Tibet vs. Palestine [Archive]

ComradeOm

26th December 2008, 20:46

Fucking moronic. If a country such as the UK or the US "liberated" a country, you would be fucking crying bloody murderIf the US or UK 'liberated' a country from feudalism then I would applaud their progressive action. Of course its unlikely that this would occur* because imperialist nations typically intervene in order to install colonial regimes, further the primitive accumulation of capital, etc. Actually aiding the population in the conquered territories is not on the priority list. Conversely I've seen nothing to suggest that China's intervention in Tibet was anything other than what Harvey calls the "Logic of Territory", ie was not motivated by capital per se, and it has certainly improved the lot of the average Tibetan

And frankly I think I'm a better judge of what I'd do than yourself

*Although I completely disagreed with the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, I've never hidden my hopes that Washington's efforts in these countries are ultimately successful in producing stable democratic societies

Since it's china you feel the need to defend them. Why? They aren't socialist, so stop sticking up for them in really hypocritical ways.Were they socialist in 1950? You know what, never mind. Honestly I couldn't give a damn. The OP asked for a perspective on the differences between Tibet and Palestine, and I gave a suggestion. I didn't even say that I agreed with either

Leo

26th December 2008, 21:12

So you reject the right of nations to self-determinism? Perhaps you believe that we should all come together in one huge world government? I'm just trying to gauge to what degree this anti-national-liberation stance corresponds to a social-imperialist outlook

As much as slogans such as "workers have no country" and "workers of the world unite" does.

You could argue that in the case of Tibet the Chinese have actually been extremely progressive.

Israelis argue that in the case of Palestine they have actually been extremely progressive. No matter how brutal the oppressive consequences, nearly all states deem their actions to be progressive.

In Tibet, clearly the Chinese state committed horrible, bloody massacres. The Tibetan national liberation movement is clearly as reactionary and bourgeois as the capitalist and imperialist Chinese state.

In Palestine, possibly the dose of massacres committed by Israeli imperialism were higher than that of Chinese imperialism. The national liberation movement too though, be it Hamas or Fatah, is clearly reactionary, and as anti-working class and bourgeois as the Israeli state.

The solution is the united struggle of the world proletariat against world imperialist system - there are no national solutions to the problems of the working class in any part of the world, nor does capitalism offer any 'progress' to anyone anymore.

If the US or UK 'liberated' a country from feudalism then I would applaud their progressive action.

Do you support the invasion of Afghanistan? It did 'liberate' them from Taliban after all.

I've never hidden my hopes that Washington's efforts in these countries are ultimately successful in producing stable democratic societies

Funny it's you who calls those who oppose national liberation "social-imperialists".

BobKKKindle$

26th December 2008, 21:37

Tibet has been discussed many times, and on every occasion the supporters of the "Free Tibet" movement have completely failed to support their wild assertions with empirical evidence and case studies. Myself and other comrades dispel the myths (including the insulting comparison between Palestine and Tibet) and put forward an informed understanding in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinas-oppressive-policies-t97151/index.html?t=97151&highlight=Tibet

The Parenti article eneitlted 'Friendly Feudalism' is a must for anyone who wants to gain real insight into the history and current state of Tibet.

In Tibet, clearly the Chinese state committed horrible, bloody massacres. There were never any "bloody massacres" in Tibet. The "Free Tibet" movement frequently asserts that the Chinese "occupation" since 1959 has resulted in the deaths of around one million Tibetans despite the fact that there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support this assertion. The official 1953 census recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000, and so if a massacre had taken place it would have required the government authorities to use almost all of their resources for the sole purpose of searching for communities spread thinly across the Tibetan plateau and killing their inhabitants, and there would be evidence in the form of death camps and mass graves. Needless to say, there is no such evidence. During the first decade of Chinese "occupation", the total Tibetan population grew to increased to 1.4805 million (this was almost solely due to natural growth as the rate of migration was close to zero) further suggesting that the alleged massacres have been fabricated. If Left-Communists are so committed to internationalism, why are you so fond of spreading imperialist lies?

The Tibetan national liberation movement is clearly as reactionary and bourgeois as the capitalist and imperialist Chinese state.It's exactly because of these simplistic statements lacking any analytical depth that Left-Communists frequently annoy other sections of the revolutionary left and have never been able to gain mass support in any oppressed nation, despite your repeated claims that you stand for internationalism. Regardless of whether you see the Chinese state as socialist or bourgeois, the revolutionary movement in Tibet has eliminated feudalism, expanded the provision of education, and dramatically improved the conditions of the Tibetan proletariat - unlike the feudal regime which existed prior to the Chinese intervention in 1959, and the contemporary "Free Tibet" movement, which seeks to restore feudalism and undermine the gains which have been made by allowing the imperialist powers to penetrate Tibet and ultimately the whole of China.

ComradeOm

26th December 2008, 21:55

As much as slogans such as "workers have no country" and "workers of the world unite" does"The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word" :rolleyes:

Israelis argue that in the case of Palestine they have actually been extremely progressive. No matter how brutal the oppressive consequences, nearly all states deem their actions to be progressiveWell yes, that much is blindingly obvious. I am however not an agent of either the Israeli or Chinese governments. And, as far as I am aware at least, there is nothing in the Israeli occupation that can compare to the abolition of serfdom in Tibet. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

The solution is the united struggle of the world proletariat against world imperialist system - there are no national solutions to the problems of the working class in any part of the worldI thought we'd abandoned this in the 19th C with the simple realisation that cross-border organisation does not work. There are a number of reasons why the emergence of national organisations (SPD, RSDLP, POF, etc) emerged as the model of choice, not least the fact that it was preferred by the workers themselves. Organisation between national groups is of course necessary but workers overwhelmingly prefer local groups addressing local concerns. Global capitalism will not be fought by a global proletariat, which only exists in the vaguest and most technical of senses, but by the combined efforts of various national proletariats

Do you support the invasion of Afghanistan? It did 'liberate' them from Taliban after allThe Taliban did not control Afghanistan and nor is there anything to admire in the subsequent efforts of the US in that nation

Funny it's you who calls those who oppose national liberation "social-imperialists".The alternative being what exactly? The collapse of either country into anarchy or continued rule of petty warlords? I know that many on this site would gladly welcome such an outcome solely to spite the US. That's the problem with people who imagine global solutions to global problems

Leo

26th December 2008, 22:24

There were never any "bloody massacres" in Tibet.

Eh, read a bit of other stuff except what the official CCP says for a change about it.

The "Free Tibet" movement frequently asserts that the Chinese "occupation" since 1959 has resulted in the deaths of around one million Tibetans despite the fact that there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support this assertion.The official 1953 census recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000, and so if a massacre had taken place it would have required the government authorities to use almost all of their resources for the sole purpose of searching for communities spread thinly across the Tibetan plateau and killing their inhabitants, and there would be evidence in the form of death camps and mass killings. Needless to say, there is no such evidence. During the first decade of Chinese "occupation", the total Tibetan population grew to increased to 1.4805 million (this was almost solely due to natural growth as the rate of migration was close to zero) further suggesting that the alleged massacres have been fabricated.

Well, I think it is highly possible that the claims of the Tibetan nationalists are extremely exaggerated, and I did not say that there was a genocide, nor that millions were killed. It is quite clearly recorded that thousands were killed, which obviously wouldn't really reflect on population statistics. Even in the last nationalist demonstrations, 19 were killed.

And yes, Tibet was historically occupied, there is no denying that either.

If Left-Communists are so committed to internationalism, why are you so fond of spreading imperialist lies?

:rolleyes:

It's exactly because of these simplistic statements lacking any analytical depth that Left-Communists frequently annoy other sections of the revolutionary left and have never been able to gain mass support in any oppressed nation

Actually, there were very strong left wings of the Communist Parties in China, Turkey, Persia, South Africa, nearly all Central Asian countries, among blacks in South Africa and so forth who were opposed to national liberation struggles during the revolutionary wave, in the 70s the Bordigists were quite a strong organization in lots of middle eastern countries, the strongest one being in Algeria where they even had people in the Army. Our organizations roots has been formed in Venezuela and our sections and contacts in third world countries are growing. Even now, you, as a westerner, are trying to lecture someone from an oppressed nationality on why left communism will never be "able to gain mass support in any oppressed nation".

Regardless of whether you see the Chinese state as socialist or bourgeois, the revolutionary movement in Tibet has eliminated feudalism

At that point, a ruling class dependent on the world imperialistic system with feudalistic flags had no difference from a ruling class with red flags for the exploited class. It is true that the Lamaist regime toppled was based on a centuries-old system of exploitation. What the Chinese regime did was not better though.

Leo

26th December 2008, 22:48

"The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word" :rolleyes:

"though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action ... is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."

:rolleyes:

Well yes, that much is blindingly obvious. I am however not an agent of either the Israeli or Chinese governments. And, as far as I am aware at least, there is nothing in the Israeli occupation that can compare to the abolition of serfdom in Tibet. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Well, people see the similarity in the invasion/occupation thing. The difference, as is argued, as is quantitative, not a qualitative one.

I thought we'd abandoned this in the 19th C with the simple realisation that cross-border organisation does not work. There are a number of reasons why the emergence of national organisations (SPD, RSDLP, POF, etc) emerged as the model of choice, not least the fact that it was preferred by the workers themselves.

I don't think that necessarily means it was the right model. I don't think those organizations ended up well either - SPD, RSDLP etc. all ended up betraying.

Organisation between national groups is of course necessary but workers overwhelmingly prefer local groups addressing local concerns. Global capitalism will not be fought by a global proletariat, which only exists in the vaguest and most technical of senses, but by the combined efforts of various national proletariats

I think there are two problems with your understanding. First of all, your conception does not seem to be saying something like the first revolutionary wave was impossible, wile clearly it was proved to be possible. Secondly, there seems to be a confusion between the role of the workers in the revolution, and that of revolutionary workers, ie that of the party. While the workers, clearly, will start from their localities, will start from their cities and form their own revolutionary organizations, like workers' councils and sieze political power there, they will be the part of the same movement and will have nevertheless the same international interests, and for success will have to expand and unite as a movement. Being an international class, the working class has to abolish the nation state and eventually unite the entire human community. So while it begins locally, while the "question can be posed" locally, it "can't be solved".

The task of the revolutionary proletarians, the communists, as they "are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole", requires an internationally centralized organization, an international political line and so forth with of course local publications in respective languages.

The Taliban did not control Afghanistan

Uh, they controlled most of it.

nor is there anything to admire in the subsequent efforts of the US in that nation

No there isn't. But there isn't anything to admire in the subsequent efforts of Chine in Tibet after their invasion either.

The alternative being what exactly?

Class struggle.

The collapse of either country into anarchy or continued rule of petty warlords? I know that many on this site would gladly welcome such an outcome solely to spite the US. That's the problem with people who imagine global solutions to global problems

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Lots of people would, because they don't have a clue what they are talking about and are blindly and chauvensitcally supporting the mythical "Iraqi resistance", reactionary butchers of the Iraqi proletariat, against the American occupation, having no idea what it's like or what will happen. It is a bad situation there which can't be solved by any bourgeois faction and can only be posed by the Iraqi proletariat. We'll see what happens.

ComradeOm

26th December 2008, 23:45

"though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action ... is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."Now allow me to finish this little dance:

"In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nations will vanish, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end"

My emphasis. You can argue that a transnational model is necessary but don't try and find it in the slogans of the Manifesto. If national differences are to vanish, and never asserted that nations themselves will follow suit, then they shall only do so following the triumph of the proletariat

I don't think that necessarily means it was the right model. I don't think those organizations ended up well either - SPD, RSDLP etc. all ended up betrayingThey existed and, in today's range of national parties, continue to exist. There may be a better model out there but it is certainly not the previous experiment of transnational organisations

First of all, your conception does not seem to be saying something like the first revolutionary wave was impossible, wile clearly it was proved to be possibleThe "first revolutionary wave"? I can only assume that you are talking about the revolutions of '48? If so I think you'll find that transnational organisations, such as the Communist League or Democratic Union, had little to do with this. Aside from the general crisis faced with individual reactionary regimes, the separate national groups that manned the barricades across the Continent did so with local concerns in mind and using local apparatus. Those of the aforementioned transnational organisations that did take part in the revolutions, including Marx, did so almost entirely as part of separate, national, local bodies. Such as the Workers Union that Marx involved himself in Cologne. Indeed it was he who dissolved the League's central office in that year as it proved to be entirely unsuited to the revolutionary conditions

Secondly, there seems to be a confusion between the role of the workers in the revolution, and that of revolutionary workers, ie that of the party. While the workers, clearly, will start from their localities, will start from their cities and form their own revolutionary organizations, like workers' councils and sieze political power there, they will be the part of the same movement and will have nevertheless the same international interests, and for success will have to expand and unite as a movementIndeed. National, or other local, organisations cooperating on an international level. Very different from the concept of organising workers on a transnational level and without regard to nationality

Uh, they controlled most of itThe Taliban were just one of many groups of warlords, if slightly more organised than the rest, that have marred Afghanistan's recent history. They no more controlled the country than the US does today

No there isn't. But there isn't anything to admire in the subsequent efforts of Chine in Tibet after their invasion eitherYou have a particular fondness for the institution of serfdom?

Leo

27th December 2008, 00:06

Now allow me to finish this little dance:

"In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nations will vanish, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end"

Yes, what is clearly being described is workers putting an end to national oppression and national antagonisms along with putting an end to class exploitation. It is quite true yeah, I agree with it.

They existed and, in today's range of national parties, continue to exist.

Well, national parties clearly do exist now - all bourgeois political parties are national parties after all.

The "first revolutionary wave"?

The one against WW1.

The Taliban were just one of many groups of warlords, if slightly more organised than the rest, that have marred Afghanistan's recent history.

This is simply not true, in fact it's a ridiculous claim. Taliban was not a group of ordinary warlords, they were a very organized and centralized group. Lots of warlord groups joined them without even a fight. They had their state, controlling schools, army etc. At their peak actually controlled 95% of Afghanistan while completely implementing their horrific practices in the areas they controlled. They committed ethnic massacres. You can look up the depts of their practices.

You have a particular fondness for the institution of serfdom?

As stated, no. You have a particular fondness of sharia law?

ComradeOm

27th December 2008, 00:55

Well, national parties clearly do exist now - all bourgeois political parties are national parties after allYes, much like socialists, even liberals have found it much easier and more efficient to organise along national lines. This model works, the transnational one doesn't

The one against WW1Ah, so not the first one then. Although I'm still not entirely sure what you're point was, this example is no more helpful to your argument than the last

You are instead talking about the wave sparked by the actions of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party, and involving parties organised along local/national lines. Organised through the Third International of course. Funnily enough this even occurred in nations that had formally been part of transnational empires, such as in the domains of Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire. All of which was the result of the near-simultaneous collapse of these bastions of reaction, and not some sudden call to combat global capitalism

This is simply not true, in fact it's a ridiculous claim. Taliban was not a group of ordinary warlords, they were a very organized and centralized group. Lots of warlord groups joined them without even a fight. They had their state, controlling schools, army etc. At their peak actually controlled 95% of Afghanistan while completely implementing their horrific practices in the areas they controlled. They committed ethnic massacres. You can look up the depts of their practicesI'm well aware of the Taliban practices but that does not excuse flagrant mischaracterisations. The Taliban's governance of the country was never centralised to any real degree, certainly not anything remotely comparable to European governments since the middle ages. It relied extensively on a network of local warlords augmented by a relatively small (no more than a few thousand) standing army. Where exactly do you think the warlords that rule the country today were during the period of Taliban rule?

As stated, noYet you don't approve of the Chinese dismantlement of the Tibetan feudal institutions?

black magick hustla

27th December 2008, 03:07

The difference between Palestine and Tibet, beyond the quantitative (i.e. the israeli occupation has been more brutal), is geopolitics. Historically, the division where "national liberation" and "imperialist proxy" that has been demacrated between leftists has a lot to do with the geopolitics of either marxist leninist or maoist countries. Because soviet tanks came to Cshechoslovakia, the latter cant be national liberation, but because the people fighting the Zionists have always been heavily aligned with the orthodox left, they are socialists. The geopolitics came first, and then the "ideological cockypop" came later.

Killfacer

27th December 2008, 11:08

Leo

27th December 2008, 11:40

Yes, much like socialists, even liberals have found it much easier and more efficient to organise along national lines. This model works

For bourgeois organizations, based on the boundaries of the nation-state, yeah, it "works". I think it, and even sister-organizations kind of federative structures has been proven not to be working over and over again.

Ah, so not the first one then.

Well, the first proletarian revolutionary wave.

I'm well aware of the Taliban practices but that does not excuse flagrant mischaracterisations. The Taliban's governance of the country was never centralised to any real degree, certainly not anything remotely comparable to European governments since the middle ages. It relied extensively on a network of local warlords augmented by a relatively small (no more than a few thousand) standing army. Where exactly do you think the warlords that rule the country today were during the period of Taliban rule?

The warlords had submitted to Taliban both practically and ideologically. They were fighting a civil war while in power, thus they had to have an army, which was not a few thousand but numbered around 45,000 (even now they have around 10,00 men). The regime had it's religious police and similar other institutions as well. The implications of their ideology were very widespread also.

Yet you don't approve of the Chinese dismantlement of the Tibetan feudal institutions?

Do you approve with the American dismantlement of the Taliban sharia institutions?

redguard2009

27th December 2008, 13:48

Let's break it down!

-Palestine-
Who: Jewish/Israel vs Palestine/Arabs
When: 1940-1947
How: Insurgency; genocide; invasion by centralized armed forces
Why: To reclaim ancient god-given land
Result: Mass exodus of Palestinians; hundreds of thousands dead; severe poverty, constant "re-invasion", constant oppression

-Tibet-
Who: China vs. Tibet
When: 1949
How: Invasion by centralized armed forces; dismantling of domestic government
Why: To reclaim ancient land
Result: Annexation of Tibet; nationalization of all businesses and resources; moderate exodus; expulsion of Tibetan monarchy; increased quality of life in all aspects; moderate repression

-Afghanistan-
Who: US & friends vs. Taliban
When: 2001
How: Invasion by centralized armed forces; destruction of domestic government; support for rebels
Why: Response to attack by Al Qaida and Taliban's support of them;
Result: Virtual destruction of brutal quasi-religious cult; moderate freedoms given to women; corrupt government put in place; capitalistic development; moderate increase in quality of life for some

----------------------------------------

Woo, that was fun.

To be honest, I support the invasion of Tibet in 1949, but I am unsure of my position towards the continued "occupation" or "control" or however you want to call it.

What it comes down to is what would realistically happen if China were to withdraw from Tibet. Unlike Leo I do not hold unrealistic notions that the workers of Tibet and China (and the world) should/could/will rise up spontaneously and make the actions of the bereft capitalistic structures of power moot; realistically, the Dalai Lama would probably return, although his former empire probably wouldn't. He'd most likely take up a figurehead position as most royalties around the world do to this day. A newly-independant Tibetan government would probably want to join the "international community" (ie invite foreign investors and capitalists to develop their country, privatize industries, etc etc). They could be more or less liberal, it's not very easy to say; maybe the rate of privatization and investment will be lower, maybe higher. Tibet could become a very open state, opening up dialogue with its asian neighbours, or it might close-off. History has shown, though, that they'll probably shy away from anything resembling socialism for atleast a generation or two; regardless of modern China's socialist characteristics (or lack there of) emerging politicians and influential business leaders will likely turn on communism, socialism, and China, link the two together, and use the whole ordeal as a boogyman to scare the children (Tibetans) into behaving.

How will things work out for proletarians? Well, most proletarians will probably fall for the "socialism and China are the boogyman" gimmick. After several years their quality of life may continue rising or it may teeter and collapse.To be quite honest, future aspects for most Tibetan proletarians really won't change much regardless of whether China still controls the country or not. I do know, however, that many aspects of the Tibetan "freedom movement" are wholly bourgeois-implanted ideas, similar to the issue of Quebec sovereignty. In both cases, those who stand to gain the most from independance are members of the bourgeoisie (or aspiring members). A "free Tibet" would see the creation or explosive growth of a new age of Tibetan bourgeoisie who will twist their nation's development, socially and economically, to the capitalist ideal. So, like the Quebec seperatist movement, I can't support it.

Hiero

27th December 2008, 14:01

The whole Tibet China thing is such a farce because in reality it is factions from Tibet and China against factions inside Tibet. Tibetan's were burning monasteries and killing monks just as much as the Chinese were. It was actually the Chinese who but a curb on the peasant uprising. Now in Palestine I don't know of any Palestinians playing a part in their own forced removal.

BobKKKindle$

27th December 2008, 16:20

Actually, there were very strong left wings of the Communist Parties in China, Turkey, Persia, South Africa, nearly all Central Asian countries,The main test we should use to determine the validity of any theory is applying the theory is reality and evaluating the effects - and so even though there may have been some communist organizations which had "left wings" at some point in past, the fact remains that Left-Communism has never been able to dislodge other ideological currents such as Maoism and Trotskyism and gain a mass following amongst the proletariat of any oppressed nation, and this reflects the fact that, as a section of the communist movement which rejects the right of workers to defend themselves when faced with the threat of imperialist attack as well as the desirability of fighting for reforms within the framework of capitalism, Left-Communism is entirely isolated from the historical and contemporary experience of the proletariat. Iraqi workers are faced with violence and intimidation on a daily basis because their country has been occupied by an imperialist power which seeks to exploit Iraq's natural resources and gain access to a source of cheap labour - given this situation, and given the fact that the Iraqi proletariat has joined the resistance struggle and supports attacks conducted against the occupation authorities (Source: Most Iraqis support attacks on British (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545981/Most-Iraqis-support-attacks-on-British.html) - Telegraph) how can any party argue that resistance is illegitimate and a betrayal of proletarian internationalism and hope to gain any kind of support?

By the way, I'm from Hong Kong, which is part of China, so don't characterize me as some "westerner" who's trying to "lecture" you. China is part of a list of countries that the US has identified as potential targets for a nuclear strike, and Hong Kong was one of the last components of the British Empire.

It is true that the Lamaist regime toppled was based on a centuries-old system of exploitation. What the Chinese regime did was not better though.Once again, these simplistic sweeping statements fail to convey the complex reality of global politics and the history of modern Tibet. The Chinese "regime" destroyed a system of feudal oppression and by doing so has allowed for rapid improvements in life expectancy and a range of other social indices including literacy and access to higher education, and even now the TAR receives revenue from the central government as part of a national scheme designed to increase the standard of living in China's western provinces, which have yet to benefit from economic growth and industrial development - these are not minor changes, and they objectively demonstrate that the "regime" is not equivalent to the theocracy.

Eh, read a bit of other stuff except what the official CCP says for a change about it.

The onus is on your to provide evidence in support of your allegations - so far you have failed to do so.

RedStarOverChina

27th December 2008, 16:28

Leo---Do you have a single piece of evidence suggesting a massacre took place? I would love to see it.

Dean

27th December 2008, 18:12

Guerrilla22

27th December 2008, 19:05

Differences? Well for one thing China is not actively dropping bombs in Tibet, unlike the Israelis who currently are bombarding Gaza.

Hiero

27th December 2008, 23:33

Whether or not we support workers' rights as opposed to national rights simply isn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that both China and Israel are foreign invaders who have introduced a repressive military occupation. That is anti-worker, no question, and those who defend China based on their "socialist system" are just as deluded as those who defend the U.S. as free. Frankly, I don't see how the left can even welcome these class traitors into our midst.
And what of the Tibetans who fought the Lama's with support from China? Where they foriegn invaders in their own land?

When it comes to Tibet all I got to say is you don't realise how much shit you don't know.

BobKKKindle$

27th December 2008, 23:45

Dean seems to be under the impression that putting random words in bold makes his posts more persuasive, even though they include no factual content. As Hiero has already pointed out, the revolutionary changes in Tibet were not the result of the PRC imposing its own agenda and political preferences on a defiant region - instead, the overthrow of feudalism and subsequent periods of social transformation such as the struggle against outdated religious practices during the Cultural Revolution involved the active participation and support of the Tibetan population, and especially the impoverished Tibetan peasantry and embryonic proletariat. The rate of immigration from the rest of China remained almost zero until the era of market reforms under the leadership of Deng Xiao-Ping and yet bourgeois commentators continue to ignore and deny the role of Tibetans in casting off the yoke of feudalism, becasue upholding an accurate historical record would contradict the ideological legitimacy of the reactionary Tibetan movement, which seeks to undermine the territorial integrity of China and strengthen imperialist hegemony.

benhur

28th December 2008, 06:10

I tend to agree with people like Leo, Dean, killfacer and others who see the obvious similarity between Tibet/Palestine situation.

Saying China did something good by removing theocracy/feudalism is very similar to the argument that US liberated Afghanistan from an even worse theocracy such as the Taliban. Pointing to alleged economic development (by the benevolent chinese in tibet) doesn't help, because imperialists put forth the same argument, saying they gave Africa/Asia railways, education, parliamentary system of democracy, improved standards of living, increased life expectancy etc. etc.

As for proof, all the proof from UN, Amnesty International etc. are conveniently brushed aside as bourgeois propaganda (but the same agencies are trusted when they cite Israeli/American human rights violations). Even the fact that many Tibetans have escaped to other countries doesn't count. No evidence will convince such people, they sincerely believe China did no wrong, they never invaded Tibet, never killed anyone.

This isn't surprising, because some of the members might actually be Chinese nationalists, rather than socialists, which explains why they defend a barbaric, imperialist Chinese regime. I wonder why such people need to be part of revleft or any socialist group at all, they'll be better off at a chinese nationalist group.

EDIT: Funny how these people openly support Islamic reactionaries (who call for stoning, homophobia, sexism, sharia laws) against US/Israeli imperialism, yet they have a problem with Tibetan reactionaries (though the latter are far benign in comparison).

The Intransigent Faction

28th December 2008, 07:50

Saying China did something good by removing theocracy/feudalism is very similar to the argument that US liberated Afghanistan from an even worse theocracy such as the Taliban.

Why? You think liberating Tibet from theocracy and feudalism is a bad thing?
There are a few problems with that analogy. First off, it is because of American intervention that the Taliban theocracy came to be in the first place.
Fact: Tibet was part of China for many, many years. British colonization of Tibet doesn't change this. THAT was imperialism.

Pointing to alleged economic development (by the benevolent chinese in tibet) doesn't help, because imperialists put forth the same argument, saying they gave Africa/Asia railways, education, parliamentary system of democracy, improved standards of living, increased life expectancy etc. etc.

Benevolent? Hardly. Evil imperialists? No.
Western imperialists, of course, set up a Capitalist system, not a Socialist one. There was not a universal increase in the standard of living in Africa, which brings us to an interesting point:

You've tried to compare Chinese "imperialism" in Tibet to Western imperialism. Basic knowledge of the facts will show you that European colonization of North America (a much, much shorter time ago than Tibet first existed as a part of China) led to genocidal campaigns that wiped out countless Native American tribes (95% of the Native population, to be more specific), and that have, to this day, left the Native communities such as those here in Canada, in dire shape. Our European ancestors conquered, poisoned with disease, and killed countless Natives.
By contrast, Tibetan and non-Tibetan Chinese had lived together for generations, unlike America's case where we introduced ourselves to a place halfway across the world and became rather unpleasant.
Only a limited number of Han Chinese red guard reached Tibet. Tibetans themselves defied the monarchy.
In terms of population, you must be aware, to reiterate, of the Europeans' effect on Tibet's population. This stands in contrast to the Tibetan population.
You're familiar with China's "one00child" family policy, correct? Well, the approach on the Tibetan population has been significantly more lenient, leading to unprecedented growth in the Tibetan population.

As for proof, all the proof from UN, Amnesty International etc. are conveniently brushed aside as bourgeois propaganda (but the same agencies are trusted when they cite Israeli/American human rights violations). Even the fact that many Tibetans have escaped to other countries doesn't count. No evidence will convince such people, they sincerely believe China did no wrong, they never invaded Tibet, never killed anyone.

This is the first of your faulty sweeping generalizations.
I'm concerned, you don't believe that the U.N. can churn out bourgeois propaganda, or that at the very least they can be wrong on one issue but not others as a result of the great involvement and influence of certain countries?
You also seem to assume that those who disagree with the U.N. on Tibet will definitely cite the U.N. on the Israeli/American human rights violations. Quite the contrary. I, and others, I am sure, do not need to rely on U.N. information to realize the gross violations of human rights by the bourgeois American administration and the theocratic administration of Israel.
I would not be one to claim that China is never at fault. In fact, I am critical of China, post-Mao, due to the revisionist reforms. At the same time, I would not uncritically buy into what those who have a vested interest in attacking the human rights record of anyone else besides themselves have to say. Criticism from the American administration, especially, is not so much a sincere concern over human rights violations as it is an attempt to distract the world from their own numerous and continued violations of human rights.

This isn't surprising, because some of the members might actually be Chinese nationalists, rather than socialists, which explains why they defend a barbaric, imperialist Chinese regime. I wonder why such people need to be part of revleft or any socialist group at all, they'll be better off at a chinese nationalist group.

I am a Marxist, and thus internationalist. I will say that I condemn acts of barbarism in the form of, for example, Tiananmen Square, but I would urge you to re-evaluate your view of Tibet.

EDIT: Funny how these people openly support Islamic reactionaries (who call for stoning, homophobia, sexism, sharia laws) against US/Israeli imperialism, yet they have a problem with Tibetan reactionaries (though the latter are far benign in comparison).

This is just absurd. I would NEVER support the Taliban or other Islamic reactionaries under any circumstances. I condemn the support for the Taliban from the very beginning that allowed genocide of ethnic Hazaras, and allowed brutal theocracy to rule in Afghanistan in the 90s, while the U.S. bourgeoisie was busy working out a pipeline deal with the regime.

I do recognize the need for context, however. I do not glance at the situation and go "Good for the USA, bringing democracy to Afghanistan. Go USA!!!"...as I am confident you do not, and hopefully anyone else here does not.

Support for a brutal theocratic regime (Israel) and it's unethical military actions against Palestinian civilians has inevitably been part of what has triggered anti-American sentiment in parts of the middle east. I don't feel the need to educate you on the United States' role in propping up brutal regimes in that region, as I'm sure you know full well of this already. I do support a Palestinian state. I never have, am not, and never will consider the Taliban revolutionary in any way...but this is all a digression, really, so:

Context is important. To compare Western/European imperialist actions to the actions of China with regard to Tibet is to have a...questionable understanding of history.

Have a nice day/night.

Leo

28th December 2008, 11:29

Leo---Do you have a single piece of evidence suggesting a massacre took place? I would love to see it.

It is very easy to find lots of evidence from numerous sources; be they in wikipedia, UN sources, Indian sources, American or European sources or other "independent" sources and so forth. On the other hand, I have a feeling that unless PRC sources are used, no source is going to be recognized to have the slightest truth in it.

Whether or not we support workers' rights as opposed to national rights simply isn't the issue.

I think that's exactly the issue.

Unlike Leo I do not hold unrealistic notions that the workers of Tibet and China (and the world) should/could/will rise up spontaneously and make the actions of the bereft capitalistic structures of power moot

I think one of the main problems with your mentality is that while you regard yourself to be a socialist you see proletarian revolution as an "unrealistic notion".

To be quite honest, future aspects for most Tibetan proletarians really won't change much regardless of whether China still controls the country or not. I do know, however, that many aspects of the Tibetan "freedom movement" are wholly bourgeois-implanted ideas, similar to the issue of Quebec sovereignty. In both cases, those who stand to gain the most from independance are members of the bourgeoisie (or aspiring members). A "free Tibet" would see the creation or explosive growth of a new age of Tibetan bourgeoisie who will twist their nation's development, socially and economically, to the capitalist ideal. So, like the Quebec seperatist movement, I can't support it.

I completely agree.

Now in Palestine I don't know of any Palestinians playing a part in their own forced removal.

Well, there are Palestinian factions who have been supported by Israel initially (Hamas) who are fighting other Palestinian factions (Fatah). It is quite a complicated situation anyway.

The main test we should use to determine the validity of any theory is applying the theory is reality and evaluating the effects - and so even though there may have been some communist organizations which had "left wings" at some point in past, the fact remains that

Then your "fact" doesn't "remain" at all and has been refuted.

has never been able to dislodge other ideological currents such as Maoism and Trotskyism and gain a mass following amongst the proletariat of any oppressed nation

:lol: Trotskyism had very little serious mass-support in oppressed nations! Much less than the left-wing anti-nationalist currents in the Communist Parties.

And the way it's going, the amount of mass-support it has is never gonna be any more than that of a marginal liberal tendency which orients its activity to tailing local nationalists.

As for maoism, it was simply another form of nationalism in the third world.

By the way, I'm from Hong Kong

Not that it really matters, but if I am not mistaken you are a Brit who was temporarily living in Hong Kong. Aren't you also a member of the British SWP and all?

so don't characterize me as some "westerner" who's trying to "lecture" you.

What's obvious is obvious.

Iraqi workers are faced with violence and intimidation on a daily basis because their country has been occupied by an imperialist power which seeks to exploit Iraq's natural resources and gain access to a source of cheap labour - given this situation, and given the fact that the Iraqi proletariat has joined the resistance struggle and supports attacks conducted against the occupation authorities (Source: Most Iraqis support attacks on British (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545981/Most-Iraqis-support-attacks-on-British.html) - Telegraph) how can any party argue that resistance is illegitimate and a betrayal of proletarian internationalism and hope to gain any kind of support?

You are talking about things you know nothing of. Your "Iraqi resistance" fantasy is nothing but an empty myth, a single "Iraqi resistance" does not exist. What you call that consists of different ethnic/sectarian groups, with the most reactionary nationalist ideologies, all of them with their ties both to the current pro-American government and also other states, who have mostly been murdering each other and other Iraqis since the invasion begun. While this atmosphere of chaotic massacres was unleashed by the American invasion, the "resistance" you speak of, with all it's forces that are more opposed to each other even than the Americans, poses as much threat as the American invaders.

BobKKKindle$

28th December 2008, 12:05

You are talking about things you know nothing of. Your "Iraqi resistance" fantasy is nothing but an empty myth, You are wrong - yet again. The Iraqi resistance is obviously not a coherent organization or movement and there are certainly internal divisions which reflect the ethnic composition of Iraq, but statistically the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are not directed against a certain ethnic group and driven by a sectarian agenda, but against the occupation forces, and the internal security forces as well as other government officials, who are widely seen as complicit in the occupation. This reality indicates that Iraq has always had a strong tradition of secular nationalism which has been able to overcome and transcend internal religious or ethnic divisions. In addition, most of the attacks which are conducted against civilians have been attributed to foreign fighters such as jihadis from neighboring Arab countries, and statistics relating to the number of sectarian attacks do not make a distinction between attacks which are directed against a specific ethnic group and intended to disrupt unity, and criminal attacks such as kidnappings and deaths linked to extortion. Media networks and governments supporting the occupation have a direct interest in creating the illusion that Iraq would deteriorate into widespread and continuous sectarian violence if the occupation withdrew immediately as this provides a rationale for maintaining the occupation, and in the same way the British claimed that their own presence was necessary to provide stability before Iraq became an independent country in 1933. This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm) BBC article is a notable exception as it provides a more realistic view of Iraq, and this graph is of particular importance as it supports the points made earlier on in this post:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41982000/gif/_41982058_insurg_att_08_06_graph416.gif

Devrim

28th December 2008, 12:38

From directly under the graph:

Although about 80% of insurgent attacks are targeted against coalition forces, the Iraqi population suffers about 80% of all casualties, according to US officials in late 2005.

Devrim

Leo

28th December 2008, 12:45

You are wrong - yet again. The Iraqi resistance is obviously not a coherent organization

The Iraqi resistance is not an organization, not a single one anyway.

but statistically the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are not directed against a certain ethnic group and driven by a sectarian agenda, but against the occupation forces, and the internal security forces as well as other government officials, who are widely seen as complicit in the occupation.

Again, the government parties all are connected with different factions of what you call "the resistance" and when they are killed, they are not killed because they are "collaborators". And a very high amount of victims of the entire war were victims of the sectarian violence - causalities number hundreds of thousands.

This reality indicates that Iraq has always had a strong tradition of secular nationalism which has been able to overcome and transcend internal religious or ethnic divisions.

You have to be both ultimately ignorant and ultimately arrogant to be able to make a statement like this. You are not living in this world but living in a world of fantasies.

In addition, most of the attacks which are conducted against civilians have been attributed to foreign fighters such as jihadis from neighboring Arab countries

This is not true, most of the sectarian violence are attributed to the main groups of what you call the "Iraqi resistance" - all groups dead against each other - the Badrists, the Sadrists, and various Sunni groups, all of which are locals. Even the Iraqi Al-Qaeda, which is lead by foreigners, has it's based on Iraqi sunni Arabs.

and statistics relating to the number of sectarian attacks do not make a distinction between attacks which are directed against a specific ethnic group and intended to disrupt unity

These attacks are not done to "disrupt unity", there is no unity precisely because the bourgeois leadership of "resistant" factions have different imperialist bosses and thus conflicting interests with each other.

and criminal attacks such as kidnappings and deaths linked to extortion.

Although it is very easy to distinguish sectarian mass shootings or bombs with petty-crime such as kidnapping thus what you are saying don't make sense, even if that is so quite clearly bombs and mass killings would make up the overwhelming majority of deaths if put together with "kidnappings".

Media networks and governments supporting the occupation have a direct interest in creating the illusion that Iraq would deteriorate into widespread and continuous sectarian violence if the occupation withdrew immediately as this provides a rationale for maintaining the occupation

Well, Iraq undeniably deteriorated into widespread and continuous sectarian violence now, and what they are saying is that it would be worse if they left.

manic expression

31st December 2008, 07:01

The main differences between Palestine and Tibet are multi-layered. First, Tibet has always been historically connected, at the very least, to China. It has been part of China for more than a few centuries, just like many other ethnic groups throughout the country (the Zhuang, Maio, Hakka, Manchu, Korean minorities and others jump to mind). This historical connection is not one of oppressor vs oppressed, it is a long-standing relationship that has carried many benefits. Palestine, on the other hand, has absolutely no historical connection to the Zionist movement, and European Jews are as alien to Palestine as the Roma (so-called gypsies) are to Pakistan (where they originally came from). In fact, the arrival of the Zionists disrupted the relative peaceful coexistence between Muslim and Jew in the Levant. The Zionist movement has no legitimate claim to the Palestinian territories, it relies heavily on pathetically insipid religious justifications, as well as fascist rationales ("all nations are in a battle for survival and we will do whatever we can to survive", a Zionist once told me that to my face).

Next, modern Chinese involvement in Tibet has been one of improvement and modernization. China overthrew the god-king Dalai Lama and his feudal theocracy, initiating progressive collectivization efforts throughout the country. Israel, on the other hand, has done no such thing and has instead placed the entire Palestinian people under a system of deprivation and exploitation. The brutal system of profit-making found in Zionist-occupied Palestine does not exist in Tibet.

It really just comes down to what is most progressive. Supporting the Dalai Lama's mindless supporters, many of whom are just liberal students who like to hang prayer flags in their dorms, is reactionary; supporting the Palestinian liberation movement is progressive. That's what it comes down to in the end.

manic expression

31st December 2008, 07:01

I think that's exactly the issue.

No, it isn't, however inconvenient that may be to you. The right of nations to self-determination is, in the epoch of imperialism, in the interests of the working class. As has been illustrated by the quotations of Marx (which you blatantly tried to take out of context), class struggle takes a national character. Moreover, the profit of the capitalist class is inextricably tied to imperialist activity, and any defeat of imperialist activity is a defeat of the ruling class, and any defeat of the ruling class is a victory for the workers. This much should be common sense, but ultra left politics knows no such thing.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif Trotskyism had very little serious mass-support in oppressed nations! Much less than the left-wing anti-nationalist currents in the Communist Parties.

And the way it's going, the amount of mass-support it has is never gonna be any more than that of a marginal liberal tendency which orients its activity to tailing local nationalists.

As for maoism, it was simply another form of nationalism in the third world.

From this, it is quite clear that you have made no attempt to refute the (factual) claim that left-communism has never had any influence among the working class, thanks in part to the fact that it is a tendency which spits on the struggles of the workers against imperialism.

You have to be both ultimately ignorant and ultimately arrogant to be able to make a statement like this. You are not living in this world but living in a world of fantasies.

That's not really true. Hussein's party, regardless of their many faults, did promote secular nationalism quite strongly. While many Iraqis have turned to fundamentalism and such, I think there are many signs of Iraqis maintaining secularism and rejecting sectarianism (the Iraqi football team is one good example).

These attacks are not done to "disrupt unity", there is no unity precisely because the bourgeois leadership of "resistant" factions have different imperialist bosses and thus conflicting interests with each other.

Which "imperialist bosses" would you be referring to? Remember that imperialism means monopoly capitalism and gigantic usury. It would seem as though you're just throwing out criticisms indiscriminately.

BobKKKindle$

31st December 2008, 14:19

And a very high amount of victims of the entire war were victims of the sectarian violence - causalities number hundreds of thousands.As mentioned in my previous post, the fighters who are responsible for sectarian violence are generally from other countries and have come to Iraq with the intention of fighting a Jihad against the occupation as well as sections of the Iraqi population which they see as having abandoned Islam. This is important, because it means that resistance fighters from Iraq are not the main supporters of sectarian violence, and when high-profile attacks have occurred, such as the bombing of important religious sites (e.g. the al-Askari shrine in Samarra), Iraqis have often shown their opposition through protests involving multiple ethnic and religious groups. The occupation government is also one of the main contributors words ethnic tensions because former members and supporters of the Ba'ath Party have been excluded from all government positions even though it was often necessary to become a member of the party under the Saddam regime in order to gain access to the upper reaches of certain professions, such as teaching and medicine. This has encouraged sectarianism towards the Shia population, because Sunnis accounted for a majority of party membership, despite the fact that they accounted for only 20% of the Iraqi population.

And a very high amount of victims of the entire war were victims of the sectarian violence - causalities number hundreds of thousands.Civilian deaths resulting from sectarian attacks do account for a disproportionately large share of total deaths, given that most attacks are intended to harm occupation forces. This is due to a combination of factors - foreign Jihadis often have access to superior resources especially in the form of equipment and technical expertise which allows them to organize more devastating attacks, and all groups use attack methods which do not directly discriminate between the occupation and Iraqi civilians, such as roadside bombs and other IEDs.

You have to be both ultimately ignorant and ultimately arrogant to be able to make a statement like this. You are not living in this world but living in a world of fantasies.Actually, that specific point was taken from Haifa Zangana's book 'City of Widows: An Iraqi Woman's Account of War and Resistance'. An experienced journalist who was born in Iraq and operated as a member of the underground opposition during the Saddam years has a better idea of what's going on in Iraq than a confused and dogmatic Left-Communist like yourself.

These attacks are not done to "disrupt unity", there is no unity precisely because the bourgeois leadership of "resistant" factions have different imperialist bosses and thus conflicting interests with each other.The current state of Iraq and especially the composition of the insurgency cannot be reduced to a simplistic picture of different imperialist factions fighting against each other. The foreign Jihadis in particular are drawn from a range of class backgrounds and have not received support from any imperialist power, because they are motivated by a radical version of Islam which identifies Shia Muslims as infidels. There have been allegations that Muqtada al-Sadr has been given training and military equipment from Iran and other organizations throughout the Middle East including Hezbollah, but given the lack of factual evidence to support these allegations, and the fact that Iran is not an imperialist power, this does not show that the Mahdi Army is just a tool of imperialism. You have chosen to deny the existence of a united opposition to the occupation and by doing so you have accepted the most important myth promoted by all the governments which have ever tried to occupy Iraq, namely that an external force is necessary to prevent groups within Iraq from fighting each other.

Although it is very easy to distinguish sectarian mass shootings or bombs with petty-crime such as kidnapping thus what you are saying don't make senseStatistics released by the occupation government do not make a distinction, because this allows them to exaggerate the extent of sectarian violence.

Well, Iraq undeniably deteriorated into widespread and continuous sectarian violence now, and what they are saying is that it would be worse if they left.This is an argument which provides a pretext for the occupation forces to remain in Iraq and further exploit the country's natural resources and use Iraq as a market for surplus goods, and even a base for invasions against other countries in the region, and it obscures two important facts, firstly that the extent of sectarian violence has been exaggerated and most attacks are still conducted against the occupation forces, and secondly, that whatever sectarian violence does exist is often linked to decisions undertaken by the occupation government in pursuit of their own political and economic ends, such as the attacks on former Ba'ath members.

Devrim

31st December 2008, 15:08

firstly that the extent of sectarian violence has been exaggerated and most attacks are still conducted against the occupation forces,

No, as shown above 80% of victims these attacks are members of the Iraqi public. Now, I am not defending the occupation, but I do reject these outright lies that try to suggest that sectarian violence is minimal. I don't think that sectarian violence is exaggerated, but them I know what sectarian violence is and lived the majority (about 80%+) of my life in countries where it occurs.

Will it be worse after/if they leave? I don't know, but denying the fact that there is sectarian violence (i.e. lying to ourselves) doesn't help us.

Devrim

Leo

31st December 2008, 15:12

As mentioned in my previous post, the fighters who are responsible for sectarian violence are generally from other countries

As mentioned in my previous post, this information is false.

given that most attacks are intended to harm occupation forces.

No actually most attacks, even as evidenced by your data are intended to harm Iraqis, be they affiliated with the government or not (and of course most of these attacks too are due to sectarian violence, not resistance to the government). The attacks towards the actual occupation forces are very low, as evidenced by the comparatively low death toll of the American and other soldiers.

Actually, that specific point was taken from Haifa Zangana

Who has been living in Britain since 1976.

The foreign Jihadis in particular are drawn from a range of class backgrounds and have not received support from any imperialist power, because they are motivated by a radical version of Islam which identifies Shia Muslims as infidels.

Though foreigners are low in numbers, such views are given in the ideologies of almost all religious Sunni resistance group.

There have been allegations that Muqtada al-Sadr has been given training and military equipment from Iran and other organizations throughout the Middle East including Hezbollah, but given the lack of factual evidence to support these allegations

It is actually quite well known and proven. Sadr himself directs his organizations operations from Iran.

and the fact that Iran is not an imperialist power

Take this as a friendly advice: You saying something doesn't make it so - you are not the decisive authority on whether Iran is imperialist or not, you can't present your opinion as a fact unless you want to look ridiculous and arrogant as you are doing now.

this does not show that the Mahdi Army is just a tool of imperialism.

It is quite obvious that it does show it in my opinion.

You have chosen to deny the existence of a united opposition to the occupation

:rolleyes: You are painting different factions murdering each other more than the Americans as a "united opposition". You live in a fantasy world.

and by doing so you have accepted the most important myth promoted by all the governments which have ever tried to occupy Iraq, namely that an external force is necessary to prevent groups within Iraq from fighting each other.

Well no as evidenced not even a permanent force can prevent it - only united class struggle of the workers from all different ethnic or religious groups can.

Out of curiosity, do you call for a "united Iraq" as well?

Statistics released by the occupation government do not make a distinction, because this allows them to exaggerate the extent of sectarian violence.

Again to anyone who actually has any idea what they are talking about this doesn't make any sense. The "occupation government" is made up of factions most of which are connected, although loosely to the resistance and who are a part of the sectarian violence themselves in many ways.

This is an argument which provides a pretext for the occupation forces to remain in Iraq

Why? Saying that it's bad now and will still be bad if they leave means, basically, that they are in deep shit and have got no solution to offer. That's exactly how the situation is. You obviously think that Iraq is going to turn into heaven if the Americans leave, which shows that you don't give a rats ass about the "nice little brown fellas" who make up the Iraqi working class. Those who are not ignorant of the genocides committed by the previous government know that it wasn't better before they came, isn't better now and won't be better if they leave or stay.

and further exploit the country's natural resources

An overwhelming majority of Iraqs national resources are officially in national hands. The invasion was never about "exploiting" them, it was about controlling them, controlling who they would go to.

and use Iraq as a market for surplus goods

Like what?

and even a base for invasions against other countries in the region

They had more than enough bases before they invaded Iraq.

such as the attacks on former Ba'ath members.

Another question out of curiosity, do you support the Ba'ath Party?

BobKKKindle$

2nd January 2009, 16:00

I don't have time to respond to all of these issues now, Leo, but just a few points:

No actually most attacks, even as evidenced by your data are intended to harm Iraqis,The relative death tolls of different groups is not a reliable indication of how attacks are taking place, and especially whom these attacks are intended to harm. I posted a graph at the beginning of this thread which shows that the majority of the attacks are directed against the occupation forces and a large part of the remainder are intended to harm either physical infrastructure or the Iraqi security services, such that attack against civilians (i.e. sectarian attacks) account for less than a quarter. As Devrim pointed out, and as I have accepted, civilians make up a disproportionately large share of the death toll as a result of various factors including the superior material resources of the groups which are organizing sectarian attacks, but the fact remains that support for sectarian violence is not widespread amongst the Iraqi population, whereas anti-imperialist violence does command support.

Who has been living in Britain since 1976.What's your point? Someone who has lived in Iraq and is familiar with Iraq's politics is more likely to offer rational analysis than you.

Like what?Just one example:

"The explicit aim was to promote fast entry into Iraq’s oil rich economy. CPA Order 12, implemented a month after George Bush declared major hostilities over, suspended customs and duty charges on goods entering the country.

Within a few days of the order being passed, mass produced chicken legs were dumped on the Iraqi economy by US companies, forcing the market price of chicken down to 71p a kilogram, below the cheapest price that Iraqi producers could sustain.

Those chicken legs were surplus to the US market because the average American prefers breast meat. Before the invasion, those chicken legs would have most likely been sold as pet food"

Corporate Plunder of Iraq - Socialist Worker, dated 11 February 2006 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8245)

Saying that it's bad now and will still be bad if they leave means, basically, that they are in deep shit and have got no solution to offer. That's exactly how the situation is. You obviously think that Iraq is going to turn into heavenAt no point in this discussion have I ever asserted or even implied that Iraq is going to turn into "heaven" as soon as the occupation forces withdraw or are expelled from Iraq. However, given that the main objective of the occupying forces is to use Iraq as a destination for surplus capital and goods which cannot be sold domestically, as well as other political and economic aims associated with imperialist occupations, it is unlikely that Iraq will ever be able to develop economically or even achieve a basic level of economic stability as long as the occupation forces maintain their presence, and consequently Iraqi workers will be forced to accept a severe lack of amenities and public services including healthcare and access to clean water, in addition to a high level of unemployment. A military defeat in Iraq would undermine public support for militarism and future operations in the countries which participated in the initial invasion, and would create a new political environment in Iraq, allowing the Iraqi working class to acknowledge the existence of domestic class antagonisms. In this respect, the expulsion of the occupation as the result of a successful anti-imperialist struggle would be a progressive event, for Iraqi workers, and the international working-class.

know that it wasn't better before they came, isn't better now and won't be better if they leave or stay.Actually, despite the genocides committed by Saddam's government, Iraq was much better before the 2003 invasion and the imposition of economic sanctions following the 1991 war - Iraq was one of the most prosperous and progressive states in the Middle East in terms of the provision of education, access to sanitation, the level of unemployment, opportunities for women to participate in political and economic life on an equal basis with men, secularization, and the rate of economic growth.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

2nd January 2009, 17:31

Tibet is a part of China since ancient times.
The "Free Tibet" morons are nationalists and racists who want to give the Tibetan race its own capitalist, oppressive and theocratic nation, led by the Dalai Lama.

Palestine was illegally colonized by the zionists, who organised a genocide to eliminate the Arabs and lake room for the "superior people of God".

There is a massive difference between the two, they're not comparible.

Killfacer

2nd January 2009, 17:40

Tibet is a part of China since ancient times.

How is that relevant? Loads of places have belonged to people in ancient times.

Devrim

2nd January 2009, 18:09

The relative death tolls of different groups is not a reliable indication of how attacks are taking place, and especially whom these attacks are intended to harm. I posted a graph at the beginning of this thread which shows that the majority of the attacks are directed against the occupation forces and a large part of the remainder are intended to harm either physical infrastructure or the Iraqi security services, such that attack against civilians (i.e. sectarian attacks) account for less than a quarter.

Most of the sources that I have seen seem to show that there are more attacks on civilians than occupation forces.

I think that we should be rather cautious about this graph, whose source is the occupation forces themselves. How do they define attacks? I would imagine that they report every attack upon themselves ranging from some kids throwing Molotovs or even stones all the way up to suicide bombings. However, I would imagine that average Iraqis don't report low level sectarian attacks to the occupation forces. That in itself would sway the figures massively.

I think that it is quite telling that in death rates Iraqi civilians outnumber US forces 4 to 1. Now this suggest that either more, or more serious attacks are taking places against civilians that occupation troops.

As Devrim pointed out, and as I have accepted, civilians make up a disproportionately large share of the death toll as a result of various factors including the superior material resources of the groups which are organizing sectarian attacks,...

There are other factors, which probably cause this. What you seem to be saying though is that the reason that this happens is because the sectarian groups have 'superior material resources'. One reason for this would be that they are stronger. However, I don't believe that they are actually different groups in the majority of cases.

but the fact remains that support for sectarian violence is not widespread amongst the Iraqi population, whereas anti-imperialist violence does command support.[Which fact? You often claim that things are fact with no evidence whatsoever. Here I don't think that you have any evidence whatsoever (It is a pretty difficult thing to have evidence to prove). The impression I get is that sectarian violence is rampant in Iraq. Now I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure it is based on more data then your 'facts'.

Devrim