Free Tibet, Free Xinjiang, Free Taiwan???

[Lost In Translation]

OK, first there was Taiwan, who has bickered about gaining independence from China for who knows how long. Then there was Tibet, who have also been doing the same thing, only with much more sympathy from the west. Now it's Xinjiang, the jackpot of oil in China, and everybody wants a piece of it. How do they do it? By holding 'Free _____' movements across the globe.

Does anybody else think this is too much?

[Chapter 24]

I think that "Free _____ movements", as you refer to them, are theoretically positive movements in order to liberate nations from foreign occupation and imperialism. However, movements such as Free Tibet have gotten bad reputations as gathering anti-Chinese crowds. A real Free Tibet movement would not be anti-Chinese, but rather anti-imperialist and intervention. There is of course concern that the U.S. would take advantage of this situation by backing Tibet and then making the lattera puppet.


first there was Taiwan

But Taiwan is a state with limited political status recognized by a few countries, correct?

[Lost In Translation]

But Taiwan is a state with limited political status recognized by a few countries, correct?

Many countries have tried to put Taiwan into the UN general assembly. China, being a veto-enabled country, had other plans. However, many countries, including the United States, have a 'One China, two states' policy. Their actions speak otherwise.

[Red Tsar]

Taiwan, who has bickered about gaining independence from China for who knows how long.
"Taiwan" is a despicable tissue of lies thatched together by the militarist clique occupying Taipei.


Tibet, who have also been doing the same thing, only with much more sympathy from the west.
Tibet should not secede from China. To support this farcical cause of "tibetan liberation" espoused by cia is to support to fedualism is to support slavery. The dalai lama at time of the formation of People's Republic of China was an owner of several thousand slaves. The Chinese Communists were far from the first to consider tibet to be part of Chinese territory.. tibet has not been independent country in over 700 years. The tibetans reactionary Buddhist cult must immediately be wiped out.. its monks must be deported, its temples closed. Compulsory education must reflect revolutionary thought.

[Chapter 24]

Tibet should not secede from China. To support this farcical cause of "tibetan liberation" espoused by cia is to support to fedualism is to support slavery.
Tibet does not necessarily have to go back to a reactionary feudal theocracy. The choices over the matter does not necessarily have to dwindle down to 1) Tibet continues to be a part of a deformed capitalist bureaucracy or 2) it goes back to being a Kingdom where the Buddhist authority rules (or the third option, which is that Tibet becomes a satellite or puppet state for the United States). What you're suggesting is that Tibet should just stick to China because the possibility of a revolution to split from China by those with secular intentions is nonexistent.


The tibetans reactionary Buddhist cult must immediately be wiped out.. its monks must be deported, its temples closed. Compulsory education must reflect revolutionary thought.

The monks and other members of religious hierarchy should be stripped of their authority above Tibetans, but the freedom to worship in whatever way should not be taken away.

[Trystan]

What bothers me about the "Free ___" movements is that they ignore issues like human and labour rights in China itself, choosing to draw attention to their own causes. A lot of what we see of Tibet is just romanticised nonsense, really. Despite all the "peace on earth" and self-help book bullshit, the Dali Llama was a dictator.

[Davie zepeda]

I really think this religious stuff is going to bring china down in less they let the people express them self's freely which would only cause more radicals to be born .

[Lost In Translation]

"Taiwan" is a despicable tissue of lies thatched together by the militarist clique occupying Taipei.

It is not bound together by a militarist clique. That's too harsh, and this is coming from a person who strongly opposes these movements. The administration of Taipei is really just a bitter, reactionary 'tragic' figure (tragic in the eyes of the west, that is).



Tibet should not secede from China. To support this farcical cause of "tibetan liberation" espoused by cia is to support to fedualism is to support slavery.

:confused::confused::confused: support feudalism? I was thinking more of supporting imperialism and Americanization (if there is such a term). The original 'Free Tibet' movement was not the arrogant gang-rape by the west on China that we see now. It started out with good meaning, but it's lost itself in media spin.


The dalai lama at time of the formation of People's Republic of China was an owner of several thousand slaves.

source?


The tibetans reactionary Buddhist cult must immediately be wiped out.. its monks must be deported, its temples closed. Compulsory education must reflect revolutionary thought.

That's a bit extreme and anti-semitic, isn't it? If at all possible, it should be independent and away from Western impact. A more realistic solution might be to strip its 'autonomous region' title and treat it as a province of China. However, compulsory education is a must, and should reflect rational thinking, not entirely revolutionary thought.

[John Lenin]

Taiwan - breakaway republic which should be brought back under Chinese control

Tibet - trendy cause celeb' by people who have no idea the former kingdom was a theocratic fiefdom.

[BobKKKindle$]

"Free _____ movements", as you refer to them, are theoretically positive movements...[etc]The political movements which aim to break away from the Chinese state and establish independent countries to represent nations which are allegedly subject to oppression and denied the right to determine their own futures provides a clear opportunity for the imperialist bloc to undermine China and establish greater political influence in the region, by providing support to these movements and encouraging them to undertake military action against the Chinese government. For example, throughout the 1960s, the Tibetan exile community was secretly pocketing $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998, and during the 1950s the CIA also provided extensive assistance to Tibetan groups, including military training, which took place in camps situated close to the Tibetan border in Nepal, and airlifts (Source: Friendly Feudalism - The Tibet Myth (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html), Michael Parenti). This means that supporting the Tibetan movement (and secessionist movements in general) is synonymous with supporting imperialism against China, because these movements would not be politically significant if they did not receive substantial material support and political backing from western states. It is also wrong to describe the relation between Tibet and the rest of China as imperialistic, because Tibet has received economic benefits from the central government which have allowed for consistent increases in the standard of living (including a growth rate of more then twelve percent for seven consecutive years) and the alleviation of the intense poverty which was once endured by Tibet's inhabitants. (Source: China's Central Government helps Tibet develop economy and society, People's Daily Online (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceun/eng/gyzg/xizang/t420200.htm))

The Tibet movement should be utterly crushed, and no socialist should lend any form of support, political or otherwise, to this reactionary imperialist clique.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Taiwan - breakaway republic which should be brought back under Chinese control

Why?

[Ramachandra]

U cannot take "national liberation" out of the picture and give it an abstract definition.It should be measured under the existing context.And what is the context?Who leads and backs the slogan of a "free" tibet?Who want's to see chinese republic break in to pieces?Obviously it's the imperialist super powers.Here the problem is what is the option we have to make?Though we like or not we have only two options at least under the present circumstances.Either we should support the imperialist need or in the other hand we have a deformed worker's state.It is well known how Dalai lama was fed by the CIA and if someone is going to accept this feudal puppet as the liberation leader of tibet-bullshit.It's good if there is a revolutionery leftist movement in tibet so we can give the assistance.But unfortunately there is nothing like that.So the alternative is to oppose imperialism while critically being in the side of the chinese.While opposing the imperialist effort to devide china in the same way we must stand for the right of self rule (not separation) in tibet.I'm not a trotskyt but as far as i know while underlining the need of abolishing beauracracy in the USSR Trotsky himself opposed anykind of an imperialist intervention in the USSR's affairs.

[Red Tsar]

the freedom to worship in whatever way should not be taken away.
A much better idea is to making Church a branch of State. Religion is then nothing more than loyalty test - if you worshipping in the State Religion, then by definition you are loyal to State. After all, if Head of State is also Head of Church, there can be no distinction between religious fidelity and political loyalty, can there? Good thing is you not even required to believe in state religion - merely pay lip service to it is sufficient, since it is no more than political loyalty test anyway. Comrade Stalin tries something similar in Soviet Union - Bolsheviks never attempt to actually destroy religion in Soviet Union but make it politically harmless. Largely successful in this aim by about 1925. Comrade Stalin then finds it necessary to revive moribund orthodox Church during Great Patriotic War. Soviet people were facing bitter, terrible struggle and needing all physical and psychological comfort they could get. During Siege of Leningrad, 'wonder-working icon' even carried through streets of the city. This is correct approach.

Biggest mistake yankees made was to separate into Church and State. It makes religion into subversive force working against National interest or something like that.


The original 'Free Tibet' movement was not the arrogant gang-rape by the west on China that we see now. It started out with good meaning, but it's lost itself in media spin.
Tibet was not independent country in 1950. Guomindang had lost control over vast sections of China, and many provinces like tibet operating autonomously under the control of warlords. None of them ever declare independence, have any foreign relations, were recognise by other nation-state, etc. When PLA deployed to Tibet in 1950, they were reasserting control over a wayward province. They were fixing one of many failings of Guomindang, namely failure to control country.

'Free tibet' nonsense is merely lies and propaganda spread by former ruling caste of priests under 'god-king' who once ruled it.


That's a bit extreme and anti-semitic, isn't it?
I do not understand this methods. When have I said anything anti-semitism?


However, compulsory education is a must, and should reflect rational thinking, not entirely revolutionary thought.
This takes view that education under Socialism has no responsibility to Society, and should feel free to indefinitely continue to indulge in individualistic narcissist endeavours. Although, it is only under capitalism that reactionary notion of 'education for education's sake' become widespread throughout petit-bourgeoisie, especially intellectuals.

[Sendo]

well ramindu, it seems like they endure a lot of bad and racist treatment from the Chinese. I'm all for ignoring and transcending and working within national borders whatever, but it seems that breaking off might be needed and if it's what they want I think we should support it. For me it's not as simple as to free or not to free tibet. I'd like to see, ideally, a truly autonomous Tibet working towards socialism. If failing at that, an independent one. But the current state is bad, and obviously so is a Dalai Lama state or a US puppet state.

If any place in that hemisphere should be kept together it should have been Greater India. All Pakistan has been is an artificially divided province the Us has used a nuclear pawn. Rallying Muslim Hindis into the area doesn't create a unique history for it, either. The real shocker to me and probably to many is when you first discover how many more Muslims live in the current state of India.

The current situation with the Olympics has made more anti-PRC than ever. Sure, the Western imperialists are on my strategic side.

Ramindu, it seems you want us to support the PRC empire for the sake of just being the polar opposite of the US empire's agenda. That's not enough of a case to ignore what the Tibetans want for themselves. We're not talking about carving out some racist state or being ethnic separatists a la the Black separatists of American history, but rather a chunk of land with a people living in it who are treated badly by a distant government. The Tibetans react to this by highlighting their own ethnic identity (though admittedly flimsy at times) and demanding independence. Why support Beijing I say.

[Sendo]

And Red tsar, by your logic, if we should be anti-Tibetan freedom because they had a god-king for a ruler (not exactly accurate, but, moving on...) then we should support the conquistadors of the 1500s because Montezuma was a dickhead.

I know that's not what you're saying, but still, you cna't smear the whole movement because of that.

So we have Beijing imperialists, Washington imperialists, and domestic Tibetan elites all vying for Tibet. We also have ordinary Tibetans. Three out of those four parties want to see an independent Tibet. At this step, yeah, we're on the same side as the Yankees, but couldn't we also protest their interference in a post-PRC Tibet as much as we did the PRC?

[Red Tsar]

We also have ordinary Tibetans. Three out of those four parties want to see an independent Tibet.
Only minority of tibets population are tibetans and even less are lamas and monks (which is stereotype of 'tibetan' cia western media usually portrays). Problems of tibet arent due to national oppression distuingishable from general peripherisation of Chinese countryside. Problems affect all of population of tibet, not just tibetans (the monks can go to hell anyway).

[Matty_UK]

So we have Beijing imperialists, Washington imperialists, and domestic Tibetan elites all vying for Tibet. We also have ordinary Tibetans. Three out of those four parties want to see an independent Tibet.

Do ordinary Tibetans want to see an independant Tibet?

Do you have evidence to support that claim, or is that just the impression you've got from reading imperialist corporate media?

[BobKKKindle$]

well ramindu, it seems like they endure a lot of bad and racist treatment from the ChineseFrom the Chinese? The Tibetan movement aims to reduce the rate of immigration to Tibet (which is comprised mainly of Han Chinese moving from other areas of the country because of the high demand for workers in Tibet and the tax incentives offered by the government) allegedly because the inwards movement of Han Chinese could pose a thread to the cultural identity of the Tibetans (Source: Chinese Presence in Tibet: Population Transfer (http://www.tibet.org/Activism/Rights/poptransfer.html), Tibet Online). This is objectively a form of racism (as all forms of immigrant controls are based on the assumption that people should be treated differently depending on where they come from, especially when controls discriminate explicitly on the basis of ethnicity) and is actually a similar line of argument to that advanced by far-right organizations in Europe (For Comparison: Values and Culture in Decline in the UK, National Front (http://www.natfront.com/SECTION.values.html)). In addition, the Tibetans also exhibited anti-Chinese racism during the period of civil unrest which occurred in March of this year, by conducting pogroms against the local Han community (in addition to members of the Hui ethnic minority) and setting fire to shops which were known to be owned by Han Chinese (Source: Tibetans Burn Chinese Shops in Major Protest, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88228090) NPR). Finally, the propaganda used by the "Free-Tibet" movement to draw attention to the alleged suffering of Tibet uses traditional and exaggerated racist stereotypes to encourage prejudice against the Han Chinese, as explained by this article: Slitty eyes and buck teeth? It must be China (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/), Spiked

[Eleftherios]

Why?

Well, Taiwain's official name is the Republic of China. It is not just a breakaway state. It is a state that is a remnant of Nationalist China, and claims all of China.

As for Tibet, I think the supporters of Free Tibet are just reactionaries that want to see the Dalai Lama back in power. In other words, to reinstate feudalism and imperialism in Tibet. Not that I wouldn't support a free Tibet in a socialist future though.

[Saorsa]

:confused::confused::confused: support feudalism? I was thinking more of supporting imperialism and Americanization (if there is such a term). The original 'Free Tibet' movement was not the arrogant gang-rape by the west on China that we see now. It started out with good meaning, but it's lost itself in media spin.

Exactly how was it a movement with "good meaning"? And that's an extremely vague and meaningless term - the good meaning of their intentions are irrelevant, what actually matters is the concrete nature of their political lines. And in the case of the so-called "Free Tibet" movement, the concrete nature of their political lines was the restoration of a reactionary feudal theocracy, and the splitting up of socialist China under Mao. following the restoration of capitalism in China, it is obviously no longer a threat to an existing socialist country, but the so-called "Free Tibet" movement today still represents an attempt by Western imperialism to attack China, it's rival.


source?

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html


That's a bit extreme and anti-semitic, isn't it?

No. It's not. Nobody mentioned Jewish people.


If at all possible, it should be independent and away from Western impact.

Why? Tibet is part of China that was liberated by the PLA, along with other pockets of reaction that the Chinese revolution had to set aside until after it had seized state power.


A more realistic solution might be to strip its 'autonomous region' title and treat it as a province of China.

So hang on a sec, you're proposing that Tibet either becomes totally independent, or loses what independence/autonomy it currently has? There's a slight contradiction there.

[RedHal]

well ramindu, it seems like they endure a lot of bad and racist treatment from the Chinese. I'm all for ignoring and transcending and working within national borders whatever, but it seems that breaking off might be needed and if it's what they want I think we should support it. For me it's not as simple as to free or not to free tibet. I'd like to see, ideally, a truly autonomous Tibet working towards socialism. If failing at that, an independent one. But the current state is bad, and obviously so is a Dalai Lama state or a US puppet state.

If any place in that hemisphere should be kept together it should have been Greater India. All Pakistan has been is an artificially divided province the Us has used a nuclear pawn. Rallying Muslim Hindis into the area doesn't create a unique history for it, either. The real shocker to me and probably to many is when you first discover how many more Muslims live in the current state of India.

The current situation with the Olympics has made more anti-PRC than ever. Sure, the Western imperialists are on my strategic side.

Ramindu, it seems you want us to support the PRC empire for the sake of just being the polar opposite of the US empire's agenda. That's not enough of a case to ignore what the Tibetans want for themselves. We're not talking about carving out some racist state or being ethnic separatists a la the Black separatists of American history, but rather a chunk of land with a people living in it who are treated badly by a distant government. The Tibetans react to this by highlighting their own ethnic identity (though admittedly flimsy at times) and demanding independence. Why support Beijing I say.

This is what I don't understand about revolutionaries who don't see US imperialism as the number one threat. Russia and Chinese imperialism are not the aggressive force that is US imperialism, they are too busy trying to develope their countries. They are not the ones invading countries, covertly or overtly overthrowing democratic governments, destroying any type of left wing revolutionary groups, propagating neo liberal policies globally etc.. etc..

So it's all nice and good, for a "free Tibet" but the current situation, there's only two options, continue under China's control or join the sphere of US influence. What's of greater importance? Bringing relief to a few Tibetans or working towards the destruction of US imperialism and the death and destruction that it brings globally?

[Lost In Translation]

No. It's not. Nobody mentioned Jewish people.


So...anti-semitism only addresses mistreatment of Jewish people? I need to get a new dictionary.

[Saorsa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism

[The Author]

I don't endorse the secession of Tibet, Xinjiang, or Taiwan from China. What happened to Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and Africa is a shining example of the dangers of having every single nationality desiring to push for their own nation-state, to be easily exploited by imperialist powers. If this were to happen in China, you would see a repeat of the feuding Warlord Era. China would be Balkanized, and you'd have states fighting amongst each other on a much greater scale than what has happened in the former Yugoslav countries.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well, Taiwain's official name is the Republic of China. It is not just a breakaway state. It is a state that is a remnant of Nationalist China, and claims all of China.

Your point being? This does not in anyway entitle Taiwan to be brought under the administration of the PRC.

[Sam_b]

Tibet should not secede from China. To support this farcical cause of "tibetan liberation" espoused by cia is to support to fedualism is to support slavery.

The Tibetan people have a right to self-determination if they want it. Its not about supporting a China vs Feudalist thing at all. We should be fighting against annexation and imperialism and give the Tibetans the choice: after this socialists should put forward arguments and build for a socialist alternative there.

[Chapaev]

Taiwan is a province of China which is illegally administered by forces that have no right to be involved in Chinese political life. The existence of a reactionary regime in Taiwan is contrary to the wishes of the more than 1.3 billion citizens of China. Xizang and Xinjiang are inalienable regions of China where the mixed population is composed of Chinese and non-Chinese nationalities. The non-Chinese nations within Xizang and Xinjiang regions have formed unbreakable national and cultural ties with their Chinese brothers for many hundreds of years. To separate Xizang and Xinjiang from China would be a sadistic maneuver, for it would only serve to impede the development of the relatively backward nations in those two regions. Just like it was under British suzerainty during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Xizang would effectively become an imperialist protectorate. The presence of Xizang and Xinjiang in China is objectively progressive, since they have experienced significant economic, cultural, and political development. Xizang and Xinjiang can experience true self-determination only with the preservation of the people's democratic system in China.

The question of the secession of a nation should be decided on the basis of whether it is feasible and useful from the standpoint of social development in general and the struggle for socialism. If one bears in mind that there are 2000 nations and peoples inhabiting some 150 states, it becomes evident that most nations can solve the national question only within the framework of multinational states.

Marxism-Leninism raises the question of nations attaining actual economic and cultural equality. The cohesion and unification of nations can be reached only by their total emancipation from natural and social oppression and by the creation of the most favorable possible conditions for the development of each of them. This is the dialectics of the Marxist-Leninist view of the national question.

[Abluegreen7]

Will Tibet ever be truly free? Will Taiwan? I think not the fact is when your neighbors with China your going to be bullied. Since this is a leftist forum. We should have positive views on China since they are the largest Communist Nation ever since the Soviet Fall.:crying: Well atleast Nepal is in good hands.

[Eleftherios]

Your point being? This does not in anyway entitle Taiwan to be brought under the administration of the PRC.

And why not? Both are Chinese. Lenin did support the right of small nations to be autonomous. However, he clearly did not support the right of small nations to be autonomous if the movement to free the small country was led by reactionaries. And the government of Taiwan is clearly more reactionary than the PRC.

The movement to free Tibet is also led by reactionaries - supporters of feudalism and imperialism. No leftist in their right mind should go along with movements such as Free Tibet.

[Sam_b]

We should have positive views on China since they are the largest Communist Nation ever since the Soviet Fall.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Chapter 24]

We should have positive views on China since they are the largest Communist Nation ever since the Soviet Fall.:crying:

DEFINITELY not. China gave up whatever socialism they had back in the 70s. Even the U.S. media agrees that China is on a path toward capitalism (though they still refer to it as "Red China" and "Communist China").

[Niccolò Rossi]

However, he clearly did not support the right of small nations to be autonomous if the movement to free the small country was led by reactionaries.

That being the case would you care to explain why Leninists have historically supported even reactionary nation-liberation movements?


And the government of Taiwan is clearly more reactionary than the PRC.

Do communists now pick sides in bourgeois conflicts on the basis of which is "less reactionary"?


No leftist in their right mind should go along with movements such as Free Tibet.

This is opinion, so I will counter it with opinion: No leftist in their right mind should go along with national liberation movements.

[BobKKKindle$]

Do communists now pick sides in bourgeois conflicts on the basis of which is "less reactionary"?

When communists are forced to make a choice between two opposed sides, both of which are committed to preserving some form of capitalism and defending the class interests of the bourgeoisie, the decision of which side to support should be based on the interests of the global proletariat. The secession of Tibet would harm the class interests of the Tibetan proletariat (especially women, who would be forced to give up many of the rights they have won, if a government based on religious ideology came to power) as Tibet is currently experiencing rapid economic development and improvement in living conditions, due to extensive economic aid from the central government, and also the Chinese proletariat, as the secession of Tibet would allow for the greater penetration of American imperialism in the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, there is no reason to support the "Free-Tibet" movement (especially given that many Tibetans do not actually want to establish a separate state, but would prefer greater local autonomy within the PRC such as the right to speak the Tibetan language and freely conduct religious ceremonies) and communists should oppose all attempts to create an independent Tibetan state.


That being the case would you care to explain why Leninists have historically supported even reactionary nation-liberation movements?

Lenin argued that communists should not simply assume that all movements should be given support, but upheld the class interests of the global proletariat as paramount. It is possible that the class interests of the proletariat may sometimes coincide with reactionary movements which are engaged in the struggle against imperialism, as can currently be observed in Iraq where a movement consisting primarily of islamists and secular nationalists is attempting to force the occupation forces to withdraw.


While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle. This call for practicality is in fact merely a call for uncritical acceptance of bourgeois aspirations.

"Practicality" in the National Question, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Lenin (1914)