Free Tibet

[Segadoway]

Should Tibet Be Free From Chinese Rule?

[Sam_b]

Yes. They are entitled to their self-determination.

[YKTMX]

Yes. They are entitled to their self-determination.

This.

[Forward Union]

No. This choice cannot be made in a vaccume. If Tibet was "free" there would be the reintroduction of a racial caste and a feudal theocracy. Which is worse than the current set up.

[3A CCCP]

When did Tibet actually ever have sovereignty? Independence from Chinese rule = a U.S. colony/CIA base of operations.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[al8]

Exactly 3A CCCP. As I understand it Tibet has been a vassal state of sort to either Mongolia or China for most of its existence.

I do not wish fro a "free tibet" for it is a flanking tactic and a demand resounded by capitalistic imperialists only to suit their purposes.

[YKTMX]

No. This choice cannot be made in a vaccume. If Tibet was "free" there would be the reintroduction of a racial caste and a feudal theocracy.

There would have to be elections so that Tibetans can decide who governs Tibet, and how, for themselves. There's no prospect of the outcone you fear.

[Hiero]

How are Tibetans any more "not free" then they rest of China's ethnicities?

Should all of China be balkanised into ethnic-nationalist states? I can't see how any real socialist could take on U$A strategy as their own.

[Matty_UK]

The whole Tibet fetishism thing comes from the fact that western, mainly British, imperialism/colonialism in the early 20th century wanted Tibet to be independant so they could expand their influence east of India.

As far as I know the main people pushing for Tibetan independance are wankers like the Dalai Llama and the other exiled slave owners, and the CIA. I'm not convinced many Tibetans at all want independance.

[Nosotros]

Chinese rule in Tibet (and much of what is China) is colonailism. However when I say that Tibet should be free I mean that it should be a secular, socialist region that has autonomy for the working class aswell as the region itself. So ofcourse Tibet should be free, everywhere should be free and all borders and states should be destroyed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Tibet is historically a part of China going back to the Yuan Dynasty.

It should also be remembered, that the Chinese Revolution brought immense gains to the toilers of Tibet. Prior to that Tibet was a theocratic hell. The U.S. imperialists and their CIA have been pushing for "independence" (read: the creation of an imperialist neocolony in Tibet). Originally, it was a part of a push for counterrevolution in China. Now, it's to damage what they see as a growing competitor.

Imperialist-backed "independence" is no kind of gain for workers. Struggles for "national liberation" that don't go on to forge a proletarian state don't either. This is the reality of today (the assertions of State Department socialists that back all sorts of reactionaries in the name of defending "the right of self-determination" and "global class war" Marcyites who see any force that comes into conflict with U.S. imperialism as progressive, now withstanding).

"Each time a country is freed, we say, it is a defeat for the world imperialist system, but we must agree that real liberation or breaking away from the imperialist system is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. Freedom is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end [i.e. through socialist revolution]." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[KC]

The only way that Tibet can be freed is through proletarian revolution.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Self determination is another word for the imperialist tactic "divide and conquer."

[Comrade B]

The Tibetan theocracy is merely symbolic, like the royalty of England. I say Tibet deserves independance, but the United States has no place to demand this due to their own imperialistic policies.

[Holden Caulfield]

no for all of the reasons mentioned, by people who said no,

human rights need improved in all China and Tibet should be allowed it's own culture to flourish but as a province of china

Edit, ooo a tie in votes now

[Dust Bunnies]

If only I read all of this before I voted yes...

[Dean]

I don't see how people can not support sedition from an oppressive regime. So what if Tibet was fucked before? We should continue to punish them with the imposition of a violent, imperialist state? WTF?

Seriously, just because right-wingers like to hold Tibet up as a cause doesn't mean we should mirror them on the opposite side. That is extremely reactionary.

[professorchaos]

Yes. A lot of this anti-Tibet thought seems to stem from some "enemy of my enemy is my friend" posturing.

[R_P_A_S]

Tibet is historically a part of China going back to the Yuan Dynasty.

It should also be remembered, that the Chinese Revolution brought immense gains to the toilers of Tibet. Prior to that Tibet was a theocratic hell. The U.S. imperialists and their CIA have been pushing for "independence" (read: the creation of an imperialist neocolony in Tibet). Originally, it was a part of a push for counterrevolution in China. Now, it's to damage what they see as a growing competitor.

Imperialist-backed "independence" is no kind of gain for workers. Struggles for "national liberation" that don't go on to forge a socialist state don't either. This is the reality of today (the assertions of State Department socialists that back all sorts of reactionaries in the name of defending "the right of self-determination" and "global class war" Marcyites who see any force that comes into conflict with U.S. imperialism as progressive, now withstanding).

"Each time a country is freed, we say, it is a defeat for the world imperialist system, but we must agree that real liberation or breaking away from the imperialist system is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. Freedom is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end [i.e. through socialist revolution]." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara

This clears a lot of things for me because I'm always skeptical about all this fucking liberals pushing for Tibet to be free.. Free to do what? or what?

[RedHal]

I don't see how people can not support sedition from an oppressive regime. So what if Tibet was fucked before? We should continue to punish them with the imposition of a violent, imperialist state? WTF?

Seriously, just because right-wingers like to hold Tibet up as a cause doesn't mean we should mirror them on the opposite side. That is extremely reactionary.

So you support the strengthening of US imperialism? The force that is out to destroy any type of revolution on the globe. If this whole "free tibet" movement isn't so tied into US imperialism, I would support it.

[Forward Union]

If anything I critically support the Chinese occupation.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't understand what concrete difference Tibetan independence will make for most regular people. An independent Tibet will almost certainly be dependent on the Chinese economy, which means that the same bourgeois sectors that rule China will most likely either find Tibetan counterparts or rule Tibet. I think it is fair to say at best Tibet will be more like India and respect certain civil rights. Yet apart from those bourgeois freedoms there seems to be little difference between an independant or occupied Tibet.

[Dust Bunnies]

I'd support what the Tibetans want.

[Segadoway]

no matter what anyone says tibet should be free to decide how to rule their own country, just because they once were a part of the ancient chinese empire doesnt mean they should have to be now, they should have the choice to live how they want.

[Hiero]

The pro-"free Tibet" group are unable to address what has been said in arguement against Tibet independence.

Can you critically address the three main points

1) Chinese revolution greatly improved the lives of all peasants and workers regardless of ethnicity.

2) Tibetan independence, or should I say, destruction of China is supported by the 1st world imperialists.

3) Independence does not neccaserily mean improvements for workers and peasants.

I have actually never seen any substance proof that shows Tibetan people want independence from China.

[Random Precision]

Tibet is historically a part of China going back to the Yuan Dynasty.

And Ireland is historically a part of Britain going back to the Plantagenet Dynasty. That argument holds no water.

Anyway, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tibetan-national-liberation-t76576/index.html) is a post that I made dealing with the arguments for why Tibet should not be free from "communist" China.

[Random Precision]

1) Chinese revolution greatly improved the lives of all peasants and workers regardless of ethnicity.

That was 50 years ago, whatever China was under Mao it is not anymore, and even most Maoists concede that China is now capitalist.


2) Tibetan independence, or should I say, destruction of China is supported by the 1st world imperialists.

Only rhetorically. The West is far too dependent on the Chinese economy to try anything serious.


3) Independence does not neccaserily mean improvements for workers and peasants.

Maybe not. But the struggle of the Tibetan workers and peasants for self-determination against capitalist China will propel them toward the fight for socialism. In all, it will strengthen the working class. I wouldn't have thought that I'd have to explain this to you.


I have actually never seen any substance proof that shows Tibetan people want independence from China.

Those riots a few months ago didn't convince you?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Tibet has a right to self-determination like any other people and nation, but the movement now is just going to create what it was before under the Dalai Lama, a fuedal hell

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The Tibetan people do not accept the present status of Tibet under the People’s Republic of China. At the same time, they do not seek independence for Tibet, which is a historical fact. Treading a middle path in between these two lies the policy and means to achieve a genuine autonomy for all Tibetans living in the three traditional provinces of Tibet within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. This is called the Middle-Way Approach, a non-partisan and moderate position that safeguards the vital interests of all concerned parties-for Tibetans: the protection and preservation of their culture, religion and national identity; for the Chinese: the security and territorial integrity of the motherland; and for neighbours and other third parties: peaceful borders and international relations.

http://www.dalailama.com/page.225.htm

"Free Tibet" protesters irk me because they obviously have not researched into the subject.

The Dalai Lama (who has an interest in Tibet) does not seek a Tibet free of Chinese rule; why are college students who have no interest in Tibet and probably can't locate Tibet on a map so keen to?

It is a matter between the people of Tibet and the people of China.



I have actually never seen any substance proof that shows Tibetan people want independence from China. Those riots a few months ago didn't convince you?
I recall monks protesting against the conditions in Tibet, not for independence.

At first, western media was jumping to that conclusion, but by the end of March, when reporters where allowed into the Tibeten quarter of Lhasa (on the 27th), it became apparent that the situation was much more complicated then that.

The monks started protesting against the brutality of the occupation (on March 10th), and after several were arrested, ordinary people on the street started rioting (on the 14th). Many were shouting revolutionary ideals, but the majority were shouting pro-Tibet slogans rather then anti-China.

See the differences between these two news stories, and you can see a quite different atmosphere; one seems revolutionary, the other merely humanitarian.
13 March 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7294014.stm
27 March 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7315895.stm

It just goes to show how our views of world events are dependent on the accuracy or inaccuracy (and biases) of the media.

[BIG BROTHER]

I would rather prefer so see the Tibet's proletarians freed from any form of exploitation, I don't care about the Tibet, rather their working class.

[Lost In Translation]

I find it very disturbing how the "Free Tibet" movement has spread all over the world. You see more caucasians supporting the independence of Tibet than the actual Tibetans themselves. In addition, the Dalai Lama did not once condemn the actions of the Chinese. In fact, it was he who pleaded with the protesters to stop because it was getting out of hand. However, nobody listened, which makes the position of the Dalai Lama look so much more minimal. If you're going to "Free Tibet", you should at least do some research on the topic. Plus, the only reason why there is such urge to free Tibet is to:

a)oppose a communist country (aka China), which turns out to be very capitalist nowadays; and
b)make China look like an ass prior to the Olympics, so that they will lose all credibility in the world.

The imperialists are tricky people. You might think they're very humanitarian, but they just want it all for themselves. So much so that they even ignored the Dalai Lama's pleas to stop the protests.

It's a good thing the Sichuan Earthquake happened when it did. Now everybody's kissing China's ass for their rescue efforts. Go Figure.

[Dimentio]

I can seriously not vote in this matter.

Tibet should not anything. No state should really be or do anything per definition. The question is how beneficial Tibetan independence would be for progress on this planet, not if it is somewhat morally right.

[Orange Juche]

No. This choice cannot be made in a vaccume. If Tibet was "free" there would be the reintroduction of a racial caste and a feudal theocracy. Which is worse than the current set up.

Not necessarily. "Free" could just mean its own sovereign nation. It doesn't have to mean returning to the old social system... or implying any specific social system at all.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No people due to their ethnic background or culture have any "right" to self-determination. Why should they!? What defines any geographical area as a particular to any ethnic people? What makes any ethnicity of culture have the "right" to "determine their own destiny"?

Communists should not be supporting the Tibetan people's "right to self-determination". Whether exploitation of the proletarian is conducted at the hands of the national or imperialist bourgeoisie makes no objective difference to the proletariat.

The Tibetan proletariat should be united with the whole of the Chinese proletariat in calling for greater political democracy, freedom of speech and press within China. They should also bring to the front the common struggle they share against the bourgeoisie, independent of any national borders or ethnic groupings.

[subham]

The issue of the freedom of Tibet is nothing but part of US machination to extend its hegemonic control over China & conspiracy to weaken its Socialist framework. The people of Tibet want to be in China & participate in building up Socialism over there. Thus Communists of the world should be united to protect the sovereignity of China.

[Hiero]

That was 50 years ago, whatever China was under Mao it is not anymore, and even most Maoists concede that China is now capitalist.

The point is Tibet was part of the Chinese revolution, Tibet is China, it is not occupation.


Only rhetorically. The West is far too dependent on the Chinese economy to try anything serious.

No it is not, the US has a long history of supporting Tibetan independence.


Maybe not. But the struggle of the Tibetan workers and peasants for self-determination against capitalist China will propel them toward the fight for socialism. In all, it will strengthen the working class. I wouldn't have thought that I'd have to explain this to you.

Well you do, because there is no real difference between Tibet and the rest of China. The economy position of China is a 3rd world country with it's market determined by the imperialists. How could an independent state under a new flag strengthen the Tibetan working class when objectively they are in the same position as the rest of China. There is no movement in Tibet that is promoting socialism as the the primary goal of independence or even a national-bourgeoisie movement. This is what makes this Tibet movement a phony nationalist movement. Unlike the other nationalist movements that moved their countries away from the imperialist system, the Tibetan independence movement has no intention. It would come under the same system under imperialism just with a new government and new flag.

So you have a lot to explain, how can it be with no economic changes independence would strengthen the cause for socialism? Tibet would be the same old neo-colony to western imperialism, except with new laws for the imperialist bourgeoisie to exploit the workers. Infact you have to show that there is even a workers and peasant movement for independence.


Those riots a few months ago didn't convince you?

Not really. Riots happen every so often in this world, that doesn't mean there is an objective basis for national independence.

[Led Zeppelin]

A good article on the subject: The Tibet Myth by Michael Parenti (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19605.htm)

[Devrim]

If anything I critically support the Chinese occupation.

It is good to see the anarchists backing the state again.

Devrim

[chimx]

Chinese soldiers are not very nice to Tibetans. I don't really care about Tibet in terms of national liberation, but something needs to be done about China's horrible human rights record with Tibet.

[Dean]

So you support the strengthening of US imperialism? The force that is out to destroy any type of revolution on the globe. If this whole "free tibet" movement isn't so tied into US imperialism, I would support it.

What makes Chinese imperialism any better? The nation executes about 300 "criminals" a day. If you support that... I don't want to know what hell you have in store for us.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

China is not imperialist.

[redflag32]

"Each time a country is freed, we say, it is a defeat for the world imperialist system, but we must agree that real liberation or breaking away from the imperialist system is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. Freedom is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end ." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over
Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”. - [I]James Connolly, from Socialism and Nationalism in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897

[Cybersomatix]

China is not imperialist.

Tell that to the people of Darfur... or Chad for that matter

Chinese financial, political and military support of the Sudanese government responsible for the genocide in Darfur is a bit more than tacit consent to such. As Sudan's chief trade partner, China has a vested interest in protecting the economic security of this North African nation, despite widespread international outcry against the Omar al-Bashir government. Purchasing two thirds of Sudan's oil exports, the world's second largest oil consumer is in a uniquely interdependent relationship with the North African Nation. Even after evidence surfaced that the genocide in Darfur may have been motivated by Sudanese oil extraction concerns, China continued to use its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council to veto sanctions against Sudan and to generally defend Chinese oil resource interests in the region. It has also been alleged that China has been involved in illegally trading arms to Sudan. According to Human Rights watch, China has delivered "ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft" to Sudan since 1995. HRW also alleges that much of this equipment has been seen in use by both the Sudanese military and government sponsored militias in Southern Sudan. 80% of Sudanese oil revenue as having been diverted to the purchase of weapons from China and to the construction of three Chinese built weapons factories near Khartoum.

The Chinese government in knowingly handing weapons to the Sudanese government and subsequently, the Janjawid fighters in Darfur and Chad (with suspected designs on the Niger Delta) in an attempt to control North African oil. Go ahead and lie to yourself all you want, they're as imperialist as any of their western counterparts.

I would support a Tibetan freedom movement so long as it had a viable potential for stability and was not rooted in the religious establishment.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I address here the practicality of an independent Tibet:

The economy of Tibet is dominated by subsistence agriculture. Due to limited arable land, livestock raising is the primary occupation mainly on the Tibetan Plateau, among them are sheep, cattle, goats, camels, yaks, donkeys, and horses. The main crops grown are barley, wheat, buckwheat, rye, potatoes, oats, rapeseeds, cotton, and assorted fruits and vegetables. In recent years the economy has begun evolving into a multiple structure with agriculture and tertiary industry developing side by side.

Tibet's GDP in 2001 was 13.9 billion yuan. The Central Chinese government exempts Tibet from all taxation and provides 90% of Tibet's government expenditure.What is Tibet supposed to do if it gained independence from China?

It will be able to feed it's own people (maybe) a very limited diet.
Other then that, Tibet will still be completely dependent on China (unless it turns to some other power.)

I do understand that China does treat Tibet with some degree of brutality; that's what the monks protesting and the Dalai Lama have been trying to address.
But revolution is no promise to the end of brutality (especially since many Tibetens live outside of Tibet.)
Additionally, what good is ending brutality if you can't support yourself?

Tibet is rural. Urban China is where all the industry is.
Here I will address an issue about rural China:

21.5 million rural population [in China] live below the official "absolute poverty" line (approximately $90USD per year); and an additional 35.5 million rural population above that but below the official "low income" line (approximately $125USD per year) (2006 est.)This just reiterates Tibet's dependency on China.

Here I address China's imperialism:

China is not imperialist.

1. Kashmir, is the site of the world's largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas).

2. Bhutan and China continue negotiations to establish a boundary alignment to resolve substantial cartographic discrepancies, the largest of which lies in Bhutan's northwest.

3. China asserts sovereignty over the Spratly Islands together with Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei.

4. China occupies some of the Paracel Islands also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

5. China and Taiwan continue to reject both Japan's claims to the uninhabited islands of Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyu Tai) and Japan's unilaterally declared equidistance line in the East China Sea, the site of intensive hydrocarbon prospecting.

6. Certain islands in the Yalu and Tumen rivers are in dispute with North Korea.

7. China and Russia have demarcated the once disputed islands at the Amur and Ussuri confluence and in the Argun River in accordance with their 2004 Agreement.

[PRC-UTE]

And Ireland is historically a part of Britain going back to the Plantagenet Dynasty. That argument holds no water.

Anyway, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tibetan-national-liberation-t76576/index.html) is a post that I made dealing with the arguments for why Tibet should not be free from "communist" China.

Not a valid comparison: Ireland had a pre-conquest political and social system all its own, whereas Tibet's DL system was installed by the Chinese (ironic now considering the free tibet arguments are based on the culture of Tibet that was more or less a product of Chinese rule). Also, Ireland consistently challenged Britain's right to be in Ireland, Tibet hadn't protested their link with China until the PLA moved in to implement reforms.

However, having said that, I'm start to get more and more sceptical that Chinese rule is still progressive. Since China's adoption of capitalism, their rule in Tibet seems to be only increasing ethnic tensions by favouring the Han over natives.

[YKTMX]

Ireland had a pre-conquest political and social system all its own

"Ireland" didn't exist before the conquest. It was, as I'm sure you're aware, an extraordinarily fragmented territory, ruled over by a number of "Kings" who lorded it over their own little fiefdoms. The notion of "Ireland" is in fact a product of British imperialism, not something that survived it. It was primarily the existence of clear differences (religion being the obvious one) with the invaders that created the sense (for that's all it can be) of an Irish nation. This is the case with Tibet - the notion of who they are not creates the sense of they are not.


Also, Ireland consistently challenged Britain's right to be in Ireland

In fact, the rebels never had much popular support until 1916 - and even then, as I'm sure you know, most ordinary Irish people were either opposed to or completely baffled by the Rising, as even leftist Republican writers like Sean Cronin have admitted.

Of course, none of this really important. The only question that matters is do you support Imperialism or not? We all know that some comrades are positively orgasmic about the "civilizing" role of Imperialsts (particularly Stalinist imperialists). And we all know where I stand.

[Rawthentic]

The Western media (aka imperialist media) paints the struggle to "Free Tibet" as such a just struggle against oppression, against those evil "Maoists" who kill monks, etc.

But what they ignore is that so close there is a massive popular revolutionary movement in Nepal led by Maoists that just overthrew a 240-year old monarchy! It isn't profitable for them to report this. Not only do most people have no idea where Nepal is, self-described communists and leftists have no idea what it means for the world or study the pressing theoretical issues it exposes.

[PRC-UTE]

"Ireland" didn't exist before the conquest. It was, as I'm sure you're aware, an extraordinarily fragmented territory, ruled over by a number of "Kings" who lorded it over their own little fiefdoms. The notion of "Ireland" is in fact a product of British imperialism, not something that survived it. It was primarily the existence of clear differences (religion being the obvious one) with the invaders that created the sense (for that's all it can be) of an Irish nation. This is the case with Tibet - the notion of who they are not creates the sense of they are not.

I'm not sure that the various kings ruled over their territories like fiefdoms as the clan system had elements of collective property, but leaving that aside for now...

It was not a unified nation-state but it was not quite as dis-united as you'd suggest- for example there were High Kings and the Irish word for a province of Ireland means literally 'one fifth' (Meath was once its own province, and it was considered the capitol). There was a national consciousness, even if there wasn't a stable state.



In fact, the rebels never had much popular support until 1916 - and even then, as I'm sure you know, most ordinary Irish people were either opposed to or completely baffled by the Rising, as even leftist Republican writers like Sean Cronin have admitted.

Of course, none of this really important. The only question that matters is do you support Imperialism or not? We all know that some comrades are positively orgasmic about the "civilizing" role of Imperialsts (particularly Stalinist imperialists). And we all know where I stand.

Well the republicans didn't have popular support in 1916, it wasn't until a bit later that support materialised (as a result of a number of factors, not just the executions but also the threat of conscription), but regardless there were clear instances of significant support manifested through popular uprisings such as 1798, and a clear voting pattern for an extended period of time that favoured self-government in some form.

More importantly, I think your analysis of the "civilising" role of imperialists as you put it is too simplistic. For example many irish republican socialists admit that the initial invasion of Ireland by the Anglo-Normans was progressive and aided in superseeding the economic system of the time, increasing productive forces (and that it was later in history that British rule retarded Ireland's development). It's not all black and white.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Tell that to the people of Darfur... or Chad for that matter

Chinese financial, political and military support of the Sudanese government responsible for the genocide in Darfur is a bit more than tacit consent to such.There is no genocide in Darfur. What's happening in Sudan is a civil war. See: No imperialist intervention in Sudan! (http://powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html) Are you in the U.S.? If so, you should spend your time attacking your "own" imperialists for their ongoing interference in Sudan, instead of lining up with them to attack China.

Imperialism is a specific stage of capitalism (that China has not reached). See this thread: Imperialism, what is it? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/imperialism-t59302/index.html)

The imperialist countries today are the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy and Belgium.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I'm going to say no, and another definite no if the wonderful big ol' US is the one to try and free them

[Nosotros]

The only way that Tibet can be freed is through proletarian revolution.
I agree absolutey.

[Nosotros]

China is not imperialist.
Where you have Nationalism, Imperialism follows. China is, thanx to Mao, is a Conservative state and a Capitalist one thanx to Deng Tsao Ping.

[kotahitanga whenua]

comrades who voted yes have been swayed by american propaganda. in the revolution u will be purged:glare:

[KrazyRabidSheep]

comrades who voted yes have been swayed by american propaganda. in the revolution u will be purged:glare:
Now I wouldn't go as far as to say that.

The individuals who voted "yes" did so with well-meaning intentions. After all, this is rev-left, not sit-on-your-ass-an-be-oppressed-left.

However, I still will disagree with them. (But I promise not to purge you. . .come here where it's safe; next to Comrade Sheep's rifle barrel. . .:ninja:)

[hekmatista]

The only way that Tibet can be freed is through proletarian revolution.
Yes, In China! An independent Tibet under current conditions would only open it to direct exploitation by the more established metropolitan centers, rather than indirectly (mostly tourism) through the Chinese comprador regime. As an economic unit unto itself, Tibet is nonviable.

[Random Precision]

China is not imperialist.

I beg to differ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7460364.stm).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Owning a mine in Peru doesn't make a country imperialist.

[redSHARP]

what were the reasons for occupation originally?

i also would like to know the broad facts about tibet. such as population breakdowns (tibetans vs. chinese), income levels and political backrounds.
and i am not a big fan with the whole "american propaganda" answer; i could claim that and nullify any arguement on this website. and just because a governemnt is leftist, doesn't mean they cant be wrong sometimes.
so i vote yes only with the idea that Tibet would be its own legit country that is populist and progressive. as we all know the CIA backed rebels fighters in Tibet well into the 1970's.

china did bring some good things to Tibet, that is true, but every country that was dominated by imperialist nations still had benefits. so to say china benefited Tibet is no different from saying England benefited Africa.
though the rigid social standards of the old tibet were destroyed, as the saying goes "i rather be governed by a tyrant 1 mile away than a tyrant 1000 miles away" still holds true.

[Charliesoo]

Yes, I believe Tibet should be free of China.

Tibetans desire an independant nation and their wishes should be granted, in my opinion.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

what were the reasons for occupation originally?
Britain invaded Tibet, then gave it to China.

The British sent a military force (largely Indian) that seized Lhasa in 1904. This forced Tibet to open a border crossing w/ British India.

In 1906, a Treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a de facto British protectorate.

In 1907, a treaty was signed between Britain, China, and Russia that recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The Qing central government established direct rule in 1910, but Chinese troops pulled out in response to the 1911 revolution, whereupon the Dalai Lama re-established control.

In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China.

In 1914, a treaty was negotiated between China, Tibet, and Britain (the Simla Convention.) The British wanted to divide Tibet into Inner and Outer Tiber, but negotiations broke down. At this point, Britain demanded to advance their line of control, which would annex 90,000 kilometers of southern Tibet (modern-day Arunachal Pradesh in India), while recognizing Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.

Tibetan representatives secretly signed under British pressure; however, the representative of Chinese central government declared that the secretive annexation of territory was not acceptable. The boundary established in the convention, the McMahon Line, was considered by the British and later the independent Indian government to be the boundary; however, the Chinese view since then has been that since China, which was sovereign over Tibet, did not sign the treaty, the treaty was meaningless, and the annexation and control of southern Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh by India is illegal.

The subsequent outbreak of World War I and civil war in China caused the Western powers and the infighting factions of China proper to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed.



Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's sovereignty over Tibet. In 1950, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet, crushing the Tibetan army.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Tibet/id/1897425


And you know the rest. . .



i also would like to know the broad facts about tibet. such as population breakdowns (tibetans vs. chinese)

The Government of Tibet in Exile gives the number of non-Tibetans in Tibet as 7.5 million (as opposed to 6 million Tibetans)

The PRC gives the number of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region as 2.4 million, as opposed to 190,000 non-Tibetans, and the number of Tibetans in all Tibetan autonomous entities combined (slightly smaller than the Greater Tibet claimed by exiled Tibetans) as 5.0 million, as opposed to 2.3 million non-Tibetans.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Tibet_-_Demographics/id/600765

[redSHARP]

thanks, that gives us a little more backround for us all.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree fully with CdL, China is definitely not imperialist according to any reasonable materialist geopolitical standpoint.

[Dr Mindbender]

Self determination is another word for the imperialist tactic "divide and conquer."
so would palestinian self determination be 'divide and conquering?' :confused:

[trivas7]

No. This choice cannot be made in a vaccume. If Tibet was "free" there would be the reintroduction of a racial caste and a feudal theocracy. Which is worse than the current set up.
This is unwarranted, IMO. The Dalai Lama has said on many occasions he not go back to the same political system that he left nor that he would want to.

[chimx]

It should also be remembered, that the Chinese Revolution brought immense gains to the toilers of Tibet. Prior to that Tibet was a theocratic hell. The U.S. imperialists and their CIA have been pushing for "independence" (read: the creation of an imperialist neocolony in Tibet). Originally, it was a part of a push for counterrevolution in China. Now, it's to damage what they see as a growing competitor.

I agree it was a theocratic hell, and I try to remind liberals of that whenever I argue with them over the issue of China's occupation of Tibet (e.g.: what does freeing tibet necessarily imply beyond removing the Chinese government?), but do you think that if Tibet were to be free today for whatever reason, it would really revert back to it's theocratic hell? I mean, we do see the Dali Llama pretending to be "half-Marxist" and such. Part of me wonders if the whole process of their removal from power has forced them to reassess how a country should be ran.

And no, China isn't really an "imperialist" nation. But it would be interesting to see an analysis of imperialism that takes into account the purchasing of foreign debt -- something that China does do on a massive scale.

[Yehuda Stern]

We have written an article on this subject a while back. Forgive me if I copy and paste:

Buddhist monks' protests against Stalinist China's rule in Tibet turned violent on Friday, March 14, after one week of protests, as police used thousands of Chinese soldiers and police who surrounded two Buddhist monasteries in Lhasa in an effort to crush the biggest wave of street protests by Tibetan monks since the 1980s.



Xinhua news agency reported that 10 innocent civilians had been shot or burned to death in the street clashes in the remote, mountain capital, which has been sealed off since. The dead included two people killed by shotgun fire. A source close to the Tibetan government-in-exile rejected the official death toll and claimed that the real numbers are much higher. It also reported that 12 police officers had been gravely injured, and 22 buildings and dozens of vehicles were set on fire.



It was reported that the Chinese-installed governor of Tibet entered a legislative meeting in Beijing, vowed to deal harshly with the protesters in Lhasa, but said that no shots had been fired and promised that calm will be restored very soon. This statement reminds us of the old saying: there's the truth and there's the party's truth.



The protesters marked the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan nationalist uprising against Chinese rule. The 1959 uprising was crushed by Chinese soldiers, and the Tibetan religious leader, the Dalai Lama, fled with many of his supporters to India.

This is happening less than five months before the beginning of the Beijing Olympics and the Stalinists are trying to put down the protests while using as little force as possible for them. For this reason, a small group of monks was able to raise the banned Tibetan flag in Lhasa, the historic capital of Tibet. It was reportedly the first time that the flag had been displayed by protesters in Lhasa since a 1988 incident in which the flag-bearers were shot dead on the spot.

The Tibetan monks in Lhasa used the same tactics of the Buddhist monks who marched in Myanmar last year, including the use of the Internet and cellphones to send photos and audio recordings of their protests to exiled Tibetans in India and Nepal. But if the monks and their petit-bourgeois cheerleaders in the West, who love to love the monks and love to hate the Muslim mullahs, think that they will receive political and even military support from these two states and from the imperialists, they are dead wrong. Indian police arrested around 100 of them as they approached a Himalayan district of India. Similarly on March 10, Nepal's metropolitan armed police force violently suppressed demonstrators in Kathmandu, with more than 150 Tibetans detained for several hours in Gau Shala, Kamal Pokhari and Boudha police stations.

The Chinese ruling class announced that it is closing the north side of Mount Everest and banning any expeditions until after the Olympic torch has ascended the mountain in early May, because it fears that the pro-Tibet protests will not only disturb their precious Olympics, scheduled for the 8th of August to the 24th, but that the protests will ignite a much wider uprising, as pictures of Lhasa in smoke from tear gas, bonfires and burned shops have reached the mass media.

While some monks have been killed attempting to disrupt the preparations for the Olympic games, their supreme leader, the Dalai Lama, predictably gave them the old knife in the back, and said on Sunday that the international community had the "moral responsibility" to remind China to be a good host for the Olympic Games, and emphasized that China deserves to host the games. He is not the only one who rejects all calls to boycott the games. The U.S. and European Union called for Chinese restraint without any threat of an Olympic boycott or other sanctions.

The International Olympic Committee President, Jacques Rogge, said on Saturday that he opposes an Olympic boycott over Tibet. "We believe that the boycott won't solve anything," Rogge told reporters on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. "On the contrary, it will penalize innocent athletes and stop the organization from something that definitely is worthwhile organizing." "Boycotting the Olympics would not help the human rights situation in Darfur," British Olympics minister Tessa Jowell said today [there are claims that China is involved in the Darfur massacres]. She said that although aspects of Chinese policy were "wholly unacceptable", a boycott was not the right way to exert pressure on Beijing. Once again they prove that what they mean by human rights is simply their right to make profits, which they consider far superior in importance to human lives.

The Olympic games are a good business that the capitalists do not want to lose. However, they have a far more crucial problem: the Americans and other imperialists are afraid of a working class uprising against the Stalinists. Unlike some grand revolutionaries who still claim that China is a socialist or workers' state, the imperialists seem to have come to understand the role of the Stalinists in maintaining the super exploitation of the working class in China and the stability of the region. Coca-Cola Co., Yili Group, Nike Inc. and McDonald's Corp., among others, invested way too much money in this business to allow the deaths of some monks to disturb the profit making venture.



Johnson & Johnson, never an Olympic sponsor before, came on board as a partner in the 2008 Games. Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of marketing heavyweight WPP Group PLC, stated in 2006 that by the time the Games will take place, China could be the world's second-largest advertising market. Sir Martin has said that it is "difficult to think of any sporting or cultural event in the world that could be bigger." Volkswagen China Group invested $100 million. The group's director of Olympic marketing, Anthony Laver, estimates that in the 12 months before the Games, official sponsors will spend up to $2 billion on advertising alone.



Eight of the 11 Beijing Olympic partners are Chinese companies, including utility and energy companies such as State Grid Corp., China Petrochemical Corp. and China National Petroleum Corp. China Petrochemical Corp is a state-owned petroleum company. It merged with China Petrochemical (Sinopec Group) and has sold shares in the market. Its activities include oil and gas exploration and production; crude oil processing; oil products trading, transportation, distribution and marketing; and petrochemical products production, marketing and distribution. It has reserves of more than 3.3 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 trillion cu.ft. of natural gas. Its refined products are sold under the Sinopec brand at 27,000 company-owned gas stations.



As it is impossible to get any honest answers either from the imperialists or the Stalinists and their servants, we will have to analyze the Maoist revolution of 1949, the class nature of Stalinist China, its relationship with the imperialists, and the national question from a Marxist perspective in order to understand these events in Tibet.



China before the 1949 revolution
Before the arrival of the European colonialists, Chinese society was based on the Asian mode of production: collective ownership of land, productive property, and "hydraulic" works rather than private ownership of the means of production was the essence of this society. It was a society of mainly agrarian communes, self-sufficient in food and handicraft that provided surplus to the ruling cast. The peasants were forced to supply labour to build dams, water storage facilities and for other public works. The division of labour within villages was limited, and resulted in limited production for the market (commodity exchange). Subsequently, there was no inner drive towards accumulation. Land was owned by the state. The peasants were essentially working the lands they had been allotted by the state.



The political and military centralized power was held by a ruling sovereign, a bureaucratic court or caste. Hegel said that under oriental despotism, only one man is free. Marx added that in societies of the asiatic mode of production, two major sources of power were the Ministry of Public Works and the Ministry of Finance.


In 1858 Marx wrote: "The Asiatic form necessarily survives the longest and most stubbornly. This is due to the fundamental principle on which it is based -- that is, that the individual does not become independent of the community; that the circle of production is self-sustaining, unity of agriculture and craft manufacture, etc. If the individual changes his relation to the community, he modifies and undermines both the community and its economic premise; conversely, the modification of this economic premise -- produced by its own dialectic, pauperization, etc. Note especially the influence of warfare and conquest. While, e.g., in Rome this is an essential part of the economic condition of the community itself, it breaks the real bond on which the community rests."



The main problem of this mode of exploitation was the lack of a social class able to transform this mode of production to a higher stage. There were many peasants uprisings, but they were able only to switch between despots.



The conquest of China by the British imperialists created the social force capable of such transformation - the working class.



The 1925-7 revolution
Such a revolution of the working class at the head of the peasants would have taken place in 1925-7 were it not for the Communist International, controlled by the Stalinists, that instructed the Chinese Communist Party to subordinate itself to the Chinese bourgeoisie - the nationalist party, known as the Kuomintang (KMT). The Stalinists' policy, based on the reformist conception of a two stage revolution, and the road of strategic united fronts instead of a military bloc, led not to a democratic bourgeois revolution but to the massacre of the CCP, and China continued to be controlled by the British imperialists until they were replaced by the Japanese imperialists.



The revolutionary Marxists led by Trotsky concluded, in light of this experience, that the theory of the Permanent Revolution is applicable to all societies that did not go through the democratic revolution. That is, the tasks of this revolution shall fall on the shoulders of the working class, led by its revolutionary party leading the peasantry.



The peasant-based revolution led by the petty-bourgeois Maoists has confirmed Trotsky's theory, but with some modifications. The capitalist class in the "third world" countries cannot but betray its own revolution, however, given a deep crisis, if the working class is paralyzed, the petit bourgeois can lead a capitalist revolution and partially solve the democratic questions faced by the colonial countries. This happened in Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba. As the article "China's Capitalist Revolution" (Proletarian Revolution No. 53, Winter 1997) explains:



"The workers' movement had revived when the Japanese retreated at the end of the war. Workers in Shanghai seized factories when the KMT armies approached, and the KMT could not curb the subsequent strike wave. But economic misery weakened the struggle. When Chiang collapsed in the late 40s, the working class played a passive role, a situation that Mao actively pursued. The CCP moved quickly to stabilize capitalism, above all by insuring labor discipline. It ordered the workers to cooperate with their bosses in the interest of developing production. And it instructed the KMT's secret police to keep order as it took over the cities.



With the disciplining of the workers, Chinese capitalists were promised that private industry would have a "glorious future." But once the CCP had contained the workers, it began moving in on the private capitalists, aiming for more complete control of the economy and independence from imperialism. It began with a series of campaigns (the "three-antis" and "five-antis"), which because of their appeal to the masses, had to be posed not in explosive class terms but as fights against corruption, tax evasion and the like. By the mid-50's, the frightened bourgeoisie had sold its enterprises to the state at bargain prices; the capitalists were compensated and allowed to stay on as managers until party officials could grasp the reins.



Mao addressed a top businessmen's group in 1956:

"We have reformed all capitalist industrialists and businessmen, eliminating them as a class and taking them all into our fold as individuals. We cannot say the bourgeoisie is useless to us; it is useful, very useful. The workers do not understand this because in the past they have had conflicts with the capitalists in the factory." (Quoted by Nigel Harris in The Mandate of Heaven, p.43.)

Mao moved more radically against private capital only when his overtures to the U.S. during and after the world war were turned down; the Americans were aligned totally with Chiang. It was the Korean war, when the U.S. directly threatened China, that compelled the Maoists to undertake the intensified statification of the 1950's.



Despite the ruling party's Marxist pretensions, it established nothing resembling proletarian rule. What was set up by the mid-1950's was a statified capitalist economy run by and for a reorganized ruling class.



Unable to crush the masses or to develop as rapidly as necessary, given the Cold War and the Russian threat, the CCP had to institute a series of measures embodying important democratic and material gains. These included distribution of the land to peasants and the destruction of landlord power in the countryside; elevating the status of women; kicking out imperialist firms and providing a measure of unity to a badly fragmented country; raising health and educational standards; beginning a system of job guarantees for urban workers. In the same period, the regime tamed inflation and corruption and increased industrial production, using the Soviet model of development. All this won it a large measure of popular support and willingness to sacrifice.



But there was no systematic securing of the demands of the democratic revolution. From basic issues of women's equality and national consolidation to elementary political liberties, rights and conditions were not only denied but actively combated by the Maoist state. The cruel practice of foot-binding was abolished, prostitution was curbed, freedom of divorce was granted and women gained entry into the modern work force and limited access to political power. But women's participation in industry varied according to the need and dictates of the Stalinist leadership. Their roles in political leadership was marginal. And employed or not, they bore the brunt of domestic labor.



Working-class rights especially were trampled under the "workers' state." Revolutionists were persecuted, independent workers organizations like soviets and factory committees were not allowed, and the "trade unions" have been mere appendages of the bureaucracy. The system of job guarantees and benefits of state workers -- the "iron rice bowl" -- was an important concession. But like all concessions under bourgeois rule, it serves as an instrument of social control. It is tied with and dispensed through the danwei, or basic work unit. Through the danwei the individual workers receive not only their pay and benefits but have them regulated and contained -- from recreation to marriage and having children. And (with modifications in recent years) workers are tied to a unit for life. The aim was to divide workers, to atomize and isolate work units from each other".



The National Question In Tibet
The Tibetans are one of the 56 nationalities that live in China. For seven hundred years, Tibet has been part of China. It was integrated into China during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). It remained part of China during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911))



The Yuan dynasty was part of the Mongol empire, established after Gengis Khan and his descendants conquered China and other lands from Korea to Eastern Europe. During the rule of the Mongols, Tibet was given special treatment, because Tibet's Sakya Lamas were loyal servants and were the religious teachers of the Mongol emperors. The Manchu rulers of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) were Buddhists, and Tibet's Dalai Lamas and the Manchu emperors had a special priest-patron relationship called Cho-Yon. Thus since the 13th century and up until the 19th century, Tibet was administratively a part of the Chinese national empires, and was never an independent state during this period.



In the 19th century, the Qing dynasty ruled over a decaying economic system. China suffered economic stagnation. It was in a similar situation to that of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. The First Opium War erupted in 1840. China lost the war; subsequently, Britain and other Western powers, including the United States, forcibly occupied "concessions" and gained special commercial privileges. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanjing, and in 1898, when the Opium Wars finally ended, Britain executed a 99-year lease of the New Territories, expanding the size of the Hong Kong colony.

British solders invaded China's Tibet twice in 1888 and 1903. The Tibetan army and civilians rose to resist but were defeated. In the second war against Tibet, the British army occupied Lhasa, and the 13th Dalai Lama was forced to flee from the city.



British imperialism took advantage of the political chaos in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the new birth of the Republic of China in 1901. They demanded among other things that China would give up its sovereignty over Tibet. With the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, and the failure of the democratic revolution, due to the betrayal of the bourgeois democrats, and their lack of cohesion and class base to implement and sustain a bourgeois-democratic program, the Tibetan ruling cast expelled the Chinese and the 13th Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet's independence. This was part of the falling of state power into the hands of war lords in the rest of China.



In 1913, the British government forced the Beijing government to participate in a tripartite conference of China, Britain and Tibet, the Simla Conference, which was held at the behest of the British government. The British tried to force the Chinese government to give up Tibet. In the summer of 1942, the Tibetan local government, with the support of the British representative, announced the establishment of a "foreign affairs bureau" and "Tibetan independence." Thus, if the imperialists will take over China, the real danger is that they will tear it apart as they did in the Middle East.



As part of the bourgeois revolution, the Chinese Liberation Army entered Tibet in 1951. Peking reached an agreement with the local authorities "on the measures for the peaceful liberation of Tibet." In 1954, the Nehru government yielded its rights over Tibet to China, and Nehru himself then (15 May 1954) declared: "I am not aware that at any time during the last few hundred years, Chinese sovereignty, or if you like, suzerainty [over Tibet] was challenged by any outside country."

In 1951, Tibetan society was marked by an extremely anachronistic and theocratic socio-political regime. Two to three hundred families held - thanks to their position in the government - about two thirds of the land, the other third belonging to the monasteries ruled by the higher clergy. More than a million poor peasants, that is, the overwhelming majority of the country's population, toiled the lands in the service of the parasitic ruling cast, in conditions of extreme material and cultural destitution. Tibet was under the rule of the Buddhist ruling caste, who, though constituting only five percent of the population, controlled 95 percent of the means of production. When the Maoist Army entered Tibet, it was greeted as a liberating army by the peasants.



However, Stalinism in China, as elsewhere, created a repressive capitalist state after taking power. Contrary to the theory of Trotsky's epigones that the revolution in China formed a workers state, China remained capitalist. While expelling the imperialists and nationalizing the means of production brought some advances, the exploitation of the working class has being going hand in hand with national oppression. The situation of the Tibetans is not very different from the situation of the non-Russians in the former Soviet Union or, for that matter, of the Kurds in the Middle East. The forced integration is leading to implosions and disintegration.



In order to avoid a revolution by the working class, and as to not compromise its relations with the imperialists and the Asian ruling classes, especially that of India, the Maoists carefully avoided the danger of revolutionary mobilization and organization of the masses in Tibet. They based themselves on just what they are now denouncing, namely the higher social strata crowned by the government and the Dalai Lama. This policy failed completely. The ruling strata of Tibet, fearing the process of structural assimilation with the rest of capitalist China, did not want any reforms, and tried to gain time and relied on imperialism to defend their "independence." In 1958, the Chinese army did not "invade" an "independent" country, but had been there for several years, and was attacked by forces trained and prepared by the local ruling caste backed by the imperialists.



In the USSR, there was a well known joke about a commissar telling peasents that great changes are on the horizon which will improve their lives considerably. The peasents later look up the word 'horizon' in the dictionary and find that it is an imaginary line that you can't reach no matter how much you try. Chinese propaganda conducts itself similarly:



"Tibetan farmers and herdsmen will see a double-figure growth in net income and improvement in their living conditions in the coming years. In the next five years, the per capita net income of farmers and herdsmen in Tibet will grow at an annual rate of 13 percent and will hit 3,820 Yuan (about US$471), said Zhang Qingli, acting secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Regional Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), in a recent interview. The per capita net income of farmers and herdsmen in Tibet reached 2,075 yuan (US$259) last year, an increase of 11.7 percent from the previous year, comparing 2.6 percent, the growth rate for disposable income of urban residents in the same year."



Things would be quite different if the 1949 revolution was carried out by the working class, led by a revolutionary party. It would mobilize action committees, trade unions, and militias, carrying out a revolution that would guarantee real regional autonomy for Tibet, including the right of complete separation from the rest of the Chinese Workers Republic, should a majority of the Tibetan people desire this. This was the Bolsheviks' policy under Lenin.



In Tibet itself, any revolutionary Marxist forces would support keeping the union with China, on a basis of equality with the other nationalities and autonomous territories, but only after the overthrowing the capitalist state and creating a workers state. However, the 1949 revolution was not a working class revolution and it was not able to solve the national question in Tibet. It replaced one form of exploitation with another one. It replaced a decaying system with national oppression.



For any class conscious worker, it is clear that neither the imperialists nor the Stalinists can solve the problems China is facing. Unless a working class revolution will overthrow the Stalinist state, the imperialists will take over, and the situation of the masses will not be improved but will become worse. We have seen it former Yugoslavia and we see it in Iraq. For this reason, in any military conflict, we will defend China, without giving the Stalinists any political support. We will take the position of revolutionary defense of China and revolutionary defeat for the imperialists.



Today, the reactionary monks are no more than a small group without a mass social base. While, as Marxists, we recognize the right of self determination of Tibet, we do not see any reason to support the monks in any way. However, if a mass movement demanding this right will emerge, it will be a different matter .Our attitude would be to be involved in the mass movement, all the while struggling against the monks' reactionary program. Marxists in China will fight for a socialist revolution in all China as part of the world socialist revolution.



As a side note, the monks' revolt manifested its reactionary character in its attacks against ethnic Chinese, not members of the army or the police but common shopkeepers. An article in the Washington Post has explained this by the Tibetan peoples' "simmering anger" towards the Chinese. While this may be true, could the paper have excused in a similar way Palestinian terrorism or even legitimate resistance to occupation? Of course not. This is another measure of the hypocrisy of the 'balanced' bourgeois-imperialist media.



Imperialist Use Tibet Against China
In 1950, a load of American weaponry was shipped into Tibet through Calcutta in order to help resist the Chinese army's entry into Tibet. In the same year, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that China's occupation of Tibet was an "invasion."



In 1957, the CIA trained 170 "Kamba guerrillas" in batches in Hale Camp, Colorado. These were airdropped into Tibet to execute the CIA's plans.

In 1958, the US army air-dropped arms and ammunition, including 20 sub-machine guns, two mortars, 100 rifles, 600 hand-grenades, 600 artillery shells and close to 40,000 bullets to the rebels in the plateau called Chigu Lama Thang. During the same period, it clandestinely shipped large amounts of arms and ammunition overland to the rebels entrenched in the Shannan area. These were preparations for the said 1958 uprising which was suppressed.



Since China opened up to foreign capital, world imperialism had a contradictory attitude towards it. On the one hand, some sections still want the state to be reformed so as to make sure that it is under their control. For this reason they make an about-face of supporting Tibetan independence. Last year George W Bush was the first American president to hold a public meeting with the Dalai Lama. White house Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on Tibetan National Uprising Day, which is commemorated on Saturday, March 10:

"On the 48th Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day, we honor the many brave Tibetans who sacrificed their lives fighting for freedom [...] In recent years, many of us have been encouraged by the discussions between Tibetan envoys and Chinese authorities on the status of Tibet. While open dialogue is a first step, it is clear that the Chinese government is stalling the negotiations. It is critical for these discussions to resume as soon as possible. A negotiated agreement would ensure internal stability in Tibet and bolster China's reputation in the world.



The U.S. Congress continues to be a bedrock of support for the Tibetan people. Last year, Congress passed legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in recognition of his contributions to peace, nonviolence, and religious understanding. I was proud to be an original co-sponsor of that significant legislation.



We must heed the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his transcendent message of peace is needed now more than ever. And we must never forget the people of Tibet in their ongoing struggle".



On the other hand, there are sections that fear that only the Stalinists can ensure the continued exploitation of the workers. This explains the rejection of the calls to boycott the Olympic games.



The rivalries between the imperialist powers and China, and those among the imperialist powers themselves, are already intensifying, as East Asia becomes an increasingly dangerous and strategic "hot spot" in a world becoming more unstable by capitalist stagnation and the growing economic crisis.



The Myth of 'Chinese Imperialism'
The Tibet question was used in imperialist propaganda to claim that China is an imperialist state. However, China is a third world country, more advanced than many because of the 1949 revolution, but still a country whose labor force is super exploited by the real imperialists.



Those who argue that China is an imperialist state simply ignore the fact that imperialism is characterized, among other things, by a high organic composition of captial, resulting in falling rate of profit, and for this reason imperialism exports capital used to exploit the working class and the cheaper raw materials in the third world, while Chinese technology is lagging far behind the imperialists.
Furthermore, they ignore history, that has shown us that the "third world" countries that have not gone through the democratic revolution have remained semi colonial countries, even if they are formally independent. The fact that China controls Tibet does not prove that it is an imperialist state, just like the fact that Iraq occupied Kuwait does not prove that Iraq is an imperialist state.



The multinationals and Chinese companies are in different positions. China's capitalists are dependent on imperialist capital. . In August 2006 Scott Kronick, president of WPP Group's Ogilvy public-relations agency in Beijing stated: "The message for the multinationals is that, 'We are here in China, and we are going to be part of this transformation that is taking place. The message for local companies is that, 'We are a famous Chinese company that has the potential to be a global brand". Up to now, the "Overseas Chinese Inc." has been the biggest investor in mainland China. The United States is in second place, followed by Japan, numerous European states, South Korea, Canada, and Australia.

Businesses from Hong Kong had an early start. Most, if not all of the factories in Hong Kong, have moved over the border. Today, about 240,000 Hong Kong residents work and live in Mainland China. Their employers are mostly small and midsize companies. They mostly focus on low-end consumer products. Their strengths are best shown in their vast numbers.



Many Korean companies are also very active , Especially LG, Hyundai, and Samsung. Today, there are over 250,000 South Koreans living in China. By 2003, LG had invested $2.4 billion in China. The company has become a leader in the consumer electronics and home appliances sector. Its China business reached $8 billion in 2003 and $10 billion in 2004. LG is still expanding its investments. Korean companies now treat China as their own production center as well as a big market. The average monthly salary for a manufacturing job is $1,524 in South Korea, but less than S100 in China.



However, on a global basis, the U.S. companies as a group are the biggest investors, most importantly GM and Ford. Volkswagen has also been operating in China since 1985.



By 2003, foreign firms accounted for 81 percent of China's technology exports - a global market share of 54 percent of DVD players, 28 percent of cellular phones, 13 percent of digital cameras, 30 percent of desktop computers, 12 percent of notebook computers and 27 percent of colour televisions. Transnationals and their local contractors also dominate in other major export fields such as machinery and textiles.



Much of the profit from the foreign-owned plants manages to find its way out of the country. Every year China sends billions of its proceeds to fill the treasuries of American, European, and Japanese monopoles.



China, then, is now the promised land of milk and honey for the multinationals. However, they are now afraid of the rise of the class struggle in China. In an article in the New York Times from the 6.30.2007, titled "As Unrest Rises, China Broadens Workers' Rights," Joseph Kahn and David Barboza inform their readers that "China's legislature passed a sweeping new labor law on Friday that strengthens protections for workers across the booming economy, a response to increasing signs of restiveness among tens of millions of migrant laborers.

The law, enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress over the objections of foreign investors, requires employers to provide written contracts to their workers, restricts the use of temporary laborers and helps give more employees long-term job security.



The law, which is to take effect in 2008, also enhances the role of the Communist Party's monopoly union and allows collective bargaining for wages and benefits."

In Stalinist China, the workers are not allowed to form their own unions. The so called unions are an instrument of the capitalist state. The journalists continue: "But the new measure may not improve conditions for low-wage workers unless it is enforced more rigorously than existing laws, which already offer protections that on paper are similar to those in developed economies.



Urban workers may also see little change unless the state-run union, which in the past generally represented management over workers, decides to play an active role in defending worker rights, which many analysts consider unlikely."

This law, we are informed, is supposed to stop the practice of slave labor in the brick kilns and the small coal mines in Shanxi and Henan Provinces. In an attempt to calm down the workers, the police freed 600 young workers held against their will in some factories whose owners have many connections with local authorities.



The multinational corporations stating that labor laws would increase the cost of labor and force them to operate in other countries like Vietnam intervened in the process of legislation to remove some clauses that on paper gave the "unions" greater power that could prevent the practice of throwing out injured workers. Barely hiding their smiles, lawyers for multinationals complained that the new laws will place heavy burdens upon their clients. "It will be more difficult to run a company here," said Andreas W. Lauffs, head of Baker & McKenzie's employment law group, which represents many of America's biggest corporations in China.



But these smiles are not likely to stay on their faces for long, as the militancy of the working class is on the rise. Some information is leaking out. For example, on December 10, 2007, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, 4,000 oil workers demonstrated for nearly a week at the Qilu Petrochemical Corp in Shandong province, demanding higher pay amid rising prices and record profits for the oil industry. A worker in the plant told Reuters: "The protest started with the front-line workers who are having a very difficult life now, as pay increases very slowly but prices of everything rise so fast."



In the last twenty years hundreds of million of peasants lost their land and immigrated to the major cities in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and other cities that have grown very fast. They work very long hours and earn very little -around 60-90 dollars a month, and sleep in extremely crowded rooms, with as many as 18 occupants. This is the way the monopolies and the trusts are fighting the tendency of the falling rate of profit, by super exploitation of the Chinese working class. This is the secret of the "Chinese magic." It made a few million Chinese rich while the gap between these rich and most of the population is growing daily.

According to the official Chinese governmental statistics, by the late 1990's, China had already became second in the world in wealth disparity (Zimbabwe was the first). By 2003, China surpassed Zimbabwe and became number one. The same findings also included additional information: only 3.5% of the 1.3 billion people in China earned more than ¥20,000 ($2500), while 50% of the 1.3 billion population earned less than ¥2,000 annually (approximately $250).

The Chinese branches of the Boston Consulting Group, on the Chinese government's behalf, published an investigative report on October 17, 2006, which was covered by numerous Chinese periodicals such as the Chinese Youth. According to the report, the top 0.4% of Chinese families (about 1.5 million) own over 70% of the nation's wealth, while in contrast, in most developed nations, the top 5% of the families own around 60% of the total wealth. The report only included the obvious assets such as real estate, stock, bank accounts, salaries, and personal property such as cars and furniture. The report could not account for illegal and semi-legal income sources; if it had, wealth disparity would have been found to be even greater.



In a separate report by the World Bank for 2006, it is reported that the income of the bottom 10% of the population in China actually decreased by 2.4% in comparison to the previous year.



The problem for the multinationals and the local Chinese capitalists is not the growing gap, but the rise of the class struggle, which is leading to the growing loss of control of the CCP, which functions as a police force which guarantees the high profits of the multinationals and their junior partners. Furthermore, the rate of growth exaggerated by the Stalinist is going down. According to a UN report China might see a "significant dent" in its economic growth rate if the US economy slides into a recession, said the United Nations in a report released on January 10, 2008.



China is expected to grow at a robust pace of 10 percent in 2008, moderating from the official 11.4 percent growth estimated for 2007, said the report entitled World Economic Situation and Prospects 2008.



The annual report also considered a more pessimistic scenario under which housing prices in the United States make a more significant dive and push the US economy into a recession in 2008. Should this happen, economic growth in China would drop below 8 percent in 2008.



According to the UN report, the worldwide weight of the Chinese economy, basically controlled by the multinationals, has been steadily increasing. China contributed about 17 percent to global growth in 2007, about the same as the United States.



Chinese Pseudo-Socialism
To this day, there are some parties claiming to be Marxist that argue that China is still a communist, socialist, or at least a workers state. This claim is based on the undisputed fact that in 1949, a peasant-based revolution led by the Chinese Stalinists brought to power a regime which nationalized the economy in 1951.

Today it is very difficult to convince workers that China is not a capitalist state. The same so-called Marxists avoid explaining how the China they called a workers' state turned into a capitalist state. After all, the CCP is still in power.



The blatantly pro-capitalist orientation of the CCP leadership and its subordination of the Chinese workers and peasants to the profit needs of international imperialism exposes nakedly the falseness of all claims that China is either socialist or proletarian. Indeed, many of the political tendencies claiming to be Trotskyist are now saying that China is no longer a "deformed workers' state.



Trotsky's Epigones who claimed that the 1949 revolution formed a deformed workers' state are facing the small problem of explaining how a class other than the working class could build a workers state; how a state where workers are exploited by capitalist is a workers' state; how the peaceful transition from socialism to capitalism was possible. For example, the IMT, the Grantist international under the leadership of Alan Woods, argues that China, a third world country, is now an imperialist state because of the growing privatization of the economy. In this situation, we can expect them to either remain silent or to support the reactionary monks.



No less cynical are the Spartacists, led by Jim Robertson, who claim that China is still a degenerated workers state because the Stalinist party is still in power. They are likely to support the Stalinists in crushing the Tibetans.



The truth is, the partial achievements of the bourgeois revolution of 1949 are in real danger. China is facing the danger of disintegration and being overtaken by the imperialist powers. As Marxists we defend any gain of the working class, but the only way forward is a working class revolution, that will begin by the struggle for independent workers' unions and the right to organize workers' parties.



A socialist revolution by the large working class at the head of the peasants requires a revolutionary working class party of the conscious workers, the same kind of party that the Bolsheviks under Lenin and Trotsky headed. The same kind of a party Trotsky struggled for and that was destroyed by the petit bourgeois centrists hiding themselves in the mantle of Trotsky while acting as reformists.


For the Defense of China Against the Imperialist Conspirators!
For the Right of Self-Determination for the Tibetan People Against the Stalinist Chauvinist Hangmen!
For Independent Trade Unions and the Protection of Workers' Rights!
For a Revolutionary Workers Party In China As Part of the Rebuilding of the Fourth International!

[Hiero]

For the Defense of China Against the Imperialist Conspirators!
For the Right of Self-Determination for the Tibetan People Against the Stalinist Chauvinist Hangmen!
For Independent Trade Unions and the Protection of Workers' Rights!
For a Revolutionary Workers Party In China As Part of the Rebuilding of the Fourth International!

The last slogan made me laugh the most.

[chimx]

Copying and pasting long articles Is a good way to kill a thread...:mad:

[Pogue]

China's system is authoritarian mental capitalism, mixed in with murder and general hypocrisy. I'd like to see a Free Tibet out of the hope of some form of progressive democracy there, which is likely due to all the influences on the country and its independence movement. A liberal democracy is preferable to murderous authoritarian capitalism.

[Yehuda Stern]

The last slogan made me laugh the most.

Yeah, haha, workers' party. Those stupid Leninists.


Copying and pasting long articles Is a good way to kill a thread...

Don't mention it.

[Lost In Translation]

China's system is authoritarian mental capitalism, mixed in with murder and general hypocrisy. I'd like to see a Free Tibet out of the hope of some form of progressive democracy there, which is likely due to all the influences on the country and its independence movement. A liberal democracy is preferable to murderous authoritarian capitalism.

The Dalai Lama is being funded by the United States (CIA to be specific), and the US forced India to welcome the Dalai Lama into their jurisdiction. Which is the greater evil, China or the US?

[Pogue]

Thats irrelevant. In this case China is acting much worse than the US.

[Herman]

Thats irrelevant. In this case China is acting much worse than the US.

So you'd rather defend the US, a thoroughly capitalist and imperialist country known for its past criminal activities against revolutionary movements?

[trivas7]

The Dalai Lama is being funded by the United States (CIA to be specific), and the US forced India to welcome the Dalai Lama into their jurisdiction. Which is the greater evil, China or the US?
Sources, please?

[Decolonize The Left]

Thats irrelevant. In this case China is acting much worse than the US.

The question of "Free Tibet" has nothing to do with childish arguments over 'who is worse - China or the US.' Nothing. It has only everything to do with the well-being of Tibetans who have been persecuted and dispelled from their country in what can be qualified as a form of ethnic cleansing. To support such atrocities simply because the perpetrator wears a communist logo is pathetic and short-sighted.

- August

[Magdalen]

The current conflict in Tibet is being fought between the Tibetan and Chinese ruling classes, for control of Tibet's vast natural resources. Both sides in this dispute are counter-revolutionary, as they are not concerned about the welfare of the Tibetan working class.

The Tibetan ruling class wants a larger share of the profits from these resources, something the central government will not allow. In order to achieve this they have attempted to gain support from Tibetans by scapegoating non-Tibetan minorities (particularly Han and Hui Chinese) for the problems associated with the restoration of capitalism in China.

On the other hand, the Chinese ruling class seeks to compromise with sections of the Tibetan ruling class to allow China continue exploiting Tibet and maintain a large share of Tibet's growing wealth.

The Chinese ruling class should not be allowed to exploit Tibet to feed its capitalist restoration, but neither should there be a return to the days of exploitation by the religious aristocracy of the Dalai Lama and his cronies.

[Decolonize The Left]

The current conflict in Tibet is being fought between the Tibetan and Chinese ruling classes, for control of Tibet's vast natural resources. Both sides in this dispute are counter-revolutionary, as they are not concerned about the welfare of the Tibetan working class.

The Tibetan ruling class wants a larger share of the profits from these resources, something the central government will not allow. In order to achieve this they have attempted to gain support from Tibetans by scapegoating non-Tibetan minorities (particularly Han and Hui Chinese) for the problems associated with the restoration of capitalism in China.

On the other hand, the Chinese ruling class seeks to compromise with sections of the Tibetan ruling class to allow China continue exploiting Tibet and maintain a large share of Tibet's growing wealth.

The Chinese ruling class should not be allowed to exploit Tibet to feed its capitalist restoration, but neither should there be a return to the days of exploitation by the religious aristocracy of the Dalai Lama and his cronies.

Do you have any justification for any of these claims?

- August

[Lost In Translation]

Trivas:

links are below. They are not complete, but these two links are basically what every other link is telling us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Controversy

http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=586331

You'll see that the news agency that I have linked is quite insignificant, because the big news moguls of the west refuse to shine light on the dark side to the "free tibet" controversy.

[Magdalen]

Do you have any justification for any of these claims?

- August

Yes, I have plenty.

What are your arguments against them?

[Decolonize The Left]

We have written an article on this subject a while back. Forgive me if I copy and paste:

Thanks for thats article, though it was long and takes up a huge portion of the page. I found it an excellent summary of the past happenings in China related to the issue of Tibetan independence. I also feel that the conclusions drawn were apt given the facts. Despite this, I am reluctant to defend one capitalist nation against actions of another. I do not support, in any way, the government of China, nor do I wish to defend it against even the most abusive of governments (the US). I do not see how my solidarity with the working class necessitates my support of this regime through defending it against foreign attacks. Would you care to clarify this point?

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, I have plenty.

What are your arguments against them?

I have none, I was merely asking. I am solely concerned with the well-being of the Tibetan people, that is all.

- August

[Comrade Vasilev]

I have none, I was merely asking. I am solely concerned with the well-being of the Tibetan people, that is all.

- August
Well even capitalism is preferable to feudalism.

[Ismail]

All that stuff the Dalai Lama says about being "half-Marxist" and such is clearly bullshit. He's a religious leader, his status is upheld by an aristocracy of monks. He can't be like "Why yes, I'd like to return Tibet to Buddhist theocratic rule with myself holding nearly unlimited power due to my status as the defender of Buddhism and updating it as time goes along according to my rather small branch that I hold monopoly over."

It's like defending the Kings of Bhutan, who have a "gross domestic happiness" (GDH) instead of gross domestic product (GDP), even though GDH is clearly bullshit and Bhutan isn't a democracy since monks hold all the influence there. Look at Bhutan's government, that is how Tibet is going to be run, except Tibet will be ruled by an equivalent of the Pope.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs - Penn & Teller on Tibet
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Even Marxists.org condemns Tibetan Buddhism.

A third school is Vajrayana Buddhism, commonly referred to as Tibetan Buddhism. This form of Buddhism is technically a part of Mahayana — based on Tantric Buddhism, which arose in around 500 CE, and employed the use of spells, symbols, and complicated rituals to reach enlightenment. Buddhism had entered Tibet in around 200 CE, but had come under it's own system as Buddhist monks took to controlling society and enforcing their own edicts and morals on others. Their theocracy engrained patriarchy into Tibetan society, severely repressing women, and found a need to make the acts of reincarnation official: to keep power in the hands of the monks, only the monks could proclaim who was the next high ranking official of the empire (aka the reincarnation of the last emperor). This high level of stratification and ranks, dictated through reincarnation, was necessary for running a feudalist society.Regardless, China did invade Tibet, so it was technically social-imperialist. As it stands however, the majority of Tibetans have no problem staying with China. (Not everyone who lives in Tibet is a monk, and monks are obviously going to support the Dalai Lama)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Tibet was part of China in a national-sense, but it was within Britain's 'sphere of influence', so it's autonomy status was recognized only within the years following the collapse of the Guomintang. So no, it was not 'social-imperialist' - if you were a British phrase-monger that kept a close watch on politics in that region, it might possibly be.

[Ismail]

Social-imperialism is phrase-mongering? I thought it was a 'socialist' state claiming to be invading a nation for internationalism or whatever, when it in fact has an imperial goal.

Also note how I said "technically", since it still invaded a territory.

[Lost In Translation]

I don't care what the comrades think, but let's ask one thing: Has ANY western media portrayed the Tibet fiasco correctly at least once?

[rampantuprising]

the question was whether or not we think tibet should be 'free'. and i assumed this to be free from chinese oppression AS WELL AS U.S. imperialistic intervention. did no one else think that's what 'free' meant?

[Lost In Translation]

the question was whether or not we think tibet should be 'free'. and i assumed this to be free from chinese oppression AS WELL AS U.S. imperialistic intervention. did no one else think that's what 'free' meant?
Well, do you think that if Tibet is free from the so called "chinese oppression", that the it will also be freed from US imperialistic intervention?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Well, do you think that if Tibet is free from the so called "chinese oppression", that the it will also be freed from US imperialistic intervention?
That, and as I pointed out a few pages ago, the self sustaining ability of an independent Tibet is questionable.


the question was whether or not we think tibet should be 'free'. and i assumed this to be free from chinese oppression AS WELL AS U.S. imperialistic intervention. did no one else think that's what 'free' meant?Yes, I did consider that, but see above points (GlobalCommie's U.S. imperialism and my own self-sustaining).

Should Tibet be free? Yes, every place and everybody should be free.
Can Tibet be free? I don't think so (not now at any rate.)


I don't care what the comrades think, but let's ask one thing: Has ANY western media portrayed the Tibet fiasco correctly at least once?
Not as far as I have seen.
However, in defense of the media, any scenarios and statistics that PR China gives is radically different then the exiled Tibetan government; it is hard to get a clear picture of what goes on with such radical propaganda from both sides.

However, the media could at least report both sides, rather then picking the one that best fits their own particular agenda.

[Ismail]

I don't care what the comrades think, but let's ask one thing: Has ANY western media portrayed the Tibet fiasco correctly at least once?Penn & Teller seems to have gotten the closest. (I posted a Youtube link to their video above) And even then, they had to interview Michael Parenti, who many (sadly) consider to be fringe.

[Sir Comradical]

Before China assumed control of the region, Tibet was a feudal theocracy, the majority of the population was poor, horribly exploited and landless. The Dalai Lamas that existed previously aided, supported and maintained this extremely exploitative system of autocratic rule by wealthy elite families whose policies kept working class oppressed. Tibetans gained a lot from the Chinese annexation. I'd say that the entire chinese population deserves to be freed not just the Tibetans.

[Sendo]

tibet seems to have more of a right to independence than say Pakistan, which is nothing more than US protectorate carved out of India. Tibet has some legit claims to being not Chinese, not to mention their less than perfect treatment as member to the PRC.

I'm not really in favor of independence as much as autonomy. (the idea of national divisions kind of pisses me off anywhere) That being said, a lot of the rallying cries are really phony, and yes the US is involved (look at what the feudal asshole and Bush-loving "Buddhist" the Lama says), and yes, it sucked to live in Tibet, and yes the Lama was a puppet ruler set up by a Chinese emperor once.

But Tibetans suffer now, second-class citizenship being huge. The way I've heard some Chinese talk about the Tibetans they make anti-Mexican racists in the USA seem tame.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not so much concerned about 'independence' or 'state autonomy' as I am with the Tibetan culture being destroyed by Chinese immigration. I'm worried that their customs and language are being forcibly destroyed and will be lost like so many others. This is not a call for nostalgic remorse, rather for appreciation of the loads of information and valuable knowledge which are hidden within marginalized cultures.

- August

[Chapaev]

The reality is that the Tibetan people, who have shaken off the yoke of feudal serfdom, enjoy freedom which they have neber been able to enjoy before. To separate Tibet from China would mean peril to both parties. The Han people and other ethnic groups absolutely will not accept separation of Tibet from China, nor will the Tibetan people themselves.

[Sir Comradical]

tibet seems to have more of a right to independence than say Pakistan, which is nothing more than US protectorate carved out of India. Tibet has some legit claims to being not Chinese, not to mention their less than perfect treatment as member to the PRC.

If Pakistan is an artificial creation of colonial power then so is India which didn't exist before the British conquered the region and called the whole thing "India". India was and still is a multi-ethnic land full of various kingdoms that went to war with each other, and of course the british used this chaos to divide and rule the place. The best solution would have been for the region to become a union of states based on language. That way, Punjab, Bengal and Kashmir wouldn't be split in two falling on each side of the border between India and Pakistan/East-Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The Soviet Model based on a union of states/republics would have been ideal for India.

[ChristianV777]

Yes, I think it is a very divisive issue. And, in the end, I think the only ones who can decide if Tibet should be "free" is the people of Tibet. I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, if that is what the majority of the population wants.
Whether that is the best thing...well, that's a different issue, but one for the Tibetan people to deal with, I believe.
It really is a matter of the Tibetan people needing to be freed after Tibet is free.

I saw someone mention Michael Parenti above. His article on Tibet is really good reading.

Of course it's because China is an "Officially Designated Enemy" (off and on) that the Liberals in America have made such a cause celebre out of the Tibet issue while virtually ignoring other issues that are of far more pressing concern (Palestinians, for one).
That doesn't mean that the issue doesn't have merit, it just shows the vapidity of Liberalism.
The Dalai Lama isn't any sort of champion of his people. For every quote about Marx he makes, he must make two about "the glorious purpose of the poor", as if they exist just to be taken care of by those enlightened, rather than as victims of an exploitative system.

So, taking all questions into consideration (and it is a very varied topic, unlike some other current issues), I'd say that "Yes", but only if that is the wish of the majority of the population.

[godfailed]

No. This choice cannot be made in a vaccume. If Tibet was "free" there would be the reintroduction of a racial caste and a feudal theocracy. Which is worse than the current set up.

+1.

Most people don't realize or haven't learned the real history about Tibet, the cruelty that the monks (lamas) inflicted on their own people. I think the American gov pulls or heavily distorts the history books about Tibet. So all I see from those Free Tibet groups are that they seem to think the Tibetan monks are holy, peace loving figures being oppressed by the mean and nasty Chinese. While it's true that China probably cares more about the region of Tibet for strategic purposes, I don't get the argument that China 'oppresses' them by destroying their culture, traditions and way of life. There are over 1000 minority groups in China that have their own little villages and preserve their customs. China simply encourages them to learn chinese so that they can hopefully live a more prosperious life and go on to do business instead of being a farmer. I have actually met this Tibetan guy in Canada who emigrated because life was just too harsh over there. There's so little natural resource in Tibet, if it weren't for the economical help and volunteer work from the chinese, they would be just like North Korea, many would starve to death or live very poor lives. According to him the chinese people weren't racist to Tibetans as some propaganda articles seem to suggest.

Anyways I think it's too late to let the Tibetans decide whether they want independence or not. This should have been asked maybe 30-40 years ago. Tibet has been under Chinese rule for such a long time, and has enjoyed stability, I think it shoudl continue. The chinese gov recently just finished extending a main rail line into Tibet, which should note a sharp increase in tourism for them, thus = financial opportunities. I'm not even goign to go on about the Dalai who is a CIA puppet and former Nazi sympathizer.

www(dot)michaelparenti(dot)org/Tibet.html - i cant post links just yet but im sure a mod won't mind a Parenti link?

[Matty_UK]

The imperialists want an independant tibet because under Chinese rule it is capable of charting it's own economic development. To break it off from China would make it dependant on short term imperialist investments with no industry of it's own, ruled by a comprador political/economic class whose income is dependant on western investment and so will support imperialism every step of the way.

Kinda like any other third world country.

We should oppose it to the end.

[comrade stalin guevara]

If tibet is to be freed then free wales,scotland,australia,nz,etc,etc

[Philosophical Materialist]

I voted "no" but I don't think the poll question was worded sensibly. There is very little support for Tibetan nationalism from Tibet's people, so an independent Tibetan state would be rather pointless.

I feel that Tibet does have a right to self-determination and could cede from China if it so chooses, although I think such a step would be disastrous for its population but it could do so if it wanted.

Hamburg has the right to self-determination in that it could cede from the Federal Republic of Germany if it so chooses. I could start a poll on that. Considering there's no public support for such a separation, perhaps not.

The whole Tibetan independence movement is more the plaything of woolly left-liberalism (who think pre-1950s Tibet was lovely and nice) and US liberal interventionists who are using the issue as a strategic powerplay to isolate PR China diplomatically.

[Sir Comradical]

I voted "no" but I don't think the poll question was worded sensibly. There is very little support for Tibetan nationalism from Tibet's people, so an independent Tibetan state would be rather pointless.

I feel that Tibet does have a right to self-determination and could cede from China if it so chooses, although I think such a step would be disastrous for its population but it could do so if it wanted.

Hamburg has the right to self-determination in that it could cede from the Federal Republic of Germany if it so chooses. I could start a poll on that. Considering there's no public support for such a separation, perhaps not.

The whole Tibetan independence movement is more the plaything of woolly left-liberalism (who think pre-1950s Tibet was lovely and nice) and US liberal interventionists who are using the issue as a strategic powerplay to isolate PR China diplomatically.

Exactly, i've had this argument with that kind of a liberal. After I told her that Tibet was a feudal theocracy before 1950 and the majority of the population were landless peasants living in poverty her answer was "ohh well, that's because they're not a materialistic people like you and me".

[Lost In Translation]

Exactly, i've had this argument with that kind of a liberal. After I told her that Tibet was a feudal theocracy before 1950 and the majority of the population were landless peasants living in poverty her answer was "ohh well, that's because they're not a materialistic people like you and me".
See, the western world (namely the US) can find excuses for anything, and think they can attack anybody or any issue as they choose. However, in contrast, they collapse and cry foul when others do the same to them.

[Sir Comradical]

See, the western world (namely the US) can find excuses for anything, and think they can attack anybody or any issue as they choose. However, in contrast, they collapse and cry foul when others do the same to them.

That's just the way empire works i guess and that makes sense for any powerful state. The thing is that i know that China is extremely totalitarian in the way they run their government, but that's no reason for the region to be divided up and balkanized into different ethnic states. I don't even think Tibetans would want that.

[Coggeh]

Yes it should . there argument over .

[KC]

This is a bad question to ask. It completely denies the basis for national determination. For example, I would support "freeing tibet" on the basis that it is of a proletarian/socialist character and not a bourgeois separatist movement.

[Lost In Translation]

Yes it should . there argument over .
Oh come on, if it were that easy, why did we spend 106 posts bickering about it? :)

[Aurelia]

In reference to Tibet we have to attack this BS "genocide" crap the bougeoisie is trying to lie about. They treat the Darfur rebels like they are an innocent lot oppressed by the govt., the Darfur insurgency is completely funded by America and Israel, and Zionists are completely behind the "Save Darfur" and "Save Tibet" campaign, which only came into existence after we found oil in the region (surprise).

[Lost In Translation]

But then are we supposed to be the ones attacking the govt for its BS? How much credibility do we have? If we can persuade a big-time politician, then maybe that's different.

[RedHal]

More hypocrisy from his "holiness" the Dalai Lama. Of course this isn't part of mainstream media, and I stumbled upon it when checking out radio4all stuff http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/28465

So Mr "man of peace" "human rights" "religious freedom" has enforcibly banned the practice of some sort of sect in Tibetan Buddhism, Dorje Shugden.
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/

and of course the "always reliable" wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

Not only does this "man of peace" cosy up to imperialists monsters like Bush, this "man of earthy simplicity" hangs out with decadent hollywood celebs, bankers and industrialists, but he also bans religious freedom amonghts Tibetan Buddhism. :laugh:

[kingbee]

I'd like to think that I'm slightly informed on the matter as I've visited both China and Tibet and heard both sides of the story, but I still have no idea which one is correct. For one, Tibetans are a nationality within China as are many other minorities who don't call for their own state; but on the other hand a people with a so-called homeland who have inhabited it for years should probably be entitled to their own nation state.

The one thing that gets me though is when people say "China has given Tibet many advances and therefore should retain control". Firstly, what China 'gives' Tibet is not just positive: it has been introduced to ruthless Han immigration and thus Han capitalism and unsustainable Han tourism; and secondly we could compare China's rule of it to America's of other countries, 'giving' them consumerism and democracy. However, I don't see many people defending America's occupation of other countries on the grounds that they are advancing that country.

[Trystan]

Yes, Free Tibet. Why not? Ceding from China is no big deal since China is ultra-capitalist nowadays. But it should only be granted independence conditionally: it cannot be allowed to return to the dictatorship of the clergy that existed before.

[Lost In Translation]

Ok, no matter what situation Tibet is in, it will be occupied by some imperialist force. If it's not China, it's the US. If it's not the US, it'll be some other G8 country. Yes, China has been exceptionally harsh on Tibet in all terms. However, the Free Tibet situation is no longer run by the Tibetans, but by their Western sympathizers. You want to free Tibet? Back off and let it make its own decision. The Free Tibet movement is pressuring Tibet to do what the West thinks is "the right thing". They are making Tibet their sock puppet to fight against China. The West is already oppressing Tibet indirectly through this Free Tibet movement. If this trend continues, do you think Tibet will have a bright future when it breaks free from China? I really doubt it.

[Pogue]

History has nothing to do with it - surely we should support any attempt by an oppressed people to alleviate this oppresion? China's authoritarian capitalist, we all agree on this, so it's nothing to defend. Its defence tends to come from people who can't accept the fact that the ruling party, the Communist Party, is the furthest from Communist any party has ever been.
I'm on the side of oppressed people fighting against a rich, hypocritical and murderous joke of a government.

[politics student]

If only I read all of this before I voted yes...

Well we had 50 years of Tibet should be free propaganda in the west, I was a supporter of the yes side until I read about Tibets history, the system of government they want to bring back and the improvements which have happened under china's rule.

I never want to see the theocratic dictatorship gain power again, any system of government where the leader is choosen from an elite class as a baby claimed as the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.

[politics student]

History has nothing to do with it - surely we should support any attempt by an oppressed people to alleviate this oppresion? China's authoritarian capitalist, we all agree on this, so it's nothing to defend. Its defence tends to come from people who can't accept the fact that the ruling party, the Communist Party, is the furthest from Communist any party has ever been.
I'm on the side of oppressed people fighting against a rich, hypocritical and murderous joke of a government.

The people will be oppressed what ever happens its a depressing situation, the tibet movement needs to help fight for a change in china rather than independence.

[Pogue]

You can't assume Tibet would neccesarily go back to how it was in the early 20th century. Things have changed. The Dalai Lama is a progressive man, and Tibetan people would now realise theres better systems of government than the one which ruled over them pre-Chinese invasion in the middle of the 20th century.

[Lost In Translation]

History has nothing to do with it - surely we should support any attempt by an oppressed people to alleviate this oppresion? China's authoritarian capitalist, we all agree on this, so it's nothing to defend. Its defence tends to come from people who can't accept the fact that the ruling party, the Communist Party, is the furthest from Communist any party has ever been.
I'm on the side of oppressed people fighting against a rich, hypocritical and murderous joke of a government.
This is EXACTLY the reason why the 'Free Tibet' movement has lost steam in Tibetans. It's no longer about Tibet, it's about China. The West is taking shots at China, instead of pushing Tibet forward towards a better future.

You want to help Tibet? You want to see Tibet become stronger? Actually work with the Tibetans, instead of criticizing the Chinese for all they've done wrong, because frankly, the west has been hypocritical AT BEST on this situation.

[Pogue]

I've worked alongside Tibetans in the Free Tibet movement. I've been to shows of their culture (music and dance), and shouted with them on the streets of London.
So I do work with the Tibetans. And I also criticise China. What do you do?

[Lost In Translation]

Criticizing China will lead to nothing. You would only create a bigger stalemate between the two. China would never give up Tibet if all people do is attack China.

I've talked with Tibetan Buddhist Monks, and they forgive the invasion of 1950. It is only the young headstrong lot that are doing this. The Dalai Lama may be a progressive leader, but he certainly did not see this coming. Nor do I think he really wants it.

[politics student]

I've talked with Tibetan Buddhist Monks, and they forgive the invasion of 1950. It is only the young headstrong lot that are doing this. The Dalai Lama may be a progressive leader, but he certainly did not see this coming. Nor do I think he really wants it.

Why would he want it when hes treated the way he is in the west, governments treat him like royalty and the media of the west loves him.

He gaining a lot of wealth from the west if he really wanted it he would be able to fund the movement.

[Lost In Translation]

Why would he want it when hes treated the way he is in the west, governments treat him like royalty and the media of the west loves him.

He gaining a lot of wealth from the west if he really wanted it he would be able to fund the movement.
Yes, exactly. He's like the tragic figure of the struggle. Skeptics of the Dalai Lama's true intentions are always brushed away, while 'investigations' into China's treatment of Tibet is always welcome.

F***ing fail, western media. F***ing fail.

[kingbee]

Interesting that H-L-V-S mentions that the Dalai Lama is more progressive. Indeed, he has said himself

"I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

(DL, not H-L-V-S. Although he could of said it too)

http://therevolutionarytimes.blogspot.com/2007/11/dalai-lama-half-marxist-half-buddhist.html

[Pogue]

Yes, exactly. He's like the tragic figure of the struggle. Skeptics of the Dalai Lama's true intentions are always brushed away, while 'investigations' into China's treatment of Tibet is always welcome.

F***ing fail, western media. F***ing fail.

I think we can forgive western media for criticising a regime which is run by a 'Communist Party' which has huge mansions bult for the ruling clique by workers being paid a pittance. A regime where you can hardly see the sky in places due to the levels of polution. A regime under whose 'leadership' sweatshop labour is commonplace. A regime which locks up and murders people who speak out against the government.

And then they don't criticise a Buddhist monk, devoted pacifist and self-proclaimed Marxist.

"Dam Western media, with its endorsement of peace loving Buddhist Marxists and condemnation of tyrannical regimes!"

Oh, wait. Oh yeh. I think this is something good the "western media" has done, actualy.

[Lost In Translation]

More hypocrisy from his "holiness" the Dalai Lama. Of course this isn't part of mainstream media, and I stumbled upon it when checking out radio4all stuff http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/28465

So Mr "man of peace" "human rights" "religious freedom" has enforcibly banned the practice of some sort of sect in Tibetan Buddhism, Dorje Shugden.
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/

and of course the "always reliable" wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

Not only does this "man of peace" cosy up to imperialists monsters like Bush, this "man of earthy simplicity" hangs out with decadent hollywood celebs, bankers and industrialists, but he also bans religious freedom amonghts Tibetan Buddhism. :laugh:

H-L-V-S, read some of this stuff, won't you? If the Dalai Lama really was a peace-loving man, China would have no problem with him. It is because he's partnering up with Bush that this is becoming a problem.

[Pogue]

Although I don't know everything about the Dorje Shugden controversy, I think what he is doing is wrong there. But I can see why he would do it. Division among Tibetans at a time when they are under pressure from China is not desirable. But that does not excuse it. However, the Dalai Lama is not rodering the killing of people. The Chinese government is. The Chinese government is worse than the Dalai Lama.

[Lost In Translation]

Please explain to me why the 'Free Tibet' movement intensified in March.

Was it:

a)The 50th anniversary of the China 'invasion' (which was really a show by Mao to tell them who's boss)

b) To screw China over in the Olympics.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Please explain to me why the 'Free Tibet' movement intensified in March.

Was it:

a)The 50th anniversary of the China 'invasion' (which was really a show by Mao to tell them who's boss)

b) To screw China over in the Olympics.Both; however I would say the Olympics played a larger role.

[martingale]

This is what the Dalai Lama, this supposed "man of peace", has to say about US aggression around the world, according to historian Michael Parenti:

"What of the four years of carnage and mass destruction in Iraq, a war condemned by most of the world—even by a conservative pope–as a blatant violation of international law and a crime against humanity? The Dalai Lama was undecided: "The Iraq war—it’s too early to say, right or wrong."53 Earlier he had voiced support for the U.S. military intervention against Yugoslavia and, later on, the U.S. military intervention into Afghanistan.54″

And this so-called "champion of human rights", unlike other Nobel Peace Prize winners, has refused to critisize the world’s greatest war criminal - George W. Bush. It seems that the Dalai Lama is against violence except when it comes out of the barrel of an American gun. Face it, the Dalai Lama has throughout his life been a willing pawn for US imperialism. That’s why he is such a darling of America’s ruling elite.

[Saorsa]

Why am I not surprised to learn that H-Liberal-V-S is a supporter of the US imperialist "Free Tibet" campaign? This thread attracts petty-bourgeois liberals like moths to a flame.

[RedHal]

This is what the Dalai Lama, this supposed "man of peace", has to say about US aggression around the world, according to historian Michael Parenti:

"What of the four years of carnage and mass destruction in Iraq, a war condemned by most of the world—even by a conservative pope–as a blatant violation of international law and a crime against humanity? The Dalai Lama was undecided: "The Iraq war—it’s too early to say, right or wrong."53 Earlier he had voiced support for the U.S. military intervention against Yugoslavia and, later on, the U.S. military intervention into Afghanistan.54″

And this so-called "champion of human rights", unlike other Nobel Peace Prize winners, has refused to critisize the world’s greatest war criminal - George W. Bush. It seems that the Dalai Lama is against violence except when it comes out of the barrel of an American gun. Face it, the Dalai Lama has throughout his life been a willing pawn for US imperialism. That’s why he is such a darling of America’s ruling elite.


For the Dalai Lama to criticize the most vicious opponent to world peace, US imperialism, will be commiting political suicide, no more financial support and no more corporate media platform to preach.

[Norseman]

I'm not a very strong supporter of either option. If Tibet becomes independent of China, it would basically become a theocracy, with the Dalai Lama as king. If it remains part of China, then the problems with the corrupt Chinese government and fucked up police/soldiers are going to continue. Still, I think it's probably better for Tibet to be independent. There's no point trying to force a bunch of theocrats to enjoy state capitalism.

[RedHal]

I'm not a very strong supporter of either option. If Tibet becomes independent of China, it would basically become a theocracy, with the Dalai Lama as king. If it remains part of China, then the problems with the corrupt Chinese government and fucked up police/soldiers are going to continue. Still, I think it's probably better for Tibet to be independent. There's no point trying to force a bunch of theocrats to enjoy state capitalism.

you forgot to mention along with that Dalai Lama theocracy comes US imperialism. Chinese "communism" might be a joke, but does it have military bases around the world, crushing every revolution, invasion, occupations, and spreading neo liberal and anti-left propaganda around the world? To not recognise that US imperialism should always be opposed, even when masked in nice sounding "Free Tibet", "Free Darfur" and "humanitarian interventions", is to not be on the side of the international proletariat. I guess that happens when you live in the comforts of the 1st world that western imperialism has afforded you.

[Lost In Translation]

you forgot to mention along with that Dalai Lama theocracy comes US imperialism. Chinese "communism" might be a joke, but does it have military bases around the world, crushing every revolution, invasion, occupations, and spreading neo liberal and anti-left propaganda around the world? To not recognise that US imperialism should always be opposed, even when masked in nice sounding "Free Tibet", "Free Darfur" and "humanitarian interventions", is to not be on the side of the international proletariat. I guess that happens when you live in the comforts of the 1st world that western imperialism has afforded you.

I see where you're coming from. You're acknowledging that US imperialism is the greater evil in this case, and you would rather keep Tibet in a 'communist' nation like China instead of in the grasp of the US. I do have to agree with that. However, many are torn between what would be better for the Tibetans. What is good for the leftist revolution isn't necessarily good for the people living there. However, I don't see the US improving Tibet's standard of living much. It's just going to be another step closing to squashing China for them.

Speaking of which, the West has intensified attempts to 'liberate' Xinjiang, a huge region in western China, filled to the brim with oil (hmm...maybe that's a motive?).

[Plagueround]

you forgot to mention along with that Dalai Lama theocracy comes US imperialism. Chinese "communism" might be a joke, but does it have military bases around the world, crushing every revolution, invasion, occupations, and spreading neo liberal and anti-left propaganda around the world? To not recognise that US imperialism should always be opposed, even when masked in nice sounding "Free Tibet", "Free Darfur" and "humanitarian interventions", is to not be on the side of the international proletariat. I guess that happens when you live in the comforts of the 1st world that western imperialism has afforded you.

Are we to judge which nations have the right to self-determination based only on who supports them? Many people on this forum (including myself) support the freedom and/or establishment of a state for Palestine, even though they are backed by nations with rather questionable history and leadership. If Tibet truly desires to be free they deserve the right to self-determination. Based on that, I answered yes...however, it would appear this is not a simple yes or no question, and the bigger question is: Does Tibet want to be free?

[Norseman]

you forgot to mention along with that Dalai Lama theocracy comes US imperialism. Chinese "communism" might be a joke, but does it have military bases around the world, crushing every revolution, invasion, occupations, and spreading neo liberal and anti-left propaganda around the world? To not recognise that US imperialism should always be opposed, even when masked in nice sounding "Free Tibet", "Free Darfur" and "humanitarian interventions", is to not be on the side of the international proletariat.


That seems unlikely. IIRC, Tibetans were upset that a railroad was built through Tibet, and the Chinese government was concerned that Tibetan terrorists might blow it up. You might ask, well, why were the Tibetans upset? It's because they thought the railroad damaged the environment and the ecosystem of Tibet. Tibetans are radical environmentalists. I expect that the US would have practically no influence there if Tibet were to become independent from China, at least as far as military imperialism goes. There might be neo liberal and anti-left propaganda, but that's pretty much all you get in the Chinese media anyway. The Department of Propaganda makes sure of that.



I guess that happens when you live in the comforts of the 1st world that western imperialism has afforded you.

I lived in China for three months. My Chinese girlfriend is still living in China. I'm probably going to go back to China after the Olympics, if we don't go to Freetown Christiania.

[chegitz guevara]

Free Tibet? Where can I get one?

[ashaman1324]

i answered yes.
but again, this isnt a simple yes or no question for several reasons.
chinese imperialists marched into tibet and have controlled it with an iron fist since.
i would support a "free" tibet for this reason alone.
by the way
do any of you think its a bit hyppocritical to oppose tibet, because it might do what you dont want it to?;)
if tibetans want to live in a theocracy, why the hell should we force sense upon them?