to self-determination. Only in this way can workers in the oppressed countries unite with workers in the oppressor country.

These ideas were first developed by Marx around the question of England’s oppression of Ireland. "In all the big industrial centers in England," wrote Marx, "there is a profound antagonism between the Irish proletariat and the English proletariat. The average English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers wages…He regards him somewhat like the poor whites of the Southern states of North America regard their black slaves. This antagonism among the proletarians of England is artificially nourished and supported by the bourgeoisie. It knows that this antagonism is the true secret of maintaining its power."

Marx concluded therefore that socialists must support Ireland’s separation from England. "It is a precondition of the emancipation of the English working class," he argued, "to transform the present forced union (i.e. the enslavement of Ireland) into equal and free confederation if possible, into complete separation if need be."

He applied the same methodology to slavery in the U.S. South, arguing that working-class emancipation could not be accomplished without destroying slavery. "Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded," he argued in his monumental work Capital.

Lenin compared the right of self-determination to the right of divorce (writing at a time when it was difficult for a woman to obtain one). We support the ability of women to dissolve a marriage not because we want all marriages to break up, he argued, but because equality of the sexes cannot exist where women are legally bound to their husbands.

Likewise with national oppression. Workers’ unity cannot be built without workers in an imperialist or oppressor country supporting the right of self-determination of the oppressed nation.

RedStarOverChina

15th March 2008, 23:30

Zurdito

15th March 2008, 23:35

Im not sure most of the Tibetan people would want that to be seperated from China and they certainly wouldnt want to go back to the Lama's theocratic slave-state despotism.

Why would they have to? Why couldn't we support the Tibetan masses against all opressors. China isn't occupying Tibet out of altruism is it?

Asoka89

15th March 2008, 23:45

:(Not again.

He's not "half-Marxist" he just said it hoping he could get money from the soviets when Nixon cut off funding.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/dalai-lama-says-t72156/index.html

And the kind of autonomy Dalai advocates is no different from independence or a restoration of a theocracy--combining both political and spiritual authority into one.

I think autonomy in Tibet will not be a "regional thing" but something more flexible if it is to be achieved. Like a separate system of education, domestic policies for Tibetans all over China.

Wrong.. again.
This is a quote from him IN 1996. Both Mao and Nixon were both rotting away by then (not a moment too soon)

"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair ... The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

RedStarOverChina

16th March 2008, 00:14

Wrong.. again.
This is a quote from him IN 1996. Both Mao and Nixon were both rotting away by then (not a moment too soon)
He started saying that in the 70s, and since it's worked so well with lefties he kept on saying stuff like that.

Anyone who believe in it is naive to the extreme. The theocrat's been in power for more than half a century and didn't do anything slightly Marxist.

spartan

16th March 2008, 00:24

These pictures that i am about to post show an example of western media bias against China.

This is a photo from CNN showing Tibetan protesters running away from Chinese army trucks (Which is meant to show China in a bad light):
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/tibet.unrest/art.lhasa.riot.afp.gi.jpg

This photo however shows the full picture (CNN conveniantly cut a bit off) which shows Tibetan protesters visciously attacking the Chinese army trucks whilst the Chinese dont even respond:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/03/15/tibet_lead_wideweb__470x303,0.jpg

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 00:25

Killer Enigma

16th March 2008, 00:27

Anyone who believe in it is naive to the extreme. The theocrat's been in power for more than half a century and didn't do anything slightly Marxist.
Given that Asoka89 provided a warrant for his claim and you have failed to produce one, it would seem he is not the one who is "naive to the extreme". A claim without any substantive evidence holds no weight in an argument.

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 00:30

This photo however shows the full picture (CNN conveniantly cut a bit off) which shows Tibetan protesters visciously attacking the Chinese army trucks whilst the Chinese dont even respond:

So let me get this straight, Tibetan protestors who attack occupying troops - one of the world's largest armies - are "vicious", and they should be grateful when the Chinese don't "respond"?

What next? Brave IDF soldiers in their tanks stay calm in the face of Palestinian rock throwing.:rolleyes:

spartan

16th March 2008, 00:42

So let me get this straight, Tibetan protestors who attack occupying troops - one of the world's largest armies - are "vicious", and they should be grateful when the Chinese don't "respond"?

I never said that the protesters themselves were "vicious" just that there actions could be considered vicious.

You would do well to remember that it was the western mainstream media who deliberately touched up the first image to make the protesters look like the victims being attacked by the Chinese army when that wasnt at all the case (As shown by the second image).

Also i never said that the protesters should be grateful that the Chinese troops seemingly didnt respond to their violent actions, so stop trying to make it look like i was implying that.

I am no lover of China but i am also no lover of media bias for a cause that is allied and openly supported by American Imperialism and aims to halt the immense progress that has taken place in Tibet ever since the Feudal Theocracy was ousted by the Chinese.

Like others in this thread have said i would happily support an independent Tibet that was Democratic and secular, but that isnt going to happen with American puppets like the Dalai Lama still leading the free Tibet movements, which aims to bring back the old Feudal Theocracy and thus un-doing the immense progress made by Tibet whilst under Chinese rule.

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 00:49

I never said that the protesters themselves were "vicious" just that there actions could be considered vicious.

You would do well to remember that it was the western mainstream media who deliberately touched up the first image to make the protesters look like the victims being attacked by the Chinese army when that wasnt at all the case (As shown by the second image).

Also i never said that the protesters should be grateful that the Chinese troops seemingly didnt respond to their violent actions, so stop trying to make it look like i was implying that.

I am no lover of China but i am also no lover of media bias for a cause that is allied and openly supported by American Imperialism and aims to halt the immense progress that has taken place in Tibet ever since the Feudal Theocracy was ousted by the Chinese.

I have your quote here and it is clear what you said:

These pictures that i am about to post show an example of western media bias against China.

This is a photo from CNN showing Tibetan protesters running away from Chinese army trucks (Which is meant to show China in a bad light):

This photo however shows the full picture (CNN conveniantly cut a bit off) which shows Tibetan protesters visciously attacking the Chinese army trucks whilst the Chinese dont even respond:

I'm not making it look like anything, you called Tibetan protestors vicious, and said how the chinese "didn't even respond". That is disgusting Those troops are in someone else's country, and those people are resisting national opression. Your priorities are fucked up. Do not equate the Tibetan masses with the Chinese army. The Chinese army's presence in Tibet is vicious. The Tibetan masses resisting is not visious but just.

Also it is is not up to the Chinese to end fuedal theocracy in Tibet. Do you think it is? Do you really htink powerful states should go around selectively imposing "liberation" on weaker nations, conventiently tied to their own economic interests? I don't know how many "great advances" have been made in Tibet which could not have been acheived under the guidance of the Tibetan people themselves, but I do know that when masses protest against a foreign occupation we DO NOT call them ungrateful for great advances, rather, we examine the opression which makes them resist. Also, we DO NOT equate the LEADERSHIP of a movement with the masses within it. Those people resisting the Chinese are resisting opression and any real marxist backs them, because we oppose all opression. The bourgeois forces backing them do not change that. The USA backs Kosovan independence, do you therefore support nationalism against Kosovan self-determination? Does that make the Kosovans (or tibetans) actions "imperialist" in themselves? Are they acting on behalf of US imperialism like mindless puppets? Of course not.

spartan

16th March 2008, 01:01

Just to make something clear here i do not support either side in this struggle because i see both sides as being un-progressive (One oppresses the other by denying its freedom, whilst the other seemingly wants to undo the immense progress made in the last half centruy under Chinese occupation).

Zurdito do you also support these protesters when they start killing Chinese civilians for no other reason then there ethnicity?

Hiero

16th March 2008, 01:09

Also it is is not up to the Chinese to end fuedal theocracy in Tibet. Do you think it is? Do you really htink powerful states should go around selectively imposing "liberation" on weaker nations, conventiently tied to their own economic interests?

It was the Tibetans who ended fuedal theocracy. The Chinese only aided them in 1950. Do you really think that Tibetan serfs and peasants sat by idle and did not attack their masters/oppressors while the Chinese fought them?

The only people who fought against the People's Liberation Army were CIA backed Tibetans who had links to the fuedal order. I doubt that Tibetan indepence is even highly sought after inside Tibet by the majority. At least not in the "masses" as you claim.

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 01:12

Zurdito do you also support these protesters when they start killing Chinese civilians for no other reason then there ethnicity?

Nobody kills someone for no other reason than ethnicity, ok, that is a lie put out by the bourgeoisie to explain away the material basis for war.

I support IRA attacks in Britain, I support Hamas attacks in Israel, and I support Tibetan attacks in the name of their liberation. I regret the deaths of workers in the opressor nations but the solution is for them to demand their government withdraw its troops.

Wanted Man

16th March 2008, 01:19

They most certainly are vicious. What else would you call it when ~1,000 people protest, including reactionary monks arming themselves with traditional swords, attacking not only Han Chinese, but trying to slaughter anybody who is not Tibetan? Certainly, if "the Tibetan masses resisting" were stronger, they would have had no qualms with ethnically cleansing the city. Or what about the slugs who burned a mosque, because the Hui muslims are diluting the ethnic "purity"? "Real marxists" support that? Fuck off. The only brave people here are the Tibetans who try to hide Chinese children from the pogromists that "real marxists" support, according to you.

And to justify your support of them, you even go on to support Kosovan nationalism (of the brave, progressive Kosovo Liberation Army, no doubt). How long will it be until certain sections of the left dispose of the ignorant "national liberation at all costs" that has already led them to support so many reactionary movements?

Anyway, some more articles on this subject:

'Oh my God, someone has a gun ...'

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian),
Saturday March 15 2008
Article historyAbout this article

Close
This article appeared in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian) on Saturday March 15 2008 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/15) on p1 of the Top stories (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/15/mainsection/topstories) section. It was last updated at 01:15 on March 15 2008.

This is an eyewitness account of a foreign resident in Lhasa who took refuge in a hotel close to the centre of the Tibetan capital yesterday. The city was gripped by violence after protesters and police clashed

"Oh my God. Oh no. That's crazy. One hundred people are trying to stone one man. A man was trying to cross the street with his motorcycle - they were trying to stone him but it's so crowded I can't see whether they got him or not.

"We came out for a walk about at about five today. I knew something was happening because there were a lot of people on the street. We were on Sera Street, which goes to the [Klukang] monastery. It sounds like the noise came from there; it sounds like at first they had been fighting in the temple.

"We saw people running and people in this hotel told us to get in quickly as the crowd was coming. They seem OK here, maybe the owner is Tibetan. All the other hotels have smashed windows.

"The residents are very angry. They are throwing stones at anyone who is Han [Chinese] or from other minorities like the Hui, who are Muslims. It seems like it's ethnic - like they want to kill anyone not Tibetan.

"I would say it's a riot here but I think in the centre it's worse. There's a lot of smoke - we can see it where there have been burnings. I heard people saying the authorities were firing, using guns. We don't know.

Here we have seen people trying to stone anyone they can - Han and other minorities, not foreigners. The Tibetans had stones and knives. I saw Chinese people running away - there was nothing they could do.

"We don't see any police around here. Maybe they're all in the centre and are too busy. It's very violent.

"Oh my God. Someone has a gun in front of me. There's a group of about 20 people - two of them have handguns. They are walking the street.They're shooting. They didn't have uniforms, but the way they were in a group I thought maybe they were police. They went down the street and the first one fired, that's for sure - I think the others did; there was so much noise I can't be sure. Then some of the citizens threw stones, but not at them - in the other direction. So I don't know if they were police or maybe Tibetans.

"I have just been out to get my things. We are staying at the hotel tonight. There are still people on the streets but only Tibetans - if they see anyone
Chinese they throw stones.

"Three times people raised their arms and then when they saw I was white they stopped it. The thing that surprised me most was that I saw no police or soldiers.

"I saw three people assaulting a man - I was 50 metres away, but I think he was Chinese. They kicked him and then one man had a knife and used it. He was lying on the floor and the man put the knife in his back, like he wanted to see he was dead.

"I had to get away, there were people throwing stones.

"When I came back he was gone - I don't know if he's dead. Then I saw people who had obviously been beaten or stoned. There wasn't blood on them but they were so shocked.

"This area used to be a place where Tibetans and the Chinese were friendly.

"I think this is going to get worse. One person told me 300 people have died in the city centre [the Guardian has no information to substantiate this claim]. I just don't know."

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2)

News analysis: top story (http://www.economist.com/)
Tibet
Fire on the roof of the world

Mar 14th 2008 | LHASA
From Economist.com
Our China correspondent sends an eyewitness report from Lhasa as Tibet’s simmering resentment boils over

http://media.economist.com/images/ga/2008w13/Tibet.jpg
THE Chinese authorities had been fearing trouble, but nothing on this scale. An orgy of anti-Chinese rioting convulsed the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, on Friday March 14th, leaving security forces uncertain how to respond. For many hours mobs controlled the streets, burning and looting as they pleased.

The approach of Beijing’s Olympic games in August is seen by many of Lhasa’s residents as an opportunity to put their contempt for Chinese rule on display to the outside world. China’s desire to ensure the games are not marred by calls for boycotts is tying its hands as it considers how to respond.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/daily.economist.com/dailyart;pos=v5_art350x300;sect=news;sz=350x300;ti le=1;ord=27849734? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/daily.economist.com/dailyart;pos=v5_art350x300;sect=news;sz=350x300;ti le=1;ord=27849734?)

Your correspondent, the only foreign journalist with official permission to be in Lhasa when the violence erupted, saw crowds hurling chunks of concrete at the numerous small shops run by ethnic Chinese lining the streets of the city’s old Tibetan quarter. They threw them too at those Chinese caught on the streets—a boy on a bicycle, taxis (whose drivers are often Chinese) and even a bus. Most Chinese fled the area as quickly as they could, leaving their shops shuttered.

The mobs, ranging from small groups of youths (some armed with traditional Tibetan swords) to crowds of many dozens, including women and children, rampaged through the narrow alleys of the Tibetan quarter. They battered the shutters of shops, broke in and seized whatever they could, from hunks of meat to gas canisters and clothing. Some goods they carried away—little children could be seen looting a toyshop—but most they heaped in the streets and set alight.

Within a couple of hours, fires were blazing in the streets across much of the city. Some buildings caught fire too. A pall of smoke blanketed Lhasa, obscuring the ancient Potala—the city’s most famous monument, which covers a hillside overlooking the city. It is the traditional winter palace of the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, who fled into exile in India after an abortive uprising in 1959. Some of the demonstrators shouted slogans like “long live Tibet” and “long live the Dalai Lama”. One group trampled on a Chinese flag in the middle of a main road.

The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred. Immigrants have been flocking into Lhasa in recent years from the rest of China and now run many of its shops, small businesses and tourist facilities. Tourism is the mainstay of Lhasa’s economy and has been booming in recent years, not least thanks to Tibet’s first railway link with the rest of China, opened two years ago. The visitors are mainly Chinese.

There is big resentment too over sharp increases in the prices of food and consumer goods from the rest of China. Many residents of Lhasa, suspicious of the new train service, which they felt might encourage immigration, had been comforted by what they say were official statements saying the rail link would help bring prices down. But they have kept on rising, as they have in other parts of the country.

Residents had mixed feelings about the violence. Some celebrated by throwing rolls of lavatory paper over wires across the streets, filling them with streamers intended to resemble traditional Tibet scarves. Others appeared aghast at the violence. As your correspondent spoke to a monk in the backroom of a monastery, a teenage boy rushed in and prostrated himself before him. He was a member of China’s ethnic-Han majority, terrified of the mobs outside. The monk helped him to hide.

The violence was fuelled by rumours of killings, beatings and detention of Buddhist monks by security forces in Lhasa this week. Access to the city’s big three monasteries has been blocked by police since the beginning of the week when hundreds of monks staged protests coinciding with the March 10th anniversary of the 1959 revolt. Dozens of them, residents believe, have been arrested. On Friday morning, rumours spread that monks had been shot dead outside the Jokhang temple, the holiest shrine of Tibetan Buddhism in the heart of the Tibetan quarter. A couple of monks outside another temple were said to have been beaten by police.

A handful of riot police with shields and helmets (but no guns visible) patrolled in front of the Jokhang as the riots continued around them, while others stood in lines at the perimeter of the riot-torn area. But for many hours they made no attempt to intervene. After nightfall, fire engines supported by two armoured personnel carriers, moved down the streets putting out the blazes. But the police carrying automatic rifles atop the armoured vehicles did not attempt to deploy on the streets. The occasional bang was heard, but it was difficult to tell whether it was shooting or explosions in the fires.

During the evening, Lhasa television broadcast over and over again, alternately in Tibetan and Chinese, a government statement accusing the “Dalai Lama clique” of being behind the violence by a “small number” of rioters. It called on city residents to support the authorities’ efforts to restore control.

But ensuring stability in Lhasa in the coming months will be an enormous challenge for China as it prepares for the Olympics. Many residents expect a massive deployment of security forces over the weekend and possibly a reintroduction of martial-law type restrictions, as in 1989 during the last serious outbreak of unrest in the city (some say the latest protests have been the biggest since 1959). But officials in Lhasa had been preparing to host growing numbers of foreign tourists and Olympic visitors this year. A long-term visible deployment of troops would be, to say the least, a big embarrassment for the Communist Party.

Back to top ^^ (http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10870258&top_story=1#top)

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10870258&top_story=1)

Wanted Man

16th March 2008, 01:24

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 01:33

Zurdito, it's interesting that you bring up Hamas. I wonder what it would be like if Islamic extremists in Palestine started burning a synagogue, and attempted to kill any Jew in sight. The media would be going nuts ("They are killing innocent Jews!!!"), every country in the world would unconditionally support the Israeli "right" to clamp down on them. Anyone on RevLeft defending the pogrom would probably be banned for being anti-semitic.

I'm pretty sure some reasonably large reactionary elements within Hamas do want to drive all Jews out of Palestine, and would kill any Jew who entered the "occupied territories" unprotected. I'm also pretty sure most people know that. What's your point?

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 01:38

I'm pretty sure some reasonably large reactionary elements within Hamas do want to drive all Jews out of Palestine, and would kill any Jew who entered the "occupied territories" unprotected. I'm also pretty sure most people know that. What's your point?

Not that I speak for the deranged Dutchman, but I think his point is that you seem to be ok with this...

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 01:42

Not that I speak for the deranged Dutchman, but I think his point is that you seem to be ok with this...

I'm not ok with it, but such attitudes are a product of the occupation, and the ideology of Palestinian society, like any opressed nation, will only change when the material conditions change. That is why progressive,s ecular, classist forces in Palestine need to support a united front against Israeli occupation, and show themselves to be the only true leaders capable of providing a winning strategy.

Wanted Man

16th March 2008, 01:46

I'm not ok with it, but such attitudes are a product of the occupation, and the ideology of Palestinian society, like any opressed nation, will only change when the material conditions change. That is why progressive,s ecular, classist forces in Palestine need to support a united front against Israeli occupation, and show themselves to be the only true leaders capable of providing a winning strategy.
And in the absence of progressive, secular classist forces, "real marxists" support pogroms. Okay.

RedStarOverChina

16th March 2008, 01:51

Given that Asoka89 provided a warrant for his claim and you have failed to produce one, it would seem he is not the one who is "naive to the extreme". A claim without any substantive evidence holds no weight in an argument.
I do not have the source..The internet is not as information-rich as I would like it to be. But I have read Dalai's autobiography published in 1990 where he mentioned something like the follow:

"I think I still count as a half-marxist, I am not opposed to capitalism, so long as it follow the humanitarian path."

The 70s saw a drastic transformation of his rhetoric on socialism. Whereas before he called socialism "cruel" and "oppressive" and called for a united world front against communism, he changed his position after the Soviet-Chinese fallout.

In 1974, he stated that if he was to return to Tibet, "socialism would be the path". Western reporters at the time immediately realized he was trying to impress the Soviets.

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 02:00

And in the absence of progressive, secular classist forces, "real marxists" support pogroms. Okay.

Secular, marxist forces do exist in Palestine, I can assure you. You sound like you have bought too much imeprialist propaganda. However even if they didn't exist, so what? I'm not an idealist. People are motivated by objective reality, not "ideas" Objectively, what the Palestinians fight for is progressive: national lliberation. We support that in order to elevate their subjective consciousness through struggle.

Your use of the word "pogroms" is intriguing. Apaprently killing Jews is some kind of higher sin than killing anyone else as so identified by its own special term, "pogroms", which no other death qualifies under.

But what of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians? An Israeli Minister recently called for a Shoah against the Palestinians, even. A lot of mosques have been destroyed by Israeli missiles, a lot of homes. The death rates are incomparable. The Palestinians are dying of starvation, disease and warfare every day, in the world's largest prison camp - the Gaza strip - in the refugee camps.

Yet you still fantasise about Palestinian "pogroms" of the Jews, as if that were in any way a feasible threat (about as laughable as the idea of Tibet committing genocide on the Chinese).

Jesus christ. No wonder you're a Hoxhaist, you still seem stuck in the mindset of half a century ago. I've got news for you: Israel exists now, it's one of the strongest miltiaries in the world, and it is carrying out the "pogroms" itself.

Wanted Man

16th March 2008, 02:07

RedStarOverChina

16th March 2008, 02:08

Look, its an unjustified comparison to compare Tibet with Palestine.

CCP never committed ethnic cleansing against Tibetans the way Zionists did to Palestinians. No Tibetan was kicked out his home or had his job given to a Han Chinese.

This was NOT an ethnic conflict until very recently. The nature of the conflict is class struggle, it was a conflict between the Dalai feudal theocracy and and Chinese Bourgeoisie state.

No one had the right to oppose Jews moving into Palestine after WWII, it's what they did to Palestinians afterwards that should be opposed.

Zurdito

16th March 2008, 02:26

You just wasted five paragraphs, Zurdito. Try to read a bit more carefully. Particularly where I said "Imagine what it would be like if...". You might even try asking me what I think about the Palestinian issue before mouthing off.

Well your scenario made no sense and I found it completely impalusible. "What if..." arguments can go anywhere. "what if Iraq invaded the US?" Exactly. If I asked you that int he middle of a conversation about a real event, you'd be right to tell me why I was not making sense. Maybe you should be more clear about when you are being hypothetical, and then go to more effort to explain the exact scenario you expect people to answer questions about. If your scenario referred to some imaginary world in which Jews live as an integrated minority amongst Palestinians, then that situation would be so different from the current one, that the same logic I apply to supporting Hamas wouldn't even apply.

Look, its an unjustified comparison to compare Tibet with Palestine.

CCP never committed ethnic cleansing against Tibetans the way Zionists did to Palestinians. No Tibetan was kicked out his home or had his job given to a Han Chinese.

This was NOT an ethnic conflict until very recently. The nature of the conflict is class struggle, it was a conflict between the Dalai feudal theocracy and and Chinese Bourgeoisie state.

No one had the right to oppose Jews moving into Palestine after WWII, it's what they did to Palestinians afterwards that should be opposed.

Yes, quantitaively the situations are very different. But qualitatively, national opression is national opression, and we support oppressed nation's right to delf-determination.

Btw, the Jews did not move into Palestine, and that was never the problem.

1.) Some Jews already lived in Palestine, that was never their problem.

2.) Those who "moved" there didn't "move" like immigrants, rather, they were colonisers, Zionists. The creation of Israel didn't happen by accident as an afterthrought, it was planned out, that is why they moved there.

BobKKKindle$

16th March 2008, 02:27

We should defend China against all attempts to create an independent state in the Tibetan region. Although there have been mistakes during China's control of Tibet, in general, the annexation has been in the interests of groups which used to suffer under the theocracy; women now have access to education; peasants are no longer forced to work with a single landlord as serfs, and are able to purchase their own plots of land; and the system of social stratification based on religious authority has been broken down. These are all progressive changes, and can be attributed to the deformed Chinese workers state.

If the independence movement were to gain power or somehow convince Tibet's inhabitants to declare independence, many of these gains would be eroded, and Tibet could revert to a semi-feudal economic system, because this movement is comprised mainly of religious leaders. Tibet is not a candidate for national liberation, because Tibet has always been regarded as part of China, there is no reason for Tibet to exist as a separate state, and the movement seeking to create a Tibetan state is reactionary in character.

There is evidence to suggest that the Tibetans (by which I mean those of Tibetan ethnic origin) are prejudiced against the Han ethnic group; there has been widespread opposition to the construction of a new railway linking Lhasa with other major cities in China, because this would allegedly allow for Han Chinese to migrate to the region, which would "dilute" the area's current ethnic composition; this shows a form of prejudice we normally associate with supporters of far-right political parties in western countries. Recent events further confirm the prevalence of anti-Han prejudice, and we should call for the defense of this vulnerable group within Tibet.

On a side note, I am very happy to see that Spartan is now taking a very mature approach to issues like this. Keep it up comrade!

anarchy666

16th March 2008, 02:29

Im not sure most of the Tibetan people would want that to be seperated from China and they certainly wouldnt want to go back to the Lama's theocratic slave-state despotism.

They should at least have the choice

Killer Enigma

16th March 2008, 02:31

I do not have the source..The internet is not as information-rich as I would like it to be. But I have read Dalai's autobiography published in 1990 where he mentioned something like the follow:

"I think I still count as a half-marxist, I am not opposed to capitalism, so long as it follow the humanitarian path."

The 70s saw a drastic transformation of his rhetoric on socialism. Whereas before he called socialism "cruel" and "oppressive" and called for a united world front against communism, he changed his position after the Soviet-Chinese fallout.

In 1974, he stated that if he was to return to Tibet, "socialism would be the path". Western reporters at the time immediately realized he was trying to impress the Soviets.
He provided a quote from 1990. It would seem as though your information, if true, is outdated. It's difficult to prove someone's intent as well. You have a right to the opinion that the Dalai Lama only professed a belief in Marxism to "impress the Soviets" but for you to assert that as truth is fallacious.

BobKKKindle$

16th March 2008, 02:39

As for the issue of whether the Lama supports "socialism" this comment is rather telling:

“There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.”

This is taken from the Parenti article, and he cites the following as his source:

These comments are from a book of the Dalai Lama's writings quoted in Nikolai Thyssen, "Oceaner af onkel Tom," Dagbladet Information, 29 December 2003, (translated for me by Julius Wilm). Thyssen's review (in Danish) can be found at http://www.information.dk/Indgang/VisArkiv.dna?pArtNo=20031229154141.txt.

Guerrilla22

16th March 2008, 02:47

spartan

16th March 2008, 04:23

I support IRA attacks in Britain, I support Hamas attacks in Israel, and I support Tibetan attacks in the name of their liberation.

So you support the IRA when they go and bomb completely innocent British workers?

Believe it or not but Irish workers have alot more in common with British workers then they do with their Irish Bourgeoisie.

Why people like you are still falling for the age old Bourgeois tactic of divide and conquer is beyond me.

You would do well to remember that the workers have no country!

Random Precision

16th March 2008, 04:46

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 05:05

I fully support The I.R.A. Up the Ra!! I don't see why anyone on this board who considers them selfs a revolutionary does not. And those British are not so innocent as described. Loyalist Ruc scum has blood on their hands as well ! Oh and bless the Provisional I.R.A !

BobKKKindle$

16th March 2008, 05:11

And those British are not so innocent as described. Loyalist Ruc scum has blood on their hands as well !

Are you trying to say that British workers were responsible for, or complicit in, the oppression if the Irish workers? If so, could you give an explanation as to why this is the case, and thus why it is justified to bomb British workers to liberate Northern Ireland? All Socialists should condemn attacks on workers, although it is more appropriate to support attacks that target property or specific individuals.

Supporting an ant-imperialist movement does not mean that we have to support every single action undertaken by that movement.

spartan

16th March 2008, 05:21

When has the IRA targeted British workers?

It hasnt specifically targeted British workers (As far as i know) but its terrorist attacks have resulted in the death or injury of completely innocent British working class people (Just as Loyalist and British army attacks have as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom# 1970s

It is also known that IRA members have sat on local council boards and have helped in attempts at privatisation of water amongst other things (Which is odd to say the least for self described Socialists).

They, like the Loyalists, are also now heavily involved in drug, prostitution and weapons trafficking as a way of funding their activities.

When compared with the Loyalists i think that the IRA is the lesser of two evils, but secterian violence, largely based on religion, is stupid and the only way to achieve lasting peace in this troubled region is through the so far successful peace process.

Lets face it the militant Republicans and Loyalists are being left behind and the majority of them are now just common criminals with nothing to offer except nostalgia for idealistic youths.

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 05:31

Are you trying to say that British workers were responsible for, or complicit in, the oppression if the Irish workers? If so, could you give an explanation as to why this is the case, and thus why it is justified to bomb British workers to liberate Northern Ireland?

No I did not say that British workers were responsible for the six British occupied counties of NI and the oppression that has occurred over the years . We are not talking about a short period of time here. We are talking about some odd 800 years of British oppression and rule. You say that British workers were targeted specifically but really I haven't seen much evidence to support that theory. Although who ever said that revolutionary behavior was pretty though? really I'm not gonna deny that the actions of the I.R.A was serious and whatnot but I think it was necessary and I fully support it and their on going struggle.

All Socialists should condemn attacks on workers, although it is more appropriate to support attacks that target property or specific individuals. British workers were not singled out and attacked in this case.

Supporting an ant-imperialist movement does not mean that we have to support every single action undertaken by that movement.

I have chosen to support the I.R.A and many other groups fighting for an end of oppression because I believe in their cause. I do think that it is wise to pick and chose your battles so to say. In the battle for civil rights though , I stand with many !

BIG BROTHER

16th March 2008, 06:17

I wish the Tibet was independent, without interfierence of China and the US. And of course I wish that if they were independent they had a legimate socialist goverment.

but I don't think this will happen.

Devrim

16th March 2008, 11:23

In Northern Ireland:

On 5 January (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_5) 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976), an IRA unit in Armagh shot dead ten Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) building workers at Kingsmills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre), in reprisal for Ulster Volunteer Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force) (UVF) killings of six Roman Catholics the previous day.

In Britain:

The Birmingham pub bombings were bombings by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army) (IRA)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings#_note-BBC-1) in Birmingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham), England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) on November 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_21), 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974) which killed 21 people and injured 182.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings#_note-0) The devices were placed in two central Birmingham pubs: the Mulberry Bush, at the foot of the Rotunda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotunda_%28Birmingham%29), and the Tavern in the Town, a basement pub on New Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Street%2C_Birmingham) (now renamed the Yard of Ale).

Devrim

The Feral Underclass

16th March 2008, 11:27

How bout china just lets Tibet be a independent nation? i think that could solve it all.

Tibet with then be under a religious dictatorship. I don't think that will solve anything.

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 14:15

In Northern Ireland:

In Britain:

Devrim

Devrim,

Your point? Yes those were horrible incidents, interesting the first even noted it was carried out as a response to murders the previous day . I'm not gonna say ,as I told Redstar awhile ago, that workers did not get caught in the cross fire , but to suggest that this was the sole motivation of the I.R.A. is just not true.

Gitfiddle Jim

16th March 2008, 15:26

A "Free Tibet" would see a return to religious autocracy.

Devrim

16th March 2008, 16:16

Your point?

My point was a reply to this question:

When has the IRA targeted British workers?

There are of course other examples.

Yes those were horrible incidents, interesting the first even noted it was carried out as a response to murders the previous day . I'm not gonna say ,as I told Redstar awhile ago, that workers did not get caught in the cross fire , but to suggest that this was the sole motivation of the I.R.A. is just not true.

Neither of these cases are about workers getting caught up in the cross fire. It is not the case here that the IRA were shooting at the police and happened to hit somebody.

The first case was a brutal sectarian murder. The fact that it was in reprisal for a previous killing does not excuse it. These are the actions of an ethnic terror gang.

The second involves bombing city centre pubs. Please tell us who you think the 'real' target was when these bombs just happened by chance to kill people out having a drink.

I don't suggest that it is the sole motivation behind the IRA. I would suggest that at its worst the IRA can behave as little more than a sectarian murder gang. The incident with the building workers is a good example.

Devrim

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 17:00

There are of course other examples.

Yes there are . Though I don't think you would post anything that depicted your beloved British country men in a bad light though...

Neither of these cases are about workers getting caught up in the cross fire. It is not the case here that the IRA were shooting at the police and happened to hit somebody.

No , and the first was speciffically aimed at revenge for the murder that took place the previous day.

The first case was a brutal sectarian murder. The fact that it was in reprisal for a previous killing does not excuse it. These are the actions of an ethnic terror gang.

I would like to hear your justification of the events of January 30th 1972. That sounds like an ethnic "terror" gang in action, killing un- armed civil rights marchers.

The second involves bombing city centre pubs. Please tell us who you think the 'real' target was when these bombs just happened by chance to kill people out having a drink.

It wasn't British workers as it has been stated.

I don't suggest that it is the sole motivation behind the IRA. I would suggest that at its worst the IRA can behave as little more than a sectarian murder gang. The incident with the building workers is a good example.

Funny The British hands are covered in blood, Yet it is okay and over looked. Things with the Provos did not get serious till after that dreadful day in January . Still to this day 1st Para has yet to be held accountable for murder flat out . No Justice, No Peace

Devrim

And stop signing your name on every post

Devrim

16th March 2008, 17:12

Yes there are . Though I don't think you would post anything that depicted your beloved British country men in a bad light though...

I am not British.

I would like to hear your justification of the events of January 30th 1972. That sounds like an ethnic "terror" gang in action, killing un- armed civil rights marchers.

I don't try to justify it or defend it in any way.

Funny The British hands are covered in blood,

I'd condemn the activity of the Brits in Northen Ireland.

It wasn't British workers as it has been stated.

Who was the intended target then?

No , and the first was speciffically aimed at revenge for the murder that took place the previous day.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to commit ethnic murders of workers if they are revenge.

Devrim

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 17:26

The first case was a brutal sectarian murder. The fact that it was in reprisal for a previous killing does not excuse it. These are the actions of an ethnic terror gang.

The second involves bombing city centre pubs. Please tell us who you think the 'real' target was when these bombs just happened by chance to kill people out having a drink.

I don't suggest that it is the sole motivation behind the IRA. I would suggest that at its worst the IRA can behave as little more than a sectarian murder gang. The incident with the building workers is a good example.

I think this is a pretty fair analysis, and I know republicans who agree. According to some I've talked to, a lot of IRA men were ashamed by some of those actions. However Kingsmill was an aberration, even many protestants in south Armagh would agree with that. The majority of republican attacks were directed at the occupation forces.

But there's definitely no denying that catholic defenderism played a huge role in the PIRA's military operations and even raison d'etre, as you are pointing out- to the point that it was surely a detriment to their overall strategy.

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 17:26

I am not British.

Yes I saw Turkish. What great prisons you have.

I don't try to justify it or defend it in any way.

Well Devrim, the thing is that it is still important to this day because it was the catalyst for a lot of things and events. Did you know that the inquiry into that day is the largest inquiry ever mounted? It has also cost tons of money.

I'd condemn the activity of the Brits in Northen Ireland.

Well me too :)

Who was the intended target then?

Dervin I'm not saying that workers where not killed. I'm saying that it was not the mission of the I.R.A to hunt down workers and target them speciffically.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to commit ethnic murders of workers if they are revenge.

When did I say that? When did I say The I.R.A was an ethnic murder gang? They are not. I think in the war for Irish independence all is fair at this point. Take that however you want

An archist

16th March 2008, 17:37

No , and the first was speciffically aimed at revenge for the murder that took place the previous day.

In that case, shouldn't they have gone after the murderers instead of killing innocent people?

Devrim

16th March 2008, 17:37

Dervin I'm not saying that workers where not killed. I'm saying that it was not the mission of the I.R.A to hunt down workers and target them speciffically.

And I am saying that this action was the action of an ethnic murder gang, pure and simple. Even Irish republicans agree:

I think this is a pretty fair analysis, and I know republicans who agree. According to some I've talked to, a lot of IRA men were ashamed by some of those actions. However Kingsmill was an aberration, even many protestants in south Armagh would agree with that. The majority of republican attacks were directed at the occupation forces.

I don't say that the IRA in general deliberately targets workers. I don't think that many of them had enough of a class analysis to even look at it that way. Those protestant workers were killed because they were protestants, not workers.

I think in the war for Irish independence all is fair at this point.The sort of things that nationalists always say. In our opinion it has nothing to do with socialism.

Yes I saw Turkish. What great prisons you have.

What is this supposed to mean? Am I to be held responsible for the Turkish prison system? Actually, I am not an ethnic Turk either.

Devrim

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 17:47

Could you edit your quotes? just noticed that you accidently attributed to me some things someone else said.

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 17:50

And I am saying that this action was the action of an ethnic murder gang, pure and simple. Even Irish republicans agree:

Well I don't really care about you biased stance against the I.R.A. . I'm also sure there are all kinds of folks lined up agreeing with that stance as well.

I don't say that the IRA in general deliberately targets workers.

That's all I wanted you to say. Let's see next...

The sort of things that nationalists always say. In our opinion it has nothing to do with socialism.

Well if being a socialist means turning a blind eye to the liberation of the Irish people, I am no socialist I'll tell you that right now.

What is this supposed to mean? Am I to be held responsible for the Turkish prison system? Actually, I am not an ethnic Turk either.

Devrim

Nothing Devrim, I think the Turkish have great prisons and The British are the most wonderful humanitarian people on the planet next to the Americans that is.....

Devrim

16th March 2008, 18:08

Could you edit your quotes? just noticed that you accidently attributed to me some things someone else said.

Sorry,

Devrim

Vanguard1917

16th March 2008, 18:11

They should at least have the choice

Yes, i would support the right of Tibetans to democratic self-rule. But i have no sympathy whatsoever for the Western celebrity-supported, Prince Charles-backed paternalistic middle class campaign to 'Free Tibet', which is more about bashing China than it is about solidarity with the Tibetan people.

China is offensive to Western middle class activists because it represents development and modernity, things which are seen as evil, arrogant and corrupt, whereas Tibet is seen to represent an idyllic rural society of humble Buddhist folk. The West feels more comfortable with the latter; they prefer their 'third world'ers knowing their place rather than having ideas above their station.

See, for example, this poster from the Free Tibet campaign in Britain, which contrasts evil polluted Chinese with good simple Tibetan peasants.

http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/railway/boycottpcardx.jpg

See larger version here: http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/railway/postcardgw.pdf

Partisano

16th March 2008, 18:27

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 18:44

Well if being a socialist means turning a blind eye to the liberation of the Irish people, I am no socialist I'll tell you that right now.

There's definitely no consensus on this issue. It's one of the more divisive questions within the Left. Marx came to be a firm supporter of Irish national liberation, as was Lenin.

Nothing Devrim, I think the Turkish have great prisons and The British are the most wonderful humanitarian people on the planet next to the Americans that is.....

The gardaí are pretty fuckin brutal, too.

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 18:52

I support the Tibetan people's right to autonomy, self-determination, but I oppose what it would become if the Dali Lama got his way. I, as a libertarian, oppose the Chinese government, and think it should also be dismantled. I think the answer would be allowing them autonomy, and free elections, and trying to restrict the Lama's influence.

As far as I understand though, Tibet was an uncontested province of China until the Chinese started pressuring HHDL to reform Tibet. Then the ruling class of Tibet started talking to the CIA, and the Chinese moved in to cover their border. So although Chinese rule is not for selfless reasons, it has been beneficial to removing fuedelism and modernising the area. And I just can't see how Tibetan independence is a progressive demand at all- though it's becoming clear that the Chinese government is making this more into an ethnic issue and dividing the community there.

PRC-UTE

16th March 2008, 18:57

Yes, i would support the right of Tibetans to democratic self-rule. But i have no sympathy whatsoever for the Western celebrity-supported, Prince Charles-backed paternalistic middle class campaign to 'Free Tibet', which is more about bashing China than it is about solidarity with the Tibetan people.

China is offensive to Western middle class activists because it represents development and modernity, things which are seen as evil, arrogant and corrupt, whereas Tibet is seen to represent an idyllic rural society of humble Buddhist folk. The West feels more comfortable with the latter; they prefer their 'third world'ers knowing their place rather than having ideas above their station.

See, for example, this poster from the Free Tibet campaign in Britain, which contrasts evil polluted Chinese with good simple Tibetan peasants.

http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/railway/boycottpcardx.jpg

See larger version here: http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/railway/postcardgw.pdf

That's LOL funny. It's so racist, one wouldn't know where to begin...

Lector Malibu

16th March 2008, 19:07

There's definitely no consensus on this issue. It's one of the more divisive questions within the Left. Marx came to be a firm supporter of Irish national liberation, as was Lenin.

This is true. Lenin also was critical of America's treatment of minority's

The gardaí are pretty fuckin brutal, too.

Oh it's disgusting no doubt. Really when you look at everything that has happened over many , many years It's apparent that something had too to be done. The I.R.A. never really wanted to see things escalate to the level they did imo but there really wasn't much choice, things had progressed to a point where things like this needed to happen. I still despite everything support them and their efforts and to me they are not terrorist but freedom fighters.

Partisano

16th March 2008, 20:55

As far as I understand though, Tibet was an uncontested province of China until the Chinese started pressuring HHDL to reform Tibet. Then the ruling class of Tibet started talking to the CIA, and the Chinese moved in to cover their border. So although Chinese rule is not for selfless reasons, it has been beneficial to removing fuedelism and modernising the area. And I just can't see how Tibetan independence is a progressive demand at all- though it's becoming clear that the Chinese government is making this more into an ethnic issue and dividing the community there.

I suppose I consider it to be a progressive due to the nature of the Chinese state. It is brutal and anti-democratic, but would not want to see it change one tyranny for another "traditionalist" tyranny either. I do not deny that the industrialization, the modernization has been beneficial for Tibet, but I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, and perhaps it is not the best solution. I think it would be just as productive as Kosovo's withdraw from Serbia, a part of the world where ethnic groups lived in relative peace. I suppose it should be the Tibetan people who decide, not the DL nor Bejing.

RNK

16th March 2008, 21:52

Give it back to them and let them rot, I say.

Random Precision

16th March 2008, 22:18

Well, it seems that national-liberation struggles are just fine and dandy, until the Tibetans dare rise up against "communist" China. What the fuck?

First, as to the claims about Tibet being historically part of China. That may be true. It also does not matter in the slightest. Palestine was historically a Jewish state and Ireland was historically under British rule. It is up to the people of Tibet to decide their rulers, not some historical mandate that makes capitalist China their overlords. If they want a separate Tibetan state, it is up to them. Would this be a feudal state, along the lines of the old one ruled by the Dalai Lama? No. Enough time has passed since then, capitalist property relations having been introduced and all, that Tibet can never go back to the Lamaist feudal government. It's completely ahistorical to say otherwise.

As for the Tibetan national-liberation movement itself, which right now seems to be infested with monks. This does not matter in the slightest. If the Tibetans wait around, twiddling their thumbs until a perfect revolutionary situation in which all the capitalists and would-be oppressors in Tibet are lined up against them, Tibet will never be free of either. I'm paraphrasing something Lenin said about the Easter Rising in Ireland here, I'll try to find the exact quote.

EDIT: Here we go!

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts in small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without outbursts by a revolutionary section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian, against oppression by the landowners, the church and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.- to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. 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! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a 'putsch'.
Whoever expects a 'pure' social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person is paying lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.
(Author's emphases)

And I think that one reason the Dalai Lama is looking so good right now to the Tibetan people is that he seems to be the only alternative to capitalist oppression under a foreign state apparatus. Things would change pretty damn quick for him if the Chinese were gone.

I also don't really give a damn about the "gains" the Tibetan people have had under capitalist rule, or that of a "deformed workers state" if you would prefer it that way. Given the way things are turning out over there, I'm starting to suspect that neither do they. The tasks of their liberation from the tyranny of both feudalism and capitalism must be left to them.

I don't know enough about the attacks on ethnic Chinese to say for sure, but if the allegations are true I think we must realize that the Han Chinese are not native Tibetans, they have moved into a different country and so are de facto occupiers. It's much the same with the situation in Palestine. Civilian settlers in an oppressed nation are legitimate targets for a movement of national liberation. Attacks against civilians are unfortunate, but most likely justifiable.

And we must remember that China is a capitalist state. I never expected good comrades like the ones who have posted in this thread to jump to its defense so quickly. Simply incredible.

Ferryman 5

16th March 2008, 22:21

I wouldn't say that the Chinese are just as bad as the old rule in feudal Tibet. In fact, Tibetans have it much better off under the Chinese rule than that of the slavery and oppression of the Lamas.

This isn't to say that China hasn't done wrong in Tibet nor to say that Tibet shouldn't be independent, but the facts of the situation.

Furthermore, the United States and Europe have absolutely no place to criticize China on the subject of imperialism and human rights, that is, until they start redistributing the wealth accumulated due to centuries of exploitation, oppression, slavery, rape, murder, etc. from Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Let's not forget that Britain held Hong Kong from the Chinese only a decade ago, North America itself is stolen land, and the U.S. still illegally owns territories throughout its hemisphere.

Yonkers your slipping mate. You know damn well that their is no such thing as an "independent" country, class etc. But your last two paragraphs sorted it out though. And we still want the pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist pro-human rights 'in general' lobby shit-shovelers' defeated on this one.

ArabRASH

16th March 2008, 22:26

I can't believe anyone on here is defending China. This is ridiculous.

China is not, nor has it ever been, a communist nation, so why anyone would defend its imperialist measures against the Tibetans is beyond me. Even if a real COMMUNIST nation had imperialistic ambitions, we would think twice whether to support it or not, let alone a horrible capitalist nation whose source of great economic power is due to the exploitation of the workers.(Yes, China exploits workers. How do you think they keep their products so cheap? Low wages, low prices my friends.)

Ferryman 5

16th March 2008, 23:00

Random Precision

16th March 2008, 23:10

It can only be in the interests of the biggest most dangerous and aggressive abusive imperialists capitalists states on the planet to ferment 'nationalist' independence trouble on the borders of their rivals in China. We must want them to fail.

Yea, because the Tibetan peoples' struggle against oppression is automatically invalidated by the fact that US imperialists would like to see it succeed.

How fucking stupid.

Red_or_Dead

16th March 2008, 23:10

I agree with Random Precision here. If Tibet would gain independance, I imagine it to be anything but what it was prior to the occupation. Im guessing that a US-EU sponsored bourgeois democracy would be the most likely option.

What I am interested in at this moment, tho, is how much chances does Tibet actually have to gain independance. My opinion is that western powers would be very reluctant to support an independant Tibet, simply because of the impact it would have on their relations to China. Also, if Tibetans try to fight their way out of China, it would imo result in a disaster for them.

Ferryman 5

16th March 2008, 23:30

Yea, because the Tibetan peoples' struggle against oppression is automatically invalidated by the fact that US imperialists would like to see it succeed.

How fucking stupid.

What is so special about " Tebetan peoples' struggle" all of a sudden? Why 'Random Position' are you getting so animated about it? Their position is no different now to the way it was before China won the Olympic bid. And what class of "Tibetan people" are you talking about anyway? BE SPESIFIC please.

Random Precision

16th March 2008, 23:35

What I am interested in at this moment, tho, is how much chances does Tibet actually have to gain independance. My opinion is that western powers would be very reluctant to support an independant Tibet, simply because of the impact it would have on their relations to China. Also, if Tibetans try to fight their way out of China, it would imo result in a disaster for them.

No, I doubt that the US or Europe would run risk a breakdown in their relations with China by supporting the Tibetan independence movement. As revolutionaries, we do not want them involved either. The only ones we should support in this conflict are the workers and peasants of Tibet, in their struggle against Chinese capitalist hegemony.

That said, my hopes are not very high that this movement will succeed. I doubt Tibet will become independent unless there is a serious change in the Chinese government along with its imperialist ambitions.

Random Precision

16th March 2008, 23:39

What is so special about " Tebetan peoples' struggle" all of a sudden? Why 'Random Position' are you getting so animated about it? Their position is no different now to the way it was before China won the Olympic bid. And what class of "Tibetan people" are you talking about anyway? BE SPESIFIC please.

Tibet is a nation which is oppressed by Chinese capitalism, and as a socialist I wish to see all forms of oppression, whether they be political or economic, destroyed.

I am referring to its workers and peasants, who bear the brunt of Chinese oppression.

I don't know what the Olympics has to do with anything. But if it matters, I supported the struggle of the Tibetan workers and peasants against the Chinese bourgeoisie back then as well.

Ferryman 5

16th March 2008, 23:55

Tibet is a nation which is oppressed by Chinese capitalism, and as a socialist I wish to see all forms of oppression, whether they be political or economic, destroyed.

I am referring to its workers and peasants, who bear the brunt of Chinese oppression.

I don't know what the Olympics has to do with anything. But if it matters, I supported the struggle of the Tibetan workers and peasants against the Chinese bourgeoisie back then as well.

Oh ye, any fool or genius can say they are a '"socialist" and it isn't the "workers and peasants" who are protesting (not yet) it is the new middle class in alliance with the old feudal crap who are in alliance with the rock and film stars in Hollywood. Go Figure!

PRC-UTE

17th March 2008, 00:00

Well, it seems that national-liberation struggles are just fine and dandy, until the Tibetans dare rise up against "communist" China. What the fuck?

The problem I have is that this is not secular anti-imperialism, but ethnic and theocratic nationalism.

First, as to the claims about Tibet being historically part of China. That may be true. It also does not matter in the slightest. Palestine was historically a Jewish state and Ireland was historically under British rule.

The main problem with British rule is that it was maintained by divide and conquer, meaning ordinary class politics and democratic rights couldn't exist while it remained. That's been borne out time and time again. Tibet is a fairly different situation, though I concede that the Chinese are turning up the ethnic tension the same time as the DL is.

As for the Tibetan national-liberation movement itself, which right now seems to be infested with monks. This does not matter in the slightest. If the Tibetans wait around, twiddling their thumbs until a perfect revolutionary situation in which all the capitalists and would-be oppressors in Tibet are lined up against them, Tibet will never be free of either. I'm paraphrasing something Lenin said about the Easter Rising in Ireland here, I'll try to find the exact quote.

Lenin said that a temporary alliance with secular, non-sectarian, left-leaning republicans like Pearse was acceptable for a socialist. The idea was still that the workers' movement would hold onto their seperate organisation, their arms and push past democratic demands, and that the workers should lead the struggle. That's fairly different from Tibet, which is pure nationalism and ethnic hatred running amok. It can't possibly be considered national liberation if it's to setup a state headed by an ex-warlord doing the bidding of the CIA. Irish Republicanism is not nationalist in this way, because it operates to unify various ethnic and religious groups. Now that's theory and of course I concede that in real life it has not been implemented as well.

Sankofa

17th March 2008, 00:36

Yonkers your slipping mate. You know damn well that their is no such thing as an "independent" country, class etc. But your last two paragraphs sorted it out though. And we still want the pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist pro-human rights 'in general' lobby shit-shovelers' defeated on this one.

Exactly.

I can't believe anyone on here is defending China. This is ridiculous.

China is not, nor has it ever been, a communist nation, so why anyone would defend its imperialist measures against the Tibetans is beyond me. Even if a real COMMUNIST nation had imperialistic ambitions, we would think twice whether to support it or not, let alone a horrible capitalist nation whose source of great economic power is due to the exploitation of the workers.(Yes, China exploits workers. How do you think they keep their products so cheap? Low wages, low prices my friends.)

No one here is dogmatically defending the PRC, we're merely pointing out the myth that Tibet was this wondering land of milk and honey, under the just rule of the Dalai Lamas before the 1950s invasion.

Please read Michael Parenti's article (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) about Tibet, considering you haven't, and understand why our comments towards the situation are this way.

Yea, because the Tibetan peoples' struggle against oppression is automatically invalidated by the fact that US imperialists would like to see it succeed.

How fucking stupid.

I wouldn't say U.S. support negates the Tibet situation, but it does put some perspective on it. You think the United States gives two shits about the poor Tibetan people's struggle? Of course they fucking don't.

They want to see China with egg on its face; the same reason they support Taiwanese independence, funded Al-Qaeda against the Soviets, provided chemical weapons to Saddam to spite Iran, etc.

We should not forget that the imperialists care not about freedom, only for their own interests.

It's the fear of not being the biggest, baddest kid on the block anymore. The west built its immense empire through manners 100x worse than any thing the Chinese have done to Tibet, and the CCP has already called them on it`.

All these bleeding heart liberals from the United States and Britain should be worried about their countries own imperialist, oppressive history and present before seek to vilify another country.

It seems Iraq is suddenly a thing of the past; the United States can "shock and awe" the Middle East and slaughter all the brown, non-christians it pleases but can still have the balls to call another regime oppressive.

Once the global community starts to make infomericials to boycott America, I might consider this whole situation a more pressing matter, but the fact that self-righteous people can have a double standard towards China's controversial political endeavors is gross.

Random Precision

17th March 2008, 00:44

I wouldn't say U.S. support negates the Tibet situation, but it does put some perspective on it. You think the United States gives two shits about the poor Tibetan people's struggle? Of course they fucking don't.

They want to see China with egg on its face; the same reason they support Taiwanese independence, funded Al-Qaeda against the Soviets, provided chemical weapons to Saddam to spite Iran, etc.

We should not forget that the imperialists care not about freedom, only for their own interests.

It's the fear of not being the biggest, baddest kid on the block anymore. The west built its immense empire through manners 100x worse than any thing the Chinese have done to Tibet, and the CCP has already called them on it`.

All these bleeding heart liberals from the United States and Britain should be worried about their countries own imperialist, oppressive history and present before seek to vilify another country.

It seems Iraq is suddenly a thing of the past; the United States can "shock and awe" the Middle East and slaughter all the brown, non-christians it pleases but can still have the balls to call another regime oppressive.

When the global community starts to boycott all things American, I might consider this whole situation a more pressing matter, but the fact that self-righteous people can have a double standard towards China's controversial political endeavors is gross.

I agree.

EricTheRed

17th March 2008, 00:49

How bout china just lets Tibet be a independent nation? i think that could solve it all.

Because, the monks, who were the ones who initiated the riots, want to return Tibet to a backwards theocracy. China's rule may not be favorable, but at least they have infrastructure, health care and education. The society that the monks envision will probably harken back to Tibet at the turn of the last century, which was fraught with indentured slavery and other oppressive conditions.

This is ultimately the downfall of the Free Tibet movement. Stupid white kids who think that self-determination in Tibet would benefit the people - the reality is that it would be an American backed proxy state, most likely, and, at least, a violent theocracy.

Sankofa

17th March 2008, 00:58

Because, the monks, who were the ones who initiated the riots, want to return Tibet to a backwards theocracy. China's rule may not be favorable, but at least they have infrastructure, health care and education. The society that the monks envision will probably harken back to Tibet at the turn of the last century, which was fraught with indentured slavery and other oppressive conditions.

This is ultimately the downfall of the Free Tibet movement. Stupid white kids who think that self-determination in Tibet would benefit the people - the reality is that it would be an American backed proxy state, most likely, and, at least, a violent theocracy.

I agree. Comrades, remember that the Americans, through the CIA significantly funded and supplied a Tibetan rebel force against the Chinese in the late 1950s, which ultimately failed.

These rebels fighters were members of the ruling aristocracy and their sons. Their rebellion failed because, much like Cuba, the masses didn't rise up to support them so they got slaughtered. It seems the people thought life under Chinese rule at the time was better than their earlier status of slavery.

Random Precision

17th March 2008, 01:01

The problem I have is that this is not secular anti-imperialism, but ethnic and theocratic nationalism.

The main problem with British rule is that it was maintained by divide and conquer, meaning ordinary class politics and democratic rights couldn't exist while it remained. That's been borne out time and time again. Tibet is a fairly different situation, though I concede that the Chinese are turning up the ethnic tension the same time as the DL is.

Lenin said that a temporary alliance with secular, non-sectarian, left-leaning republicans like Pearse was acceptable for a socialist. The idea was still that the workers' movement would hold onto their seperate organisation, their arms and push past democratic demands, and that the workers should lead the struggle. That's fairly different from Tibet, which is pure nationalism and ethnic hatred running amok. It can't possibly be considered national liberation if it's to setup a state headed by an ex-warlord doing the bidding of the CIA. Irish Republicanism is not nationalist in this way, because it operates to unify various ethnic and religious groups. Now that's theory and of course I concede that in real life it has not been implemented as well.

I'm sorry if you understood me to be comparing the situation in Tibet to Ireland, I didn't mean to. They are very different indeed.

I don't think the return of the feudalist state is a realistic outcome of this situation, in the unlikely event the demonstrations succeed. The best possible outcome for the Dalai Lama at this point is that he returns as the figurehead for an "autonomous" Tibetan government, and gets concessions from the Chinese on the return of certain property to the monasteries, as well as guarantees for his succession. Given the situation he will probably even settle for quite a bit less.

The bottom line for me is that this is the first expression of the Tibetan people wanting to be free from Chinese oppression in quite a while. Naturally at first they turn to their traditional rulers, the Dalai Lama and the monks, who are seen as the only alternative to Chinese rule. This first expression against Chinese rule is naturally unsophisticated, because of the very situation the Tibetans are in. But I feel that socialists should support this struggle, because there is much potential here.

I don't see any other way for a secular national liberation movement to develop in Tibet but through these initial, immature struggles. Depending on the Dalai Lama's actions in the next couple of weeks, I think that's a very real possibility.

EricTheRed

17th March 2008, 01:03

It hasnt specifically targeted British workers (As far as i know) but its terrorist attacks have resulted in the death or injury of completely innocent British working class people (Just as Loyalist and British army attacks have as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom# 1970s

It is also known that IRA members have sat on local council boards and have helped in attempts at privatisation of water amongst other things (Which is odd to say the least for self described Socialists).

They, like the Loyalists, are also now heavily involved in drug, prostitution and weapons trafficking as a way of funding their activities.

When compared with the Loyalists i think that the IRA is the lesser of two evils, but secterian violence, largely based on religion, is stupid and the only way to achieve lasting peace in this troubled region is through the so far successful peace process.

Lets face it the militant Republicans and Loyalists are being left behind and the majority of them are now just common criminals with nothing to offer except nostalgia for idealistic youths.

It's likely that those are Provos. There are some betrayers within the ranks of the PIRA. There are genuinely socialist IRA factions, though. A "Connoly-ite" faction exists called the Irish Republican Socialist Movement, who are split from the Irish Communist Party.

In any case, it's pretty insulting to be comparing the IRA to the Tibetan monks. While there may be right-wing infiltrators in the IRA, it's more the exception than the rule. It's the Tibetan monks, however, that are starting these riots. Most Tibetan monks are nothing more than feudal scum.

Zurdito

17th March 2008, 01:35

So you support the IRA when they go and bomb completely innocent British workers?

Believe it or not but Irish workers have alot more in common with British workers then they do with their Irish Bourgeoisie.

Why people like you are still falling for the age old Bourgeois tactic of divide and conquer is beyond me.

You would do well to remember that the workers have no country!

The IRA aren't a bourgeois tactic to divide and conquer, they are a movement borne out of the struggle for liberation of the Irish masses. The Irish bourgeoisie are the ones who sold Irish liberation down the river when they signed the treaty agreeing to the partition of Ireland in return for British backing in establishing themselves as a subordinate bourgeoisie watching over Ireland on behalf of imperialism. To this day, does the Irish state in nay way support the IRA? No. So supporting the IRA has nothing to do with supporting the Irish bourgeoisie.

And no I do not call for attacks on workers, but I back the national liberation struggle of the Irish, and that includes waging war on Britain in its homeland. If you care about British workers and conclusively ending the threat of IRA attacks on the British mainland, then you should join the IRA in calling for all British presence out of the 6 counties immediately - the only way to solve the problem.

There is no peace without justice.

Partisano

17th March 2008, 04:47

Well, it seems that national-liberation struggles are just fine and dandy, until the Tibetans dare rise up against "communist" China. What the fuck?

First, as to the claims about Tibet being historically part of China. That may be true. It also does not matter in the slightest. Palestine was historically a Jewish state and Ireland was historically under British rule. It is up to the people of Tibet to decide their rulers, not some historical mandate that makes capitalist China their overlords. If they want a separate Tibetan state, it is up to them. Would this be a feudal state, along the lines of the old one ruled by the Dalai Lama? No. Enough time has passed since then, capitalist property relations having been introduced and all, that Tibet can never go back to the Lamaist feudal government. It's completely ahistorical to say otherwise.

As for the Tibetan national-liberation movement itself, which right now seems to be infested with monks. This does not matter in the slightest. If the Tibetans wait around, twiddling their thumbs until a perfect revolutionary situation in which all the capitalists and would-be oppressors in Tibet are lined up against them, Tibet will never be free of either. I'm paraphrasing something Lenin said about the Easter Rising in Ireland here, I'll try to find the exact quote.

EDIT: Here we go!

(Author's emphases)

And I think that one reason the Dalai Lama is looking so good right now to the Tibetan people is that he seems to be the only alternative to capitalist oppression under a foreign state apparatus. Things would change pretty damn quick for him if the Chinese were gone.

I also don't really give a damn about the "gains" the Tibetan people have had under capitalist rule, or that of a "deformed workers state" if you would prefer it that way. Given the way things are turning out over there, I'm starting to suspect that neither do they. The tasks of their liberation from the tyranny of both feudalism and capitalism must be left to them.

I don't know enough about the attacks on ethnic Chinese to say for sure, but if the allegations are true I think we must realize that the Han Chinese are not native Tibetans, they have moved into a different country and so are de facto occupiers. It's much the same with the situation in Palestine. Civilian settlers in an oppressed nation are legitimate targets for a movement of national liberation. Attacks against civilians are unfortunate, but most likely justifiable.

And we must remember that China is a capitalist state. I never expected good comrades like the ones who have posted in this thread to jump to its defense so quickly. Simply incredible.

I totally agree with this. I think it is absurd to justify atrocities committed against people just because the perpetrator state claims to be communist, and it has a fake communist ruling party. That's a good point to make, if Tibetans are attacking ethnic Chinese that have settled in Tibet, which in most everyone's opinion would be an attempt to ethnically cleans Tibet, to weaken the native population, how can anyone be surprised if there are acts of violence being waged against the "settlers." Same principal applies in Palestine. Like I stated, I don't know much about their struggle, but any people who wish to seek their own way have a right to do so.

Sendo

17th March 2008, 07:23

The IRA aren't a bourgeois tactic to divide and conquer, they are a movement borne out of the struggle for liberation of the Irish masses. The Irish bourgeoisie are the ones who sold Irish liberation down the river when they signed the treaty agreeing to the partitionf imperialof Ireland in return for British backing in establishing themselves as a subordinate bourgeoisie watching over Ireland on behalf oism. To this day, does the Irish state in nay way support the IRA? No. So supporting the IRA has nothing to do with supporting the Irish bourgeoisie.

And no I do not call for attacks on workers, but I back the national liberation struggle of the Irish, and that includes waging war on Britain in its homeland. If you care about British workers and conclusively ending the threat of IRA attacks on the British mainland, then you should join the IRA in calling for all British presence out of the 6 counties immediately - the only way to solve the problem.

There is no peace without justice.

I would highly suggest readin some Conner Cruise O'Brien (raised in hyper-nationalist environment but became NI advocate). Much of the Provos IRA and some small currents within nationalism in today's Ulster is really Catholic Nationalism by another name. Look at how Protestant Socialist and Irish independence advocate Sean O'Casey was treated by the Nationalist movement. (Not that there is anything inherently Catholic or wrong about Irishers demanding national liberation...the problem is in how some define "Irishness")

I was against the fouled up control of Ireland by England (not so much during the uneventful Medieval years, so much as the real abuses that started with plantations and continued with rack-renting, treatment of the famine, so forth). But the majority of NIers are Unionist. I think the UK would best served sticking to Great Britain and working out some separation of powers and reconciling Norht and South Ireland. Then again, it doesn't really matter what I think, since I don't believe in going against the wishes of the majority of the people who live there.

The treatment of the significant minority of Catholics as second-class citizens in Ulster post-partition was gross, but it has improved b/c of the popular movements of the 60s and 70s. Bombing Unionist houses, stores and bakeries did nothing then, and it serves no beneficial goal today.

Genuine nationalism that did anything beyond replacing one elite with another was dead even before the Easter Rising (most Dubliners disproved of it).

Whatever, though. There are loads mythologized hyistories from both sides, maybe I don't have it sorted out quite right either.

**

As for Tibet, I say let thepeople decide and they should be given a choice. Maybe the best solution is a Tibetan Free State of those who want independence. Again, here we have mythologized histories. The Dalai Lama, the Chinese-installed Theocrat and Pope of his so-called "Tibetan Buddhism," parades around for Tibetan independence and some of his company makes me suspicious, he has Pope-like aspirations and acts like he represents the Buddhist community as a whole or some shit like that. Then of course, we can't deny that Tibet once had a glowing civilization of its own comparable to China's and Turkestan. (who, for that matter, should be freed since they hate China, they're not Chinese in any sense, and are a source of despised yet valued labor a la Mexicans in the USA). We must also remember that amibitious theocrats and the monastic institution are not the same thing as a people for whom Buddhism is a way of life.

RedStarOverChina

17th March 2008, 07:33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6XD5A7-Fqg

Shit it's ugly.

black magick hustla

17th March 2008, 09:22

This is the perfect example why communists don't take sides in nationalist sectarian shitfests. I refuse to choose between chinese thugs and theocratic reactionaries.

luxemburg89

18th March 2008, 22:38

Well, as an Internationalist, I don't believe in national borders and so their right to a free nation doesn't interest me. However, I am all in favour of pragmatism on the left and the people of TIbet clearly suffer under the oppressive and repressive Chinese government, these murderous totalitarians masquerading as communists. For the time being, I will be in favour of whatever option resulted in the least suffering for the people; and, of course, I am always in opposition to the Chinese government.

YSR

18th March 2008, 23:10

I side with the workers.

Who are in the street, fighting their natural enemies, the cops.

Wanted Man

18th March 2008, 23:28

I side with the workers.

Who are in the street, fighting their natural enemies, the cops.
And stoning and burning Han and Hui workers, for undermining racial purity. And now surrendering to said cops, otherwise their spiritual leader will quit.

RedHal

19th March 2008, 02:13

Independence from China would mean reverting back to the days beforre modern medicine and infrastructure in Tibet, I highly doubt the majority of the people in Tibet support the actions of a few religious extremist.

People actually believe this? The imperialists have high interest in Tibet in destablizing China. They are not stupid, if Tibet goes independent, the imperialists will pump funds and skills into Tibet just to show the world the glories of capitalism. The masses are too busy watching American Idol, do you think they actually know that Maoist China actually brought progress to Tibet? They see the current peace loving docile Dalai Lama and believe that's how Tibet was, some egalitarian hippy commune.:rolleyes:

Xiao Banfa

19th March 2008, 09:56

This makes me want to get a pro-China demo together.

First of all we must realise for all it's faults, China respects a multi-polar world- which is good for socialism. The US vision of a unipolar world is the greater enemy.

An 'independent' Tibet means a foothold for US and EU imperialism and means the weakening of the Peopes' Republic.

A weaker China is not good for the progressive movements of the world.

China is greatly aiding Cuba for example.

Cencus

19th March 2008, 11:17

How do we know the demographics of those protesting/rioting in Tibet? How can we assertain what the Tibetan people actually want?

China is, after all, not exactly renowned for it's freedom of the press and information. If it turns out the majority wish to be independant then why the hell not? The monks may want to return to a feudal theocracy, but it really is too late to turn the clock back, the cat is out of the bag so to speak.

Ferryman 5

19th March 2008, 21:53

> 3. Background and Objectives--At a 13 December 1963 meeting "The Special
> Group approved the continuation of CIA controlled Tibetan Operations [1
> line of source text not declassified]." Previous operations had gone to
> support isolated Tibetan resistance groups within Tibet and to the
> creation of a paramilitary force on the Nepal/Tibet border of
> approximately 2,000 men, 800 of whom were armed by [less than 1 line of
> source text not declassified] airdrop in January 1961. In 1963, as a
> result of the [2 lines of source text not declassified] and as a result of
> the cited Special Group meeting, the Agency began a more broadly based
> political program with the exiled Tibetans. This included bringing 133
> Tibetans to the United States for training in political, propaganda and
> paramilitary techniques; continuing the support subsidy to the Dalai
> Lama's entourage at Dharmsala, India; continuing support to the Nepal
> based Tibetan guerrillas; the reassignment of a part of the unarmed
> guerrillas to India for further training; and the [6 lines of source text
> not declassified]. Operational plans call for the establishment of
> approximately 20 singleton resident agents in Tibet [less than 1 line of
> source text not declassified] two road watch teams in Tibet to report
> possible Chinese Communist build-ups, and six border watch communications
> teams [1 line of source text not declassified]. The [less than 1 line of
> source text not declassified] will stay in direct touch with Dharmsala and
> will conduct political correspondence with Tibetan refugee groups [less
> than 1 line of source text not declassified] to create an increased
> Tibetan national political consciousness among these refugees. The [less
> than 1 line of source text not declassified] was established in October
> 1963, and the communications center serving it, [1 line of source text not
> declassified] is presently being built with a completion date scheduled in
> February 1964.

Colonello Buendia

19th March 2008, 22:31

I am of the position that whichever side wins, Tibet loses freedom. CHina wins, Tibetans suffer a clamp down. Tibet gains "freedom" and the people end up in a semi feudalist manarchical regime. either way they're screwed.

Ferryman 5

19th March 2008, 23:19

YSR

19th March 2008, 23:27

And stoning and burning Han and Hui workers, for undermining racial purity. And now surrendering to said cops, otherwise their spiritual leader will quit.

Pray tell, which imperialist country do you support? USA or China?

I think someone quoted Lenin above, sayin' something about how anti-imperialist struggle has some reactionary elements in it sometimes. I may not like the guy, but he sorta has a point. I do anti-imperialist work with Stalinists and liberals all the time, but the movement is not just them.

God, I sound like the anarchist TragicClown here! What's next for me, Hezbollah?

Xiao Banfa

20th March 2008, 00:01

manarchical regime

I do not know what this is, but it sounds scary!

Ferryman 5

20th March 2008, 00:05

Wanted Man

20th March 2008, 00:07

Pray tell, which imperialist country do you support? USA or China?

I think someone quoted Lenin above, sayin' something about how anti-imperialist struggle has some reactionary elements in it sometimes. I may not like the guy, but he sorta has a point. I do anti-imperialist work with Stalinists and liberals all the time, but the movement is not just them.

God, I sound like the anarchist TragicClown here! What's next for me, Hezbollah?
Neither, comrade, be assured. I do not think that China is at the same level as the US ("capitalist, imperialist"), but I think China has enough strength of arms to defend itself, and doesn't require me. Rather, I attack reactionary tendencies within both of them, including the Chinese capitalist-roaders. I just don't think that either side is worth supporting. Cops or medieval monks, what does it really matter???

Ferryman 5

20th March 2008, 00:24

Neither, comrade, be assured. I do not think that China is at the same level as the US ("capitalist, imperialist"), but I think China has enough strength of arms to defend itself, and doesn't require me. Rather, I attack reactionary tendencies within both of them, including the Chinese capitalist-roaders. I just don't think that either side is worth supporting. Cops or medieval monks, what does it really matter???

Communist rule number 1.

If you don't like rules fuck off, be confused, or join the capitalists.

Communist rule number 2

Attack the biggest and most dangerous imperialists first and hardest in any way you are able.

Communist rule number 3

Never condemn other anti-imperialists just because you don't agree with them.

Always condemn the imperialists because it is their system that is responsible for all the crap and the one that is going to to get smashed.

RedStarOverChina

20th March 2008, 00:42

Media manipulation in the West (http://www.aladding.com/newsDetail.cfm?postid=448009)

Wanted Man

20th March 2008, 01:16

Media manipulation in the West (http://www.aladding.com/newsDetail.cfm?postid=448009)
Thanks, comrade, this'll be supremely useful in Journalism tomorrow: the influence of misleading captions!

Ferryman: I may be drunk, but even if I were sober, I wouldn't know what you're talking about. Can you make your post more lucid in any way?

RedStarOverChina

20th March 2008, 01:27

Seriously, I think modern media on both sides are full of shit and are only good at exposing each others' lies.

Now, this thing that the media on both sides are playing is making the situation impossible to analyze.

Chinese and Western sources interview the same people and come to radically different conclusions. I just don't know which one is more dishonest.

For example, this Canadian tourist, Kenwood, shot videos of the Tibetan riot. He was interviewed and in the Chinese article I read, Kenwood described it as (roughly translated) "an explosion of hatred against Han and Muslim Chinese". Though Dharamsala claims that 100 ethnic Tibetans are killed in the conflict (which was not mentioned in the article), Kenwood probably finds it unlikely because according to him, he "did not see any Tibetan killed".

Then you come across a Western article (http://www.thestar.com/article/346763) interviewing the same group of people, including Kenwood, everything on the Chinese article is no where to be seen.

I could be wrong, but the first impression I got reading this is that the witnesses were testifying against Chinese troops who seemed to be responsible for all the killing.

I hate it when they mess with your mind like this.
If there's a riot in Kingston tomorrow, I'm going after the journalists. :cursing:

Ferryman 5

20th March 2008, 20:29

Ferryman: I may be drunk, but even if I were sober, I wouldn't know what you're talking about. Can you make your post more lucid in any way?

OK. First off I'm not having a go at you personally and the admittedly harsh tone of the post was only an attempt to cut through the long windy explanation. That obviously didnt work even if they are good rules of thumb for this period of history.

Imperialism and its activities dominate everything on earth without exception. Regardless of the existence of workers states etc there is in fact no islands of socialism in the imperialist reality. There is therefor no parity of innocence and guilt between the biggest most vicious enemy of humanity and anyone or everyone else, whether they are smaller capitalists, little nationalists, socialists, communists, anarchists, Trotskyists etc etc.

When anything 'happens' it is never a solitary isolated incident it is always connected to the class struggle one way or another and any response by anti-imperialists other than an attack, is always inadequate.

Given that many of the anarchists don't like 'rules' none of this applies to them, but for most of the rest of us I am saying that we should respond with these simple rules.

Attack the biggest and most dangerous imperialists first and hardest in any way you are able. If you are not in a position to do the maximum damage do the next best thing including exposure and ridicule and condemnation etc.

Never condemn other anti-imperialists just because you don't agree with them. If you do this you will only give comfort to imperialism one way or another.

Always condemn the imperialists because it is their system that is responsible for all the crap and the one that is going to to get smashed.

If anyone thinks that by standing on their personal individual right to abstain or be even handed, or even condemn both sides ,that they are making a positive contribution in some way, then I think they are not. They are objectively assisting imperialism because imperialism has the built-in advantage of power over its enemies or rivals already. So any neutral position assists imperialism to remain in the dominant position.

This, I think you will agree, is not complicated stuff. But until this is more universally recognised imperialism will remain in its dominant position because there can be no revolution without this understanding. Capitalist 'philosophy' recognises this and goes to enormous efforts to muddy the waters by constantly invoking notions of even-handedness, fairness, objectivity in approaching political events when there is no such condition anywhere on earth as fairness. There is only us and them and our historical mission is to bury them and we will not do that by ripping into 'other' anti-imperialists.

Need I go on ?

Guerrilla Manila

21st March 2008, 02:55

http://johnvey.com/images/bush_phone.jpg

"Call us when they find oil."

spartan

22nd March 2008, 17:22

I have found quite a few images clearly showing deliberate western media falsification on the China-Tibet situation.

One of the pictures includes a description of the skin coulour of certain people so if you are offended just remember that it is only meant as an identifying feature to distingusih them from the Chinese (Which the media falsely reported them as).

Now as you know i dont support either side in this conflict but i couldnt not point out this shocking media falsification of events in Tibet (Which is fucking scary to say the least).

Nepalese Police (You can tell by the type of camouflage that they are wearing) wrongly being shown as Chinese Police attacking Tibetan protesters in German media:
http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1phrrOYdDY5fty4Hsa9eHxRzcaw7dmePTMFKI0erNCGoWwFTi mA_RcueTH6N3qaweu5mm3Rzr0v2Q

This image is of Indian Police (Old style khaki uniform) though the mainstream US media reported it as Chinese Police dragging Tibetan protesters away into trucks:
http://aysmcq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pkfx6sASeY4PoZ6f-8yQwuJhJ6l7ittjMR08MXRWR5OdjvKpvfqabbkd08QDmr6vOKd 22ti_NdI6HjsktyID1fezZGJKOhGPk?PARTNER=WRITER

This news announcer in the German media says that this image is of a new protest in Tibet even though the picture clearly shows Nepalese Police (Once again the camouflage) dealing with anti-Nepalese government protesters:
http://aysmcq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pXUkHxY4nI063OlIQHqoQj-lVl3yF9lbRFmYq47BS_q25A7KGe4NO35q7e8EcdNFXpz_LhoMG RGEDEl1ezPXzKw?PARTNER=WRITER

Nepalese Police (Look at the camouflage) attacking protesters are being described as Chinese Police attacking Tibetans in German media:
http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1phrrOYdDY5fsPYoEZ5iyMkEulZrR90ZdAVyR25mMa94OFMGo 99T5wlw4ckIk8sfs-jCxx8wlq88Q

Yet again Nepalese Police (Camouflage) being falsely described as Chinese Police in French media:
http://w3pykq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pkfx6sASeY4PyDnnb1P2yiz0yxykG9qxKuGCDeEXn_ZXhmgw sa8ZTa5fo6BTzB8zP9RzSxKlpyQADZpHj19We2kXdPiW8ayN9? PARTNER=WRITER

Ferryman 5

22nd March 2008, 20:40

I would not have been surprised if they had tried to pass off some Myanmar pictures, but that is ridiculous. No doubt there will be a retraction and apology later after the damage has been done. The really sly stuff comes from the 'journalists' who translate any lack of news into evidence of large scale massacres as happened (or didn't happen) in Tienanmen square for example.

EDIT: The U.S. Brit and EU multi million $ disinformation racket, with all its thousands of in-house middle class left 'journalists' trained in western universities under the tuition of left lecturers are about to be let go to attack us once again. They will get extra Rupert Murdock dollars and promotion for the most anti-Chinese anti-communist shit they can come up with. If they can contribute to a violent provocation and another factional split on the left, they get an extra holiday in Dubai when the battle is over and the communist youth are snarling at each other and scratching their heads and examining their navels trying to work out what happened.

Qwerty Dvorak

25th March 2008, 04:20

What do you all think of this news article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7308890.stm

I think it's very interesting and have used it in a thread on politics.ie where I was arguing about the dangers of the Tibetan independence movement. It appears people equate the Tibetan independence movement with an opposition to Chinese police state rule, when in fact much of it is motivated by ethnic and racial hatred.

Zurdito

25th March 2008, 14:24

And stoning and burning Han and Hui workers, for undermining racial purity. And now surrendering to said cops, otherwise their spiritual leader will quit.

Right so you think people riot just bcause a spiritual leader told them to, reardless of material reality. that's anti-materialist don't you realise.

Regarding the Han Chinese, everyone knows that an oppressed nation that is being colonised is likely to hold chauvinistic views towards the working class colonisers. Marxists support the liberation struggle of the oppressed nation and try to link it with the struggle of the working class of the opressor nation against their own ruling class.

Or do you ant to wipe out the Palestinian resistance because many of them are chauvinistic towards Jews?

All the apologism for china on this thread is pathetic. Tibetans are second class citizens within China, their land is being colonised by Han Chinese (usually poor workers forced off their land and then offered land in Tibet by the Chinese government - classic bourgeois divide and rule tactic). Their resources are being extracted for the benefit of Chinese capitalists with no benefit going to the Tibetan masses. And they are being forced off the best land as it is colonised by Han Chinese. Quite similair to the situation in Palestine.

So wha does it matter if the resistance movement is at the moment led by reactionary theocrats? That doesn't change the facts onthe ground. The battle is not a battle between "secular" ideals and "feudal" ideals, that sounds like neo-con bullshit. The battle is between a colonising capitalist pwoer and the opressed masses of the nation they are exploiting. Many such resistance movements have corrupt bourgeois leadership. Ghandi was corrupt and bourgeois - did we therefore not support Indian's right to throw out the British occupiers? Arafat was a bourgeois enemy of the Palestinian workers - did we therefore not support the Palestinian resistance, even those who were at the time being hcannled through Fatah?

Marxists should realise that the point is to go struggles under bourgeois leadership and to break the masses from them as part of the dialectical progress of a struggle, not to just choose sides based on the rhetoric of two governments.

Dr. Rosenpenis

25th March 2008, 16:21

Zurdito

25th March 2008, 18:41

No, Marxists don't buy into bullshit bourgeois nationalist struggles like this Free Tibet business. We have learned time and time again that bourgeois national liberation results necessarily in a deliberate and consensual subjugation of the national bourgeoisie to the international ruling class. Why would Marxists ever support that? The real class struggle in Tibet does not manifest itself in favor of bourgeois independence from China, and neither should we.

At the very least you should show solidarity with the opressed rioters, and explain that while you do not support national liberation in terms of the creation of a state, you demand at the very least equal democratic rights for the rioters (such as being able to speak their language). I mean in the Britain if an ethnic or regional minority (as oppsoed to the Northern Irish Catholics who are a national minority) was protesting I wouldn't support seperatism or chauvinism on their part,(though I don't see the situation as ocmparable), but even if seperatists and chauvinists were leading the protests, I would still be on the side of the rank and file protesters against the state, and point to the way that government discrimination to minorities must end. Yet so many people here just come out and out on the side of the Chinese government, it's disgraceful. They use the pretext of opposing the Dalai Lama as an excuse to stay neutral in a struggle betwen an oppressed minority (who didn't turn themselves into aminority by chauvinism, but rather were designated one by a racist government) and on an even more basic level, by oppressed and exploited people against a repressive borugeois government.

One thing is to disagree on the exact demands of Tibetans and other racially/nationally opressed minorities in China, another is to not even have the right amount of basic instinct for social justice to know that you should be beside them against a racist bourgeois state. what's really interesting is that some people will only criticse the Tibet campaign and completely ignore China. That's not to say all their criticisms of the Tibet campaign are wrong, but it really makes you wonder what those people's priorities are doesn't it?

Ferryman 5

26th March 2008, 00:05

Right so you think people riot just bcause a spiritual leader told them to, reardless of material reality. that's anti-materialist don't you realise.

Regarding the Han Chinese, everyone knows that an oppressed nation that is being colonised is likely to hold chauvinistic views towards the working class colonisers. Marxists support the liberation struggle of the oppressed nation and try to link it with the struggle of the working class of the opressor nation against their own ruling class.

Or do you ant to wipe out the Palestinian resistance because many of them are chauvinistic towards Jews?

All the apologism for china on this thread is pathetic. Tibetans are second class citizens within China, their land is being colonised by Han Chinese (usually poor workers forced off their land and then offered land in Tibet by the Chinese government - classic bourgeois divide and rule tactic). Their resources are being extracted for the benefit of Chinese capitalists with no benefit going to the Tibetan masses. And they are being forced off the best land as it is colonised by Han Chinese. Quite similair to the situation in Palestine.

So wha does it matter if the resistance movement is at the moment led by reactionary theocrats? That doesn't change the facts onthe ground. The battle is not a battle between "secular" ideals and "feudal" ideals, that sounds like neo-con bullshit. The battle is between a colonising capitalist pwoer and the opressed masses of the nation they are exploiting. Many such resistance movements have corrupt bourgeois leadership. Ghandi was corrupt and bourgeois - did we therefore not support Indian's right to throw out the British occupiers? Arafat was a bourgeois enemy of the Palestinian workers - did we therefore not support the Palestinian resistance, even those who were at the time being hcannled through Fatah?

Marxists should realise that the point is to go struggles under bourgeois leadership and to break the masses from them as part of the dialectical progress of a struggle, not to just choose sides based on the rhetoric of two governments.

At the very least you should show solidarity with the opressed rioters, and explain that while you do not support national liberation in terms of the creation of a state, you demand at the very least equal democratic rights for the rioters (such as being able to speak their language). I mean in the Britain if an ethnic or regional minority (as oppsoed to the Northern Irish Catholics who are a national minority) was protesting I wouldn't support seperatism or chauvinism on their part,(though I don't see the situation as ocmparable), but even if seperatists and chauvinists were leading the protests, I would still be on the side of the rank and file protesters against the state, and point to the way that government discrimination to minorities must end. Yet so many people here just come out and out on the side of the Chinese government, it's disgraceful. They use the pretext of opposing the Dalai Lama as an excuse to stay neutral in a struggle betwen an oppressed minority (who didn't turn themselves into aminority by chauvinism, but rather were designated one by a racist government) and on an even more basic level, by oppressed and exploited people against a repressive borugeois government.

One thing is to disagree on the exact demands of Tibetans and other racially/nationally opressed minorities in China, another is to not even have the right amount of basic instinct for social justice to know that you should be beside them against a racist bourgeois state. what's really interesting is that some people will only criticse the Tibet campaign and completely ignore China. That's not to say all their criticisms of the Tibet campaign are wrong, but it really makes you wonder what those people's priorities are doesn't it?

Comrade, this is all very confused.

“Marxists support the liberation struggle of the oppressed nation and try to link it with the struggle of the working class of the opressor nation against their own ruling class."

Wrong!

Marxism opposes capitalist imperialist oppression everywhere at all times independently of what the oppressed are doing, whether they are striking miners in the centres of imperialism, insurgent anti-imperialist Palestinians, bourgeois and proletarian nationalists or Stalinist in China.

Our job in these struggles is to point out and lead the attack on the greatest enemy to the international working class, to point to the only one single solitary thing that can unite the workers of the world, namely class war on the leading lights of imperialism. That is also the only way to expose all other nationalist etc pretenders to the role of leadership in the class struggle. The hand of imperialist agitation and usury of the Tibetan workers is clear, our job is to rip it off at the elbow. Are you going to help or hinder?