Free Tibet Reactionary?

[Dóchas]

i think it was when i was looking at the chit chat awards nominations when i saw that the Free Tibet group were one of the nominees for the most reactionary organisation. how are they reactionary when they are trying to save tibet from the oppressive chinese government? from what i heard they seem ok but i must be missing something. anyone care to enlighten me?

[Pogue]

Alot of people claim they're racist and want a return to feudalism, others claim they're backed by the CIA, others claim China has a right to be there, etc etc. I participated in that movement, from the perspective of fighting an dictatorship of behalf of a people whose land as taken from them. Let the shitstorm commenceth.

[Dóchas]

aw shit i have a feeling this is gonna turn into some conspiracy thread

i hope this isnt a touchy subject thats just gonna turn into a flame storm

[Invincible Summer]

Tibet used to be a theocratic feudalist society before the PRC came in and stirred shit up.

Not that the PRC is the greatest country on earth, but feudalism based on religion? C'mon!

[BobKKKindle$]

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-opp...ighlight=Tibet (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinas-oppressive-policies-t97151/index.html?t=97151&highlight=Tibet)

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

[Dóchas]

thanks Bobkindles thats really helpful. :)

[Magdalen]

http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/frfipages/203/FRFI_203_tib.html

This is an excellent article which was published in FRFI last June, in the aftermath of the March riots in Lhasa and the London protests against the Olympic Torch. It's totally correct (and certainly not a conspiracy theory), that the CIA played an important role in the Free Tibet movement, including the failed putsch against the revolutionary government in 1959. Interestingly, this putsch failed because it received no support whatsoever from a Tibetan population which had been, as Destructicon pointed out, liberated from theocratic feudalism. To an extent, the limited revival of support for Tibetan independence can be attributed to Deng Xiaoping's counter-revolutionary reforms, which returned exploitation to Tibet. The battle for control of Tibet's vast natural resources has led to confrontations between the Tibetan and Chinese ruling classes.

[Kassad]

The 'Free Tibet' movement is backed completely by the Bush administration and the CIA. That alone should raise some red flags. It's not often that they back something that doesn't benefit them in some way.

If you have some time, please read this article: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8845

Basically, it's apparent that the 'Free Tibet' movement is fueled by the landowners and bourgeoisie in Tibet who lost control of the working class when the People's Liberation Army took control. China brought about revolutionary change that made the standard of living in Tibet much higher than it had ever dreamed of being. The Dalai Lama and his cronies lost control of the religious state they had imposed and they continually seek to regain control of property and the people so that they can impose their religious oligarchy once again.

Now, China hasn't handled the situation perfectly, but I think what they are doing is much better than the religious rule and potential American puppet government that could sprout out of China leaving Tibet to its own affairs. This is all part of the continual demonization of China.

[ashaman1324]

if the general tibetan populations wants to live in a theocratic feudal society, let them.

[Herman]

if the general tibetan populations wants to live in a theocratic feudal society, let them.

But they don't. That's the point. Most Tibetans are not in favour of a return to theocracy.

[Yehuda Stern]

Myself and other comrades dispel the myths (including the insulting comparison between Palestine and Tibet)

Only you never did - you simply asserted that the "myths" are myths. Tibetans are certainly oppressed by China, and always have been. The fact that the Free Tibet movement is reactionary doesn't make Tibetan liberation any less legitimate than the reactionary nature of Hamas makes Palestinian liberation illegitimate.

[Kassad]

Only you never did - you simply asserted that the "myths" are myths. Tibetans are certainly oppressed by China, and always have been. The fact that the Free Tibet movement is reactionary doesn't make Tibetan liberation any less legitimate than the reactionary nature of Hamas makes Palestinian liberation illegitimate.

China helped Tibet adopt massive social reforms that improved the life of the working class in Tibet. Israel just claimed the land and killed Palestinians.

Most of the Tibetans do not want to return to feudalism. Most Palestinians want Israel gone. The Jewish state has done nothing for the Palestinian people besides claim their land, kill them and turn the area into a warzone.

I'd say those are some hefty differences.

[Pogue]

China helped Tibet adopt massive social reforms that improved the life of the working class in Tibet. Israel just claimed the land and killed Palestinians.

Most of the Tibetans do not want to return to feudalism. Most Palestinians want Israel gone. The Jewish state has done nothing for the Palestinian people besides claim their land, kill them and turn the area into a warzone.

I'd say those are some hefty differences.

I hate this bullshit assumption that a Tibet free from the rule of China is automatically feudalistic. At no point in the campaign has anyone from the Free Tibet movement said the want a return to feudalism, its jsut a handy argument 'anti-imperialists' drag up to try and justify their hypocritical and idiotic belief that China is somehow different to other imperial powers because of its aesthetics, i.e. it uses the colour red alot and is ruled by a party calling itself communist. Such hypocrisy, baseless and pathetic.

[BobKKKindle$]

China is somehow different to other imperial powers because of its aestheticsAnti-imperialists do not claim that China is an oppressed nation due to aesthetics, instead we base our analysis on an empirical and materialist analysis of China's position in the world economy, especially with regard to investment flows. The PRC currently only has two multinational companies (i.e. companies which sell and produce their goods in multiple countries) and the amount of investment the PRC currently receives is far greater than the comparatively insignificant amount of capital the PRC exports to other countries - based on these facts it is clear that even though the PRC may derive some of its income from its overseas investment assets (as is the case for almost every country in the world, including countries subject to high rates of imperialist exploitation) the net movement of surplus value is negative, such that China is an oppressed nation, in the same way as India, or Mexico. This does not mean that China is incapable of becoming an imperialist state at some point in the future and there are arguably signs that China is undergoing a gradual shift and taking on the features of an imperialist power, depending on the ability of the economy to generate multinationals firm can compete with existing firms on the world market, but at the current time, China is still oppressed.


The fact that the Free Tibet movement is reactionary doesn't make Tibetan liberationSocialists should certainly support the right of Tibet to secede, in the same way that Lenin supported the right of the Soviet republics to secede in his polemics with Rosa Luxemburg and other socialists who were opposed to this position, even when anti-imperialist movements did not exist in these nations, but this doesn't mean we face an automatic duty to support any movement which tries to portray itself as being a legitimate representation of the Tibetan population, specifically the Tibetan working class. The "Free Tibet" movement is not a genuine anti-imperialist movement because it does not command the mass support of the working population inside Tibet, and is instead comprised of Tibet's former ruling elite and consequently continues to receive extensive financial backing from states which have an interest in undermining China so as to enhance their own position in the region. The refusal of ordinary workers to participate in the pogroms last year is perfectly sensible, when we consider that workers have gained from the overthrow of feudalism in Tibet, and continue to benefit from the economic aid provided by the central government.

[Herman]

I hate this bullshit assumption that a Tibet free from the rule of China is automatically feudalistic. At no point in the campaign has anyone from the Free Tibet movement said the want a return to feudalism, its jsut a handy argument 'anti-imperialists' drag up to try and justify their hypocritical and idiotic belief that China is somehow different to other imperial powers because of its aesthetics, i.e. it uses the colour red alot and is ruled by a party calling itself communist. Such hypocrisy, baseless and pathetic.

The truth is that there has been far more progress with the PRC than with the former rulers of Tibet, e.g. Dalai Lama and the priest hierarchy, in terms of development and freedom.

Does that mean that the PRC is a model example of socialism? No. No one is stating this.

[Kassad]

I hate this bullshit assumption that a Tibet free from the rule of China is automatically feudalistic. At no point in the campaign has anyone from the Free Tibet movement said the want a return to feudalism, its jsut a handy argument 'anti-imperialists' drag up to try and justify their hypocritical and idiotic belief that China is somehow different to other imperial powers because of its aesthetics, i.e. it uses the colour red alot and is ruled by a party calling itself communist. Such hypocrisy, baseless and pathetic.

Are you kidding? The Dalai Lama and his cronies would come into power very quickly and they would attempt to restore their religious hegemony. Don't be naive.

No one here is saying that China is perfect. The reported human rights violations are not being condoned by many people, let alone rational thinkers like you and I. Still, it is absurd to support handing Tibet back to the religious elite and bourgeoisie.

[Pogue]

The truth is that there has been far more progress with the PRC than with the former rulers of Tibet, e.g. Dalai Lama and the priest hierarchy, in terms of development and freedom.

Does that mean that the PRC is a model example of socialism? No. No one is stating this.

I think this is hypocritical because the same people who support China's occupation of Tibet because it has developed the nation oppose other nations doing this and use the idea of 'social-imperialism' to counter critics who propose imperialism is justified if it improves hte situation of people in the invaded country, i.e. this argument, that social imperialism is bad too, is used against those who support the invasion of Iraq because it will "bring democracy".

I suspect people ignore this contradiction because China is not as traditional an enemy as the USA is, and it calls itself Communist.

[Pogue]

Are you kidding? The Dalai Lama and his cronies would come into power very quickly and they would attempt to restore their religious hegemony. Don't be naive.

No one here is saying that China is perfect. The reported human rights violations are not being condoned by many people, let alone rational thinkers like you and I. Still, it is absurd to support handing Tibet back to the religious elite and bourgeoisie.

But you can support the Free Tibet movement without supporting feudalism/theocracy, as I do. I support the Tibetan people's right to sovereignty and to be free from an oppresive dictatorship such as China, in place of a free and democratic society where they can express themselves, decide the direction of their own lives and also enjoy good healthcare, education, etc.

The same people who oppose the free Tibet movement on the grounds that its 'leaders' are reactionary also support the Free Palestine movement and Hamas, and Hamas too are reactionary. This is hypocritical

I however support both the Tibetan people and the Palestinian people because I support all oppresed people, but don't support reactionary groups like Hamas or the old Tibetan religious order.

[BobKKKindle$]

hte situation of people in the invaded country

The point is that imperialism never results in significant and permanent improvements for workers living in oppressed countries - if this were not the case then socialists would support the spread of imperialism throughout the entire world and would always take the side of the imperialist powers in a conflict, because the wellbeing of working people is our central concern. Interestingly, Engels recognized that imperialism was semi-progressive in the past, when imperialism allowed capitalism to be introduced into a feudal society, but now that the entire world is capitalist and there are no remaining pre-capitalist countries this argument is no longer applicable. Following on from this, (that imperialism never brings material improvements, but causes underdevelopment due to the transfer of resources on a global scale to the imperialist bloc) whether the integration of a nation (e.g. Tibet becoming a formal part of China following the CCP seizure of power in 1949) has resulted in improvements is one of the criteria we can use to determine whether such integration is progressive from the viewpoint of the working class or imperialistic. Based on the incredible increase in life expectancy in Tibet, and the abolition of many forms of political and social oppression, such as the exploitation of women, we can conclude that the people of Tibet have benefited from integration. It seems that Tibetan workers agree with us, because they did not side with the rioters last year.

[Kassad]

But you can support the Free Tibet movement without supporting feudalism/theocracy, as I do. I support the Tibetan people's right to sovereignty and to be free from an oppresive dictatorship such as China, in place of a free and democratic society where they can express themselves, decide the direction of their own lives and also enjoy good healthcare, education, etc.

The same people who oppose the free Tibet movement on the grounds that its 'leaders' are reactionary also support the Free Palestine movement and Hamas, and Hamas too are reactionary. This is hypocritical

I however support both the Tibetan people and the Palestinian people because I support all oppresed people, but don't support reactionary groups like Hamas or the old Tibetan religious order.

Now you're just ignoring facts. If Tibet were to be liberated, with all the money the CIA and the Bush Administration invested into it, I'm sure they'd have a nice little chat with the new leadership. Or maybe, you know, impose one of their puppets like they have in nations across the world and throughout history? What a joke.

I support a free Palestine because Israel has done nothing but assaulted Palestinian sovereignty. They have killed thousands of Palestinians, and for what? Religious land? Like they own that land because their biblical ancestors lived there. Yeah, okay.

The majority of Palestinians want freedom from Israel which is a United States puppet. The majority of Tibetans do not want to be totally separate from China. You, again, are ignoring facts. That's a huge difference between the two movements. I do not have solidarity with Hamas or any of the other groups. I have solidarity with the people of Palestine and what they want is to be free. I have never claimed support for Hamas.

A free Tibet is just another way of saying 'bourgeoisie and American imperialist hegemony'. Whatever floats your boat.

[Brother No. 1]

well Bobkindles is right about the Free tibet issue and really what will Dalai lama do when and if Tibet is "libirated" it will move back to monarchy maybe

[JimmyJazz]

The fact that the Free Tibet movement is reactionary doesn't make Tibetan liberation any less legitimate than the reactionary nature of Hamas makes Palestinian liberation illegitimate.

Distinctions are good.

BTW fuck the dalai lama (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E9582 60).

[Brother No. 1]

thank you Comrade. FUCK DAlai LAMA to!

[Brother No. 1]

Exactly comrades. So do we Agree that We hate Dalai lama for trying to bring fudealism to tibet.

[Yehuda Stern]

China helped Tibet adopt massive social reforms that improved the life of the working class in Tibet. Israel just claimed the land and killed Palestinians.Actually, Israeli propaganda always claimed that Israel improved the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, by giving them jobs and - guess what? - freeing them from feudalism. All chauvinists justify their oppressive policies in similar ways.


Most of the Tibetans do not want to return to feudalism. Most Palestinians want Israel goneWhat a cynical word play. Of course Tibetans don't want to return to feudalism, but they do want China gone. Palestinians don't want feudalism either - and yes, they do want Israel gone.

On a side note, a country doesn't have to be imperialist to oppress another nation. There are oppressed minorities in states all over Latin American and the Middle East.

Edit:


Exactly comrades. So do we Agree that We hate Dalai lama for trying to bring fudealism to tibet.

Only if we can agree that we must support the Tibetan struggle for liberation regardless of its leadership, just as we would in any state that doesn't claim to be 'communist.'

[Pogue]

Now you're just ignoring facts. If Tibet were to be liberated, with all the money the CIA and the Bush Administration invested into it, I'm sure they'd have a nice little chat with the new leadership. Or maybe, you know, impose one of their puppets like they have in nations across the world and throughout history? What a joke.

I support a free Palestine because Israel has done nothing but assaulted Palestinian sovereignty. They have killed thousands of Palestinians, and for what? Religious land? Like they own that land because their biblical ancestors lived there. Yeah, okay.

The majority of Palestinians want freedom from Israel which is a United States puppet. The majority of Tibetans do not want to be totally separate from China. You, again, are ignoring facts. That's a huge difference between the two movements. I do not have solidarity with Hamas or any of the other groups. I have solidarity with the people of Palestine and what they want is to be free. I have never claimed support for Hamas.

A free Tibet is just another way of saying 'bourgeoisie and American imperialist hegemony'. Whatever floats your boat.

If you'd read my post and constructed an intelligent response rather than building a strawman perhaps you'd look more intelligent.

I addressed all of this and the point mentioned in your last sentence. I said I support the Tibetan people and any people struggling against oppresion. Thats why I displayed solidarity in the Free Tibet movement back in the spring/summer when things were kicking off over there.

Because my solidarit yis universal I am also involved with the Free Palestinne conflict because I want to show solidarity with the people there too.

However I don't want a US puppet state in Tibet and I don't want a Hamas ruled society in Palestine. I want a worker run society, worldwide.

[Herman]

I think this is hypocritical because the same people who support China's occupation of Tibet because it has developed the nation oppose other nations doing this and use the idea of 'social-imperialism' to counter critics who propose imperialism is justified if it improves hte situation of people in the invaded country, i.e. this argument, that social imperialism is bad too, is used against those who support the invasion of Iraq because it will "bring democracy".

In theory, every socialist is in favour of sovereignty. In practice however, we understand that the material conditions and circumstances are not ideal, and so we are forced to analyze the situation carefully. In the case of Tibet, it was freed from a decadent and feudal society, peasants forced to work for their lords and priests, an impoverished population and an uneducated population. What did the PRC and many Red Guard Tibetans do? They destroyed the old order and established a new one, better than the last. There has been more progress now than ever thanks to that new order, no matter how corrupt or unsocialistic the PRC may be now.

So again, you may be saying, "well, we can support their independence now, can we?". The problem is that if it were to gain independence, Tibet would become a puppet of the US. The Free Tibet Movement is led by religious leaders who favored their feudalistic order, and don't doubt for a moment that the US would do anything in its power to gain an ally right next to China. No matter how much criticism you give to the leadership of that movement, it is inherently reactionary and allied with US imperialism. Ideally, it would be good if Tibet were to become an independent socialist state, but that's not possible in the current situation.

I suspect people ignore this contradiction because China is not as traditional an enemy as the USA is, and it calls itself Communist.[/Quote]

[Pogue]

In theory, every socialist is in favour of sovereignty. In practice however, we understand that the material conditions and circumstances are not ideal, and so we are forced to analyze the situation carefully. In the case of Tibet, it was freed from a decadent and feudal society, peasants forced to work for their lords and priests, an impoverished population and an uneducated population. What did the PRC and many Red Guard Tibetans do? They destroyed the old order and established a new one, better than the last. There has been more progress now than ever thanks to that new order, no matter how corrupt or unsocialistic the PRC may be now.

So again, you may be saying, "well, we can support their independence now, can we?". The problem is that if it were to gain independence, Tibet would become a puppet of the US. The Free Tibet Movement is led by religious leaders who favored their feudalistic order, and don't doubt for a moment that the US would do anything in its power to gain an ally right next to China. No matter how much criticism you give to the leadership of that movement, it is inherently reactionary and allied with US imperialism. Ideally, it would be good if Tibet were to become an independent socialist state, but that's not possible in the current situation.

I suspect people ignore this contradiction because China is not as traditional an enemy as the USA is, and it calls itself Communist.

But the assumption people make is that a free Tibet will be a reactionary, USA dominated Tibet. This is not so.

In the same way revolutionaries like the SWP support Hamas and aim to influence the Free Palestine movement in a socialist direction, they could influence the Free Tibet movement in a socialist direction.

They criticise people in the Free Tibet movement on the assumption that by supporting Free Tibet one also supports a reactionary feudalist society, yet they actively admit that they support Hamas and their victory, and Hamas are as (if not more) reactionary in their ideology (not their immediate actions) than most of the people in the Free Tibet movement!
For this reason I find it hypocritical. Everyone knows full well that Hamas would not govern in the interests of the working class.

[Herman]

But the assumption people make is that a free Tibet will be a reactionary, USA dominated Tibet. This is not so.

It is so if the leadership of the Free Tibet Movement comes to power, which it will.


In the same way revolutionaries like the SWP support Hamas and aim to influence the Free Palestine movement in a socialist direction, they could influence the Free Tibet movement in a socialist direction.

Not possible. The Free Tibet Movement is funded by the CIA and the US will make sure that there is no socialist influence in that movement. This is not the same for Palestine.


They criticise people in the Free Tibet movement on the assumption that by supporting Free Tibet one also supports a reactionary feudalist society,

The Dalai Lama is very much in favour of coming to power as he used to be.


yet they actively admit that they support Hamas and their victory, and Hamas are as (if not more) reactionary in their ideology (not their immediate actions) than most of the people in the Free Tibet movement!

No one supports Hamas. I haven't seen anyone here say so. Those who do are wrong.


For this reason I find it hypocritical. Everyone knows full well that Hamas would not govern in the interests of the working class.

Of course he won't. No socialist wants him as a leader.

There are more possibilities though of creating a better alternative in Palestine, through the cause of anti-imperialism, than in Tibet.

[Pogue]

So basically revolutionaries cannot be bothered to support and influence some anti-imperialist struggles because they are more difficult than each other?

From the free Tibet website:

Mission statement
Free Tibet stands for the right of Tibetans to determine their own future.
We campaign for an end to the Chinese occupation of Tibet and for the fundamental human rights of Tibetans to be respected.
Founded in 1987, Free Tibet generates active support through public education about the situation in Tibet.
We are independent of all governments and are funded by our members and supporters.

http://www.freetibet.org/contact

Independent of government and wanting sovereignty and human rights. Oh how so reactionary. Theres no mention of supporting theocracy, something even the Dalai Lama opposes.

[Pogue]

Also, the Dalai Lama achknowledges the leader of the democratically elected government of the Tibetan government in exile as the leader of the Tibetans and has handed power over to him. The Tibetans want a democracy, in contrast to the dictatorship of China.

[Chapter 24]

Also, the Dalai Lama achknowledges the leader of the democratically elected government of the Tibetan government in exile as the leader of the Tibetans and has handed power over to him. The Tibetans want a democracy, in contrast to the dictatorship of China.

Who is the Dalai Lama to be "handing power" to this exiled Tibetan leader?

[Herman]

Also, the Dalai Lama achknowledges the leader of the democratically elected government of the Tibetan government in exile as the leader of the Tibetans and has handed power over to him. The Tibetans want a democracy, in contrast to the dictatorship of China.

The Dalai Lama also said he was a half-marxist. Do you believe him?

[Pogue]

The Dalai Lama also said he was a half-marxist. Do you believe him?

I don't know him personally so I can't judge that. I see no reason why he isn't, though.


Who is the Dalai Lama to be "handing power" to this exiled Tibetan leader?


Due to tradition and the remnants of an theocracy which was abandoned in favour of democracy in the 1960s (in little lhasa, where the government in exile is seated) the Dalai Lhama was considered the de-facto leader of the Tibetans and is still seen as the leading spiritual and political figure, although he himself stood down because he does not want to, to paraphrase, get in the way of the democratic governments dealings with the whole Tibet situation. So he formally said he wants people to consider the head of the government of the Tibetan exiles as their political leader. He didn't have any real power to hand ove, he just symbolically withdrew from the political side of things. But in truth power was given to the newly created democratic government in the 60s.

[Killfacer]

But they don't. That's the point. Most Tibetans are not in favour of a return to theocracy.

I'm sure most of them aren't in favour of being ruled by China either...

[Pogue]

I'm sure most of them aren't in favour of being ruled by China either...

Excaclty, thats why I have and do support Free Tibet from a socialist perspective, something which is needed, as with all struggles.

[Revy]

Also, the Dalai Lama achknowledges the leader of the democratically elected government of the Tibetan government in exile as the leader of the Tibetans and has handed power over to him. The Tibetans want a democracy, in contrast to the dictatorship of China.

The Dalai Lama has stated some very racist things about non-Tibetans, most specifically, the idea that he would kick out enough non-Tibetans to ensure a Tibetan majority. That is a reactionary and oppressive view, not a democratic one.

[Killfacer]

The Dalai Lama has stated some very racist things about non-Tibetans, most specifically, the idea that he would kick out enough non-Tibetans to ensure a Tibetan majority. That is a reactionary and oppressive view, not a democratic one.

That's irrelevant. The point is that the majority of the population of Tibet is against Chinese occupation, therefor it is unnacceptable.

[Kassad]

If you'd read my post and constructed an intelligent response rather than building a strawman perhaps you'd look more intelligent.

I addressed all of this and the point mentioned in your last sentence. I said I support the Tibetan people and any people struggling against oppresion. Thats why I displayed solidarity in the Free Tibet movement back in the spring/summer when things were kicking off over there.

Because my solidarit yis universal I am also involved with the Free Palestinne conflict because I want to show solidarity with the people there too.

However I don't want a US puppet state in Tibet and I don't want a Hamas ruled society in Palestine. I want a worker run society, worldwide.

Sure, I can see where you're coming from there. Most groups struggling against tyranny deserves some form of solidarity. Still, there is a massive difference between the free Tibet and the free Palestine movements. The majority of Palestinians want to be free from Israel. Israel is an aggressor state that just wants to conquer the religious land. They don't deserve support. They have done nothing to help the Palestinian people.

The majority of people in Tibet appear content with Chinese oversight. It isn't like China is ruling the area with an iron fist or oppressing Tibetans and restricting civil rights. China has greatly improved Tibet's standard of living.

Nations are entitled to the right of self-determination if the majority so desire it. That's why Palestine should have it. Still, in Tibet, the majority do not desire a return to feudal society, whereas in Palestine, as much as you disagree with it, the people support Hamas. That is their choice.

[Pogue]

Sure, I can see where you're coming from there. Most groups struggling against tyranny deserves some form of solidarity. Still, there is a massive difference between the free Tibet and the free Palestine movements. The majority of Palestinians want to be free from Israel. Israel is an aggressor state that just wants to conquer the religious land. They don't deserve support. They have done nothing to help the Palestinian people.

The majority of people in Tibet appear content with Chinese oversight. It isn't like China is ruling the area with an iron fist or oppressing Tibetans and restricting civil rights. China has greatly improved Tibet's standard of living.

Nations are entitled to the right of self-determination if the majority so desire it. That's why Palestine should have it. Still, in Tibet, the majority do not desire a return to feudal society, whereas in Palestine, as much as you disagree with it, the people support Hamas. That is their choice.

You too have constructed a strawman. When did I, or anyone in the Free Tibet movement, say they wanted a return to feudal society?

[Kassad]

You too have constructed a strawman. When did I, or anyone in the Free Tibet movement, say they wanted a return to feudal society?

What do you honestly think would come out of it? A happy, joyous socialist state? Who's at the head of the free Tibet movement? The Dalai Lama, who advocated and promoted the religious feudalism that existed when he and his cronies were in power.

If China leaves Tibet alone, it will turn into a feudal puppet of the United States. That's all there is to it. It's like saying 'I wish every Democrat would get kicked out of office, but I don't want the Republicans to have more power.' It's a self-defeating statement.

[Killfacer]

What do you honestly think would come out of it? A happy, joyous socialist state? Who's at the head of the free Tibet movement? The Dalai Lama, who advocated and promoted the religious feudalism that existed when he and his cronies were in power.

If China leaves Tibet alone, it will turn into a feudal puppet of the United States. That's all there is to it. It's like saying 'I wish every Democrat would get kicked out of office, but I don't want the Republicans to have more power.' It's a self-defeating statement.

Bullshit. If China left, they would become a democracy.

[Pogue]

What do you honestly think would come out of it? A happy, joyous socialist state? Who's at the head of the free Tibet movement? The Dalai Lama, who advocated and promoted the religious feudalism that existed when he and his cronies were in power.

If China leaves Tibet alone, it will turn into a feudal puppet of the United States. That's all there is to it. It's like saying 'I wish every Democrat would get kicked out of office, but I don't want the Republicans to have more power.' It's a self-defeating statement.

The Dalai Lama is not the leader of the Tibetan people in exile, I made this clear in one of my earlier posts which you could go read. The 'leader' is a democratically elected government in little Lhasa.

Firstly, I am repulsed by your defeatism. What makes Tibetans so different that socialist class conciousness could not be instilled upon them by us working with them in their fight for freedom against capitalist imperialism? If the people of Palestine are worthy of our solidarity and efforts, which they are, I see no reason why the Tibetans are not also worthy of our support. I'd suggest that what the Tibetans will have if they were granted full independence at this stage would be a liberal democracy based around their government in exile, which would be better than what currently exists now. 84% of the vote cast was for their current government in democratic elecitons - much the same as how Hamas were democratically elected. Naturally, however, over a liberal democracy I'd like to see a worker run society. I see no reason, as I mentioned above, why this is unthinkable, as it is what we propose for every other oppresed person of the world.

I'd also like to mention that the constitution of the Tibetan governments makes no mention of creating a feudalistic society. No doubt comrades will create more strawmen to attack though.

[BobKKKindle$]

That's irrelevant. The point is that the majority of the population of Tibet is against Chinese occupation, therefor it is unnacceptable.This is exactly the point - socialists do not support the "Free Tibet" movement because it does not represent the demands of the Tibetan working population and so is not a genuine anti-imperialist struggle. We do not just give our support to any movement which claims to have the support of an oppressed nationality because this would lead to socialists supporting reactionary movements which use the language of democracy to create an illusion of popular support and obscure the fact that they intend to undermine progressive gains in order to serve the interests of the imperialist powers and restore feudal institutions. For example, in December of 2007, several provinces of Bolivia, including Santa Cruz, all of which were and still are dominated by right-wing political parties, threatened to break away from the rest of Bolivia and establish their own independent state, due to the progressive reforms implemented by Morales, which have undermined the hold of the United States and the national ruling class on Bolivia's natural resources, including tin deposits, and gas deserves. As one would expect, this campaign did not receive the backing of the Bolivian working class, because it was clearly designed to protect the interests of the rich at the expense of the oppressed, who have benefited from government under Morales. It would have been ridiculous for socialists to support this secession attempt on the grounds that there are some people campaigning for independence because, as in the case of the "Free Tibet" movement, it did not have the backing of the masses, and was posturing as a democratic movement to hide its real intentions. More information on this here: Break up of Bolivia planned by bosses, Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13811)

If the "Free Tibet" movement did command mass support, Tibetan workers would have rebelled against the PRC during the riots in Lhasa last year, in the same way that Palestinian workers rose up against their own oppressors during the Intifada - but they did not, and the riots (which were actually race riots, driven by anti-Han chauvinism) involved only a small section of the Tibetan population, representing the interests of an aspirant ruling class. If Tibetan workers suddenly decided to campaign for independence - an unlikely prospect, given that Tibet already receives extensive cultural and political autonomy, including exemption from the one-child policy - then there might be a case for socialists supporting the movement, but at the moment there is not.

[Kassad]

Killfacer, please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Well, we've reached a point in this discussion where you're just plain refusing to accept facts. The leaders of the free Tibet movement, meaning the figureheads of the movement, are the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist monks. When they were in power, they controlled the land and created terrible living and working conditions. China came in and changed that. The only reason that the Dalai Lama is so desperate to reclaim the land is so he and his cronies can retake the land and control the wealth once again. Revolutionary socialists have nothing in common with the Dalai Lama. I frankly don't see Tibet being oppressed. I see a small minority of former bourgeoisie who are dismayed at their loss of power. I guess you'd like to ignore that.

[Brother No. 1]

now that is all true comrade.

[Pogue]

This is exactly the point - socialists do not support the "Free Tibet" movement because it does not represent the demands of the Tibetan working population and so is not a genuine anti-imperialist struggle. We do not just give our support to any movement which claims to have the support of an oppressed nationality because this would lead to socialists supporting reactionary movements which use the language of democracy to create an illusion of popular support and obscure the fact that they intend to undermine progressive gains in order to serve the interests of the imperialist powers and restore feudal institutions. For example, in December of 2007, several provinces of Bolivia, including Santa Cruz, all of which were and still are dominated by right-wing political parties, threatened to break away from the rest of Bolivia and establish their own independent state, due to the progressive reforms implemented by Morales, which have undermined the hold of the United States and the national ruling class on Bolivia's natural resources, including tin deposits, and gas deserves. As one would expect, this campaign did not receive the backing of the Bolivian working class, because it was clearly designed to protect the interests of the rich at the expense of the oppressed, who have benefited from government under Morales. It would have been ridiculous for socialists to support this secession attempt on the grounds that there are some people campaigning independence because, as in the case of the "Free Tibet" movement, it did not have the backing of the masses. More information on this here: Break up of Bolivia planned by bosses, Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13811)

If the "Free Tibet" movement did command mass support, Tibetan workers would have rebelled against the PRC during the riots in Lhasa last year, in the same way that Palestinian workers rose up against their own oppressors during the Intifada - but they did not, and the riots (which were actually race riots, driven by anti-Han chauvinism) involved only a small section of the Tibetan population, representing the interests of an aspirant ruling class. If Tibetan workers suddenly decided to campaign for independence - an unlikely prospect, given that Tibet already receives extensive cultural and political autonomy, including exemption from the one-child policy - then there might be a case for socialists supporting the movement, but at the moment there is not.

But if we agree, morally, imperialism is wrong and class conciousness needs to be built, surely we would work towards getting the Tibetan people filled with the socialist conciousness neccesary to struggle against the Chinese government? Or perhaps the workers didn't rise up against China because they had no means too, or they feared reprisals, or they just simply didnt have the class conciousness?

I find the whole "China developed things" idea funny actually, seeing as I thought it was a Trotskyist theory which criticised 'social imperialism' as still being imperialism.

Many of the 'changes and gains' made in Tibet are a myth. Many of the benefits and developement ignored the Tibetan people, and even senior Communist Party officials recognised Tibet was in a bad state: http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white6.html. See Hu Yaobang's comments on the situation there.

[Pogue]

That article mentions colonialism, which we'd know as imperialism. The goal of imperialism is to exploit the invaded nation, as a stage of capitalism, for the benefit of the agressor nation. So, as socialists, we should not be suprised that China has been making gains from Tibet, and Tibetans are not seeing the benefits of their colonalisation.

[BobKKKindle$]

HLVS, I don't have time to read through that article now, but just a few things: "social-imperialism" is not a Trotskyist theory, but a term used by Maoists and Hoxhaists to refer to governments which portrayed themselves as socialist and were based on state property but used their economic and military strength to exercise control over other countries in pursuit of their own objectives. On the main subject of imperialism, if you agree that socialists should only side with anti-imperialist organizations when workers encounter oppression and resist their oppressors - assuming you accept my point on Bolivia - do you not also acknowledge that, at the current time, there is no sign that the majority of Tibetan workers actually want independence from China?

[Pogue]

HLVS, I don't have time to read through that article now, but just a few things: "social-imperialism" is not a Trotskyist theory, but a term used by Maoists and Hoxhaists to refer to governments which portrayed themselves as socialist and were based on statified property but used their economic and military strength to exercise control over other countries in pursuit of their own objectives. On the main subject of imperialism, if you agree that socialists should only side with anti-imperialist movements when workers encounter oppression and resist their oppressors - assuming you accept my point on Bolivia - do you not also acknowledge that, at the current time, there is no sign that the majority of Tibetan workers actually want independence from China?

Given the repression and lack of freedom of speech in Tibet, I'd say its hard to determine what the people really want.

[Kassad]

Given the repression and lack of freedom of speech in Tibet, I'd say its hard to determine what the people really want.

Demonization of China. The usual bourgeoisie propaganda. The United States acted the same way about Saddam Hussein, claiming he was this oppressive dictator and ruthless despot, then in turn, they wind up killing well over ten times the amount of people Saddam did through sanctions and military operations.

But you know, riddle me this. In Palestine, there isn't repression of freedom of speech. There is repression of the freedom to live! Israeli forces are tearing through the Gaza Strip, but the Palestinian freedom fighters and firing back and defending their land and their lives. I don't see any substantial uprising in Tibet, spare the Dalai Lama's slaves and Buddhist followers.

[Pogue]

Demonization of China. The usual bourgeoisie propaganda. The United States acted the same way about Saddam Hussein, claiming he was this oppressive dictator and ruthless despot, then in turn, they wind up killing well over ten times the amount of people Saddam did through sanctions and military operations.

But you know, riddle me this. In Palestine, there isn't repression of freedom of speech. There is repression of the freedom to live! Israeli forces are tearing through the Gaza Strip, but the Palestinian freedom fighters and firing back and defending their land and their lives. I don't see any substantial uprising in Tibet, spare the Dalai Lama's slaves and Buddhist followers.

The Dalai Lama doesn't enslave anyone.

Just because theres no resistance movement in Tibet doesn't mean there can't be one or shouldn't be one. On the contrary.

Please don't lecture me on Palestine, I've been incredibly active in the Freedom for Palestine movement in recent weeks and don't need to be taught on whats going on there by you.

[Kassad]

The Dalai Lama doesn't enslave anyone.

Just because theres no resistance movement in Tibet doesn't mean there can't be one or shouldn't be one. On the contrary.

Please don't lecture me on Palestine, I've been incredibly active in the Freedom for Palestine movement in recent weeks and don't need to be taught on whats going on there by you.

He uses religious manipulation, just like the leaders of all organized religions do. Religion is brainwashing and the Dalai Lama gets significant support from Buddhist monks, who are just another brainwashed group.

Apparently you need to learn how to compare the two situations, since they are very different, but you group them together. You're ignorant towards the fact that just because a group is fighting against one form of oppression does not mean that they aren't working towards forging another form of oppression.

[Pogue]

He uses religious manipulation, just like the leaders of all organized religions do. Religion is brainwashing and the Dalai Lama gets significant support from Buddhist monks, who are just another brainwashed group.

Apparently you need to learn how to compare the two situations, since they are very different, but you group them together. You're ignorant towards the fact that just because a group is fighting against one form of oppression does not mean that they aren't working towards forging another form of oppression.

You still haven't given me any proof that the Tibetan government wants to move towards a system as or more reactionary than China's system, or that which Hamas proposes. I understand there are some differences between the two situations but they also hold similarities. Struggle against an agressive invading power. I appreciate all states and capitalism is oppresion, thats why I want socialist intervention in the Free Tibet movement just as theres socialist intervention in the Free Palestine movement.

Once more the Dalai Lama doesn't hold political power, and the country is not ruled by unelected monks. The people are free to choose religion or not, they jsut do. You can't accuse them of being brainwashed, and saying they are presupposes they are idiots who cannot make decisions for themselves, which is of course a highly offensive and idiotic position to take.

[Kassad]

You still haven't given me any proof that the Tibetan government wants to move towards a system as or more reactionary than China's system, or that which Hamas proposes. I understand there are some differences between the two situations but they also hold similarities. Struggle against an agressive invading power. I appreciate all states and capitalism is oppresion, thats why I want socialist intervention in the Free Tibet movement just as theres socialist intervention in the Free Palestine movement.

Once more the Dalai Lama doesn't hold political power, and the country is not ruled by unelected monks. The people are free to choose religion or not, they jsut do. You can't accuse them of being brainwashed, and saying they are presupposes they are idiots who cannot make decisions for themselves, which is of course a highly offensive and idiotic position to take.

Ridiculous. I've grown up with Catholic education and seen what religious brainwashing can do in a country that allegedly has "freedom of religion." Give me a break. I realize the struggle, but I don't see Tibet as being invaded. I believe Tibet was liberated and I won't support throwing those revolutionary social changes away.

[Killfacer]

So now Suddam Hussien wasn't a a dictator? He was a vile despot...

The "liberation" of tibet has gone on for pretty god damn long don't you think? Shouldn't China let people make up their own minds up?

[Killfacer]

Killfacer, please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Well, we've reached a point in this discussion where you're just plain refusing to accept facts. The leaders of the free Tibet movement, meaning the figureheads of the movement, are the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist monks. When they were in power, they controlled the land and created terrible living and working conditions. China came in and changed that. The only reason that the Dalai Lama is so desperate to reclaim the land is so he and his cronies can retake the land and control the wealth once again. Revolutionary socialists have nothing in common with the Dalai Lama. I frankly don't see Tibet being oppressed. I see a small minority of former bourgeoisie who are dismayed at their loss of power. I guess you'd like to ignore that.

Your so clearly chatting shit. It's unbeleivable the garbage people come out with to defend china. So now the Dalai Lama and his monk cronies are going to turn Tibet into a feudal theocracy. Based on what exactly? The fact that it used to be one? Thats not evidence. By that logic we can assume that as soon as Scotland get's it's independance the Scots are going to grab claymores, don kilts and start raiding England.

Tibet has evolved and so have it's monks. The idea that China has "liberated" tibet and is continuing to do so in its occupation of the country is frankly laughable.

[Kassad]

So now Suddam Hussien wasn't a a dictator? He was a vile despot...

The "liberation" of tibet has gone on for pretty god damn long don't you think? Shouldn't China let people make up their own minds up?

You're missing the point. Saddam was oppressive, but it's an oxymoron to say "You're oppressive for killing 180,000 people" when our imposed sanctions and occupation have killed well over 1.5 million people. Still, the entire Iraq War is a farce and we didn't take him down for being a dictator. We took him down for refusing to accept corporate stipulations that the United States wanted to impose.

No, it hasn't. If China were to pull out right this minute, the reactionary feudalists would reclaim the area and restore their oppressive bourgeoisie regime once more, thus ending all the social reforms. Social change cannot be measured in time. It can be measured in magnitude.

[Killfacer]

What annoys me further is the fact that you come out with bullshit like "we have reached the point where you simply ignore the facts". What facts? There are no "facts" that say that the Dali Lama is going to become the leader of some Heart of Darkness-esque theocracy.

[Kassad]

Your so clearly chatting shit. It's unbeleivable the garbage people come out with to defend china. So now the Dalai Lama and his monk cronies are going to turn Tibet into a feudal theocracy. Based on what exactly? The fact that it used to be one? Thats not evidence. By that logic we can assume that as soon as Scotland get's it's independance the Scots are going to grab claymores, don kilts and start raiding England.

Tibet has evolved and so have it's monks. The idea that China has "liberated" tibet and is continuing to do so in its occupation of the country is frankly laughable.

Absurd. The small minority who are the figureheads of the movement are the same bourgeoisie rulers who were in power before China liberated the area. That's why they're the only ones rising up. The lives of the working class has been drasticall improved, as has the standard of living. The only people who lost were the feudalist oligarchy and they are the same ones instigating the movement for "freedom."

[Wanted Man]

It's ridiculous to think that the objectives of the old theocratic elite can be justified by quoting from a website of western useful idiots. It's much better to look at what they do in practice. For example, in March of 2008, they incited race riots against all non-Tibetans. Han Chinese people were chased with machetes, and the Islamic Hui population were also targeted, mosques burned. Source: The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2)


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

(...)

The residents are very angry. They are throwing stones at anyone who is Han [Chinese] or from other minorities like the Hui, who are Muslims. It seems like it's ethnic - like they want to kill anyone not Tibetan.The Tibet movement demands the full independence of not just the Tibetan Autonomous Region within China, but the whole "Greater Tibet", which includes parts of China where the Chinese are in the majority. Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7304825.stm). It demands the ethnic cleansing of all non-Tibetans in this area:


For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past.Source: The Dalai Lama (http://www.dalailama.com/page.121.htm).

Noble past? Well, we've already been through that. The article that liberals on RevLeft refuse to read: http://michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And, as Killfacer will remember, we already went through the source of support that the Tibet movement gets last month:

CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm) (HistoryNet)
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html) (University Press of Kansas)
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442) (Global Research)
Foreign Relations of the United States 1964-68, Vol. XXX, China (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) (US State Department)

From the US State Department source:


1. Summary--The CIA Tibetan Activity consists of political action, propaganda, and paramilitary activity. The purpose of the program at this stage is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, and to build a capability for resistance against possible political developments inside Communist China.

The Free Tibet movement in the west reproduces racist attacks against the Chinese. Source: Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/) (sorry...).

During the torch relay in Paris, pro-Tibet protesters attacked a disabled torchbearer in her wheelchair. Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2297096/Disabled-girl-becomes-China%27s-Olympic-heroine.html).

But who cares about facts and sources when you can just stop thinking? Free Tibet!!!!!!

[Herman]

The point is that the majority of the population of Tibet is against Chinese occupation, therefor it is unnacceptable.

You have any proof for that?

[JimmyJazz]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Bush,_Byrd_and_Pelosi_awarding_the_Dalai_Lama.jpg

[RedStarOverChina]

Once more the Dalai Lama doesn't hold political power, and the country is not ruled by unelected monks. The people are free to choose religion or not, they jsut do. You can't accuse them of being brainwashed, and saying they are presupposes they are idiots who cannot make decisions for themselves, which is of course a highly offensive and idiotic position to take.
This shows how incredibly ignorant you are of the situation in Tibet.

First, the Dalai Lama does hold political power. Supreme political power, in fact. He is known as the "God-King", in other words, both lord temporal and lord spiritual. The "parliament" in Dharamsala, India is a joke and even the Bourgeoisie media recognize it. No bill against the Dalai Lama has ever been even initiated.

Tenzen Giatso,aka the Dalai Lama, repeatedly justifed theocracy\ both the one in pre-PRC Tibet and the one he is currently running in Dharansala. He made it clear that the Dalai Lama is to play a central role in Tibetan politics. People in Dharamsala who do not comply with Dalai's visions are shuned and attacked, often physically. Just google the phrase "Dorje Shugden" and see for yourself how the followers of this Tibetan deity suffer at the hand of the Dalai theocracy.

Again, I'm shocked at the utter ignorance of the fans of the Dalai Lama who felt the need to profess their support for their uninformed cause.

[Brother No. 1]

Comrade I am as shocked as you

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't agree with the PRC's policies in Tibet, and after visiting Lhasa several times in the past few years, I fear that racial tension is on the rise. The problem is a complex one, and not all of it can be blamed on the PRC government.

Oppression in Tibet exists in a subtle form, and not all perpentrated by the government but instead by the harsh realities of capitalism. The uneducated Tibetan youths in Lhasa who speak neither Chinese nor English, have no way of competing with Han and Hui Muslims in pratically any field. Many cannot even write in the Tibetan language.

In terms of government policies, Han Chinese complain that policies in Tibet actually favor Tibetans and discriminate against Hans. Tibetans, for example, do not have to comply with the family planning policy. Tibetan students can go to collage at a much lower exam score. I have heard complaints that state employers would often hire Tibetans over Hans despite qualifications of the former.

Supporters of the PRC's economic policies in Tibet cite the heavy investment China has poured into Tibet---which is note-worthy. Though it has certainly improved the overall economic condition in Tibet, it has utterly failed to help poorer and uneducated Tibetans facing stiff competition from Han migrants mostly from neighbouring Sichuan province. In comparison, Ethnic Hans have benefited more from government investment than Tibetans have, not because of government discrimination but because of the ground realities.

Even more worrying to me is the increasingly contemptuous attitude both Han officials and Han migrants are expressing towards the Tibetans, since last year's race riot. The events last year (and many more years of policy failure) have done much to alienate Tibetans from other ethnic communities.

[Brother No. 1]

that is true comrade

[Pogue]

that is true comrade

Do you do anything other than lick the boots of everyone else on the forum?

[Pogue]

I don't agree with the PRC's policies in Tibet, and after visiting Lhasa several times in the past few years, I fear that racial tension is on the rise. The problem is a complex one, and not all of it can be blamed on the PRC government.

Oppression in Tibet exists in a subtle form, and not all perpentrated by the government but instead by the harsh realities of capitalism. The uneducated Tibetan youths in Lhasa who speak neither Chinese nor English, have no way of competing with Han and Hui Muslims in pratically any field. Many cannot even write in the Tibetan language.

In terms of government policies, Han Chinese complain that policies in Tibet actually favor Tibetans and discriminate against Hans. Tibetans, for example, do not have to comply with the family planning policy. Tibetan students can go to collage at a much lower exam score. I have heard complaints that state employers would often hire Tibetans over Hans despite qualifications of the former.

Supporters of the PRC's economic policies in Tibet cite the heavy investment China has poured into Tibet---which is note-worthy. Though it has certainly improved the overall economic condition in Tibet, it has utterly failed to help poorer and uneducated Tibetans facing stiff competition from Han migrants mostly from neighbouring Sichuan province. In comparison, Ethnic Hans have benefited more from government investment than Tibetans have, not because of government discrimination but because of the ground realities.

Even more worrying to me is the increasingly contemptuous attitude both Han officials and Han migrants are expressing towards the Tibetans, since last year's race riot. The events last year (and many more years of policy failure) have done much to alienate Tibetans from other ethnic communities.

If capitalism is to blame, why don't you support me in my attempts to try and put a socialist bent on the Free Tibet movement?

Also please source your claims about Tibet as I have done.

[Pogue]

It's ridiculous to think that the objectives of the old theocratic elite can be justified by quoting from a website of western useful idiots. It's much better to look at what they do in practice. For example, in March of 2008, they incited race riots against all non-Tibetans. Han Chinese people were chased with machetes, and the Islamic Hui population were also targeted, mosques burned. Source: The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2)

The Tibet movement demands the full independence of not just the Tibetan Autonomous Region within China, but the whole "Greater Tibet", which includes parts of China where the Chinese are in the majority. Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7304825.stm). It demands the ethnic cleansing of all non-Tibetans in this area:

Source: The Dalai Lama (http://www.dalailama.com/page.121.htm).

Noble past? Well, we've already been through that. The article that liberals on RevLeft refuse to read: http://michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And, as Killfacer will remember, we already went through the source of support that the Tibet movement gets last month:

CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm) (HistoryNet)
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html) (University Press of Kansas)
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442) (Global Research)
Foreign Relations of the United States 1964-68, Vol. XXX, China (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) (US State Department)

From the US State Department source:



The Free Tibet movement in the west reproduces racist attacks against the Chinese. Source: Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/) (sorry...).

During the torch relay in Paris, pro-Tibet protesters attacked a disabled torchbearer in her wheelchair. Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2297096/Disabled-girl-becomes-China%27s-Olympic-heroine.html).

But who cares about facts and sources when you can just stop thinking? Free Tibet!!!!!!

You'r enot suggesting anyone in the Free Tibet campaign is racist are you? Genuine question.

[manic expression]

If capitalism is to blame, why don't you support me in my attempts to try and put a socialist bent on the Free Tibet movement?

Because that makes about as much sense as trying to put a "socialist bent" on the supporters of Franz Joseph I: none.

[Pogue]

Because that makes about as much sense as trying to put a "socialist bent" on the supporters of Franz Joseph I: none.

The Free Tibet movement calls for the liberation of the area of Tibet from Chinese Rule. It doesn't entail support for the Dalai Lama. You're not winning by destorying these strawmen, comrade.

[Dóchas]

Do you do anything other than lick the boots of everyone else on the forum?

i agree with you there but hey its pretty funny at the same time :lol:

[BobKKKindle$]

You'r enot suggesting anyone in the Free Tibet campaign is racist are you? Genuine question. The Spiked article certainly suggests that supporters of the "Free Tibet" movements are blind to the similarities between their own presentation of the Han presence in Tibet and older, explicitly racist images which portray Han Chinese as having buck teeth and deformed eyes. In addition, one of the main points of criticism for the movement is the influx of Han immigrants who are allegedly undermining the cultural traditions of the Tibetan people (despite the fact that the vast majority of schools in Tibet teach all subjects in Tibetan up until secondary level, and thereafter Tibetan language classes are available at no additional expense for all students) and diluting Tibet's ethnic composition. This is exactly the same kind of rhetoric used by the European far-right to oppose immigration from outside Europe and should always be opposed by socialists, just as we always demand open borders, regardless of whether the country restricting immigration is an imperialist state or a semi-colonial nation. More importantly, however, the people living inside Tibet who participated in the riots last year hunted through the streets of Lhasa looking for shops owned by non-Tibetans and once they had located these shops they were burned to the ground, in some cases with the inhabitants still inside. These and other racist atrocities are well documented, even by western media outlets, such as the Reuters article in the thread linked to at the beginning of this discussion.

[Wanted Man]

You'r enot suggesting anyone in the Free Tibet campaign is racist are you? Genuine question.
I have no idea how many of them are deliberately racist. But they evoke racist imagery as a direct result of their politically simplistic view of the situation.

Anyway, you are pulling your usual trick of trying to distract the attention from the facts (because they contradict your personal opinions) to relatively irrelevant issues, like my personal opinions of Free Tibet campaigners (I do not know any of them, so I can't judge, I only have their words and their material). You demanded proof, facts and sources. I provide them, now you've suddenly decided to shut up about them.

[Pogue]

I have no idea how many of them are deliberately racist. But they evoke racist imagery as a direct result of their politically simplistic view of the situation.

Anyway, you are pulling your usual trick of trying to distract the attention from the facts (because they contradict your personal opinions) to relatively irrelevant issues, like my personal opinions of Free Tibet campaigners (I do not know any of them, so I can't judge, I only have their words and their material). You demanded proof, facts and sources. I provide them, now you've suddenly decided to shut up about them.

No I just genuinely want to know if you consider the Free Tibet movement to be racist, as in do you feel those who protested on the streets of London are racist or supportive of racism?

[BobKKKindle$]

No I just genuinely want to know if you consider the Free Tibet movement to be racist, as in do you feel those who protested on the streets of London are racist or supportive of racism?

This question is based on a false premise - that all the people who see themselves as supporters of Tibetan independence view the world in exactly the same way and all have the same criticisms of the current PRC presence in Tibet. There may be some people who hold racist ideas even if they are not consciously aware of the fact - whereas there are also others who want to improve the conditions of people living in Tibet as well as the rest of China but have been fed misinformation and so are supporting a reactionary movement despite their honorable intentions.

[Wanted Man]

I just told you, in the first two sentences of my previous post. Bobkindles gave a more extensive explanation, but you never read his posts because he's better and smarter than you. I suggest reading it anyway. If you still can't understand it then, I'm sorry.

Some prominent Tibet worriers are genuinely pro-imperialist, colonial and/or racist, like Joanna Lumley, "who proudly recalled that her father had once helped Tibet against China on behalf of the British Raj" (source: The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/17/zimbabwe.tibet)).

So since you have already been answered, let's get back to the facts, sources and proof. Oh, wait, you don't want that, do you? Why are you so afraid of them? Do you hope that less people will read them once your irrelevant chatter reaches the next page?

[Pogue]

I just told you, in the first two sentences of my previous post. Bobkindles gave a more extensive explanation, but you never read his posts because he's better and smarter than you. Some prominent Tibet worriers are genuinely pro-imperialist, colonial and/or racist, like Joanna Lumley, "who proudly recalled that her father had once helped Tibet against China on behalf of the British Raj" (source: The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/17/zimbabwe.tibet)).

So since you have already been answered, let's get back to the facts, sources and proof. Oh, wait, you don't want that, do you? Why are you so afraid of them? Do you hope that less people will read them once your irrelevant chatter reaches the next page?

Where did that come from? In what way is he better and smarter than me? I frequently talk to him in private messages so I dn=on't udnerstand you here at all.

I'll address whatever it is your asking of me when you start typing in a more civil manner. I've never actually seen you adress me in such a manner though. You've even been racist to me once.





What excactly is it your asking of me?

[Wanted Man]

I'm asking you to address this post:

It's ridiculous to think that the objectives of the old theocratic elite can be justified by quoting from a website of western useful idiots. It's much better to look at what they do in practice. For example, in March of 2008, they incited race riots against all non-Tibetans. Han Chinese people were chased with machetes, and the Islamic Hui population were also targeted, mosques burned. Source: The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2)


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

(...)

The residents are very angry. They are throwing stones at anyone who is Han [Chinese] or from other minorities like the Hui, who are Muslims. It seems like it's ethnic - like they want to kill anyone not Tibetan.The Tibet movement demands the full independence of not just the Tibetan Autonomous Region within China, but the whole "Greater Tibet", which includes parts of China where the Chinese are in the majority. Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7304825.stm). It demands the ethnic cleansing of all non-Tibetans in this area:


For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past.Source: The Dalai Lama (http://www.dalailama.com/page.121.htm).

Noble past? Well, we've already been through that. The article that liberals on RevLeft refuse to read: http://michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And, as Killfacer will remember, we already went through the source of support that the Tibet movement gets last month:

CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm) (HistoryNet)
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html) (University Press of Kansas)
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442) (Global Research)
Foreign Relations of the United States 1964-68, Vol. XXX, China (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) (US State Department)

From the US State Department source:


1. Summary--The CIA Tibetan Activity consists of political action, propaganda, and paramilitary activity. The purpose of the program at this stage is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, and to build a capability for resistance against possible political developments inside Communist China.

The Free Tibet movement in the west reproduces racist attacks against the Chinese. Source: Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/) (sorry...).

During the torch relay in Paris, pro-Tibet protesters attacked a disabled torchbearer in her wheelchair. Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2297096/Disabled-girl-becomes-China%27s-Olympic-heroine.html).

But who cares about facts and sources when you can just stop thinking? Free Tibet!!!!!!

[Herman]

The Free Tibet movement calls for the liberation of the area of Tibet from Chinese Rule. It doesn't entail support for the Dalai Lama. You're not winning by destorying these strawmen, comrade.

That's what they say. In practice, things like what Wanted Man linked to happen. And they prove conclusively that the Free Tibet movement is reactionary.

[Pogue]

I'm asking you to address this post:

It's ridiculous to think that the objectives of the old theocratic elite can be justified by quoting from a website of western useful idiots. It's much better to look at what they do in practice. For example, in March of 2008, they incited race riots against all non-Tibetans. Han Chinese people were chased with machetes, and the Islamic Hui population were also targeted, mosques burned. Source: The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/15/tibet.china2)

The Tibet movement demands the full independence of not just the Tibetan Autonomous Region within China, but the whole "Greater Tibet", which includes parts of China where the Chinese are in the majority. Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7304825.stm). It demands the ethnic cleansing of all non-Tibetans in this area:

Source: The Dalai Lama (http://www.dalailama.com/page.121.htm).

Noble past? Well, we've already been through that. The article that liberals on RevLeft refuse to read: http://michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And, as Killfacer will remember, we already went through the source of support that the Tibet movement gets last month:

CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm) (HistoryNet)
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html) (University Press of Kansas)
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442) (Global Research)
Foreign Relations of the United States 1964-68, Vol. XXX, China (http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) (US State Department)

From the US State Department source:



The Free Tibet movement in the west reproduces racist attacks against the Chinese. Source: Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4975/) (sorry...).

During the torch relay in Paris, pro-Tibet protesters attacked a disabled torchbearer in her wheelchair. Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2297096/Disabled-girl-becomes-China%27s-Olympic-heroine.html).

But who cares about facts and sources when you can just stop thinking? Free Tibet!!!!!!

By Free Tibet movement, and I was too unclear on this, I mean those generally calling for the liberation of Tibet from Chinese rule, not just one group.

Oncemore, strawmen, I don't support feudalism or CIA puppet states, hence why I call for socialist intervention in the Free Tibet movement to give it a distinctly anti-authoritarian and pro-socialist stance.

But do you consider those who participate in the protests to be racist? I was in those protests, in support of an oppresed people resisting authoritarian rule, and even the SWP supported the initial uprisings.

[BobKKKindle$]

I call for socialist intervention in the Free Tibet movement to give it a distinctly anti-authoritarian and pro-socialist stance.Should socialists also have intervened in the 2007 secession attempt in Bolivia, with the aim of giving it a "socialist stance", despite the fact that the attempt was instigated and controlled by the economic elite from the beginning and clearly designed to undermine the achievements of the progressive government and place Bolivia's natural resources in the hands of the imperialist powers? Based on the arguments you've put forward above, the answer to this question would have to be yes, because you seem to think that just because a particular movement claims that a people are suffering national oppression, they must be telling the truth, and are incapable of having any kind of sinister or hidden agenda. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, socialists support anti-imperialist movements when they are actually opposed to imperialism, i.e. when they receive the backing of an oppressed working class - and evaluating whether this is the case is an important task for socialists. The "Free Tibet" movement is not a genuine movement because Tibetan workers failed to respond to the uprising in 2008 and an analysis of the movement's history and objectives shows that, instead of wanting to defeat imperialism and achieve genuine liberation, it aims to enhance the ability of the US and the rest of the imperialist bloc to exploit the Chinese people and destroy the territorial unity of the PRC.

[Pogue]

Should socialists also have intervened in the 2007 secession attempt in Bolivia, with the aim of giving it a "socialist stance", despite the fact that the attempt was instigated and controlled by the economic elite from the beginning and clearly designed to undermine the achievements of the progressive government and place Bolivia's natural resources in the hands of the imperialist powers? Based on the arguments you've put forward above, the answer to this question would have to be yes, because you seem to think that just because a particular movement claims that a people are suffering national oppression, they must be telling the truth, and are incapable of having any kind of sinister or hidden agenda. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, socialists support anti-imperialist movements when they are actually opposed to imperialism, i.e. when they receive the backing of an oppressed working class - and evaluating whether this is the case is an important task for socialists. The "Free Tibet" movement is not a genuine movement because Tibetan workers failed to respond to the uprising in 2008 and an analysis of the movement's history and objectives shows that, instead of wanting to defeat imperialism and achieve genuine liberation, it aims to enhance the ability of the US and the rest of the imperialist bloc to exploit the Chinese people and destroy the territorial unity of the PRC.

The difference is that the goals of the Bolivian reactionaries were distinctly opposed to a progressive government and was openly and solely racist, authoritarian in anture. If we accept the definition of free tibet to be a Tibet free from the rule of an authoritarian dictatorship currently engaged in free market policies, etc, then we see this movement is progressive and aims to liberate an oppresed people.

Just because there were no strikes and such doesn't mean the working class did not support the movement. If you can provide statistics I'll concede that point.

[Wanted Man]

By Free Tibet movement, and I was too unclear on this, I mean those generally calling for the liberation of Tibet from Chinese rule, not just one group.

Oncemore, strawmen, I don't support feudalism or CIA puppet states, hence why I call for socialist intervention in the Free Tibet movement to give it a distinctly anti-authoritarian and pro-socialist stance.

But do you consider those who participate in the protests to be racist? I was in those protests, in support of an oppresed people resisting authoritarian rule, and even the SWP supported the initial uprisings.

I know you don't support feudalism, I didn't bring those things up as an argument against you particularly. But looking at Tibet's pre-1959 history, and looking at the CIA and other reactionary support for the Tibet movement, is enough reason for me to be suspicious of that movement. So these things do deserve your consideration, because you have decided to support the Tibet movement.

I know that this movement is composed of more than just the single group called "International Campaign for Tibet" (www.savetibet.org (http://www.savetibet.org)). But it's a fact that there is no Tibet movement that supports class struggle within Tibet, supports internationalism, condemns pre-1959 Tibet 100% (in fact, they act as apologists for it, describing it as a peaceful Shangri-la before the Chinese came in), opposes the Dalai Lama and his religious sect, opposes "Greater Tibet", opposes the ethnic cleansing of all non-Tibetans from "Greater Tibet", etc.

Now, if you want to make a socialist movement that supports an independent Tibet along socialist lines, or commit "entryism" within the existing movement, more power to you. But that would be like a drop of water on a glowing hot plate. It won't extinguish the huge reactionary interests that I have demonstrated to be at work here. It is up to the working class of Tibet and the rest of China to establish socialism, not to western socialists who naively think that they can somehow turn around a liberal movement backed by the CIA, Soros, etc.

I don't think all protesters are racist. I think most of them are naive, some are subconsciously racist, and some may well be vicious reactionaries. I know you wouldn't draw racist caricatures of the "yellow peril" or attack a handicapped woman. And yet the Tibet movement has done just that. I'm also not too thrilled about the SWP's position on this, it is one of the many political problems with the SWP.

[Pogue]

I know you don't support feudalism, I didn't bring those things up as an argument against you particularly. But looking at Tibet's pre-1959 history, and looking at the CIA and other reactionary support for the Tibet movement, is enough reason for me to be suspicious of that movement. So these things do deserve your consideration, because you have decided to support the Tibet movement.

I know that this movement is composed of more than just the single group called "International Campaign for Tibet" (www.savetibet.org (http://www.savetibet.org)). But it's a fact that there is no Tibet movement that supports class struggle within Tibet, supports internationalism, condemns pre-1959 Tibet 100% (in fact, they act as apologists for it, describing it as a peaceful Shangri-la before the Chinese came in), opposes the Dalai Lama and his religious sect, opposes "Greater Tibet", opposes the ethnic cleansing of all non-Tibetans from "Greater Tibet", etc.

Now, if you want to make a socialist movement that supports an independent Tibet along socialist lines, or commit "entryism" within the existing movement, more power to you. But that would be like a drop of water on a glowing hot plate. It won't extinguish the huge reactionary interests that I have demonstrated to be at work here. It is up to the working class of Tibet and the rest of China to establish socialism, not to western socialists who naively think that they can somehow turn around a liberal movement backed by the CIA, Soros, etc.

I don't think all protesters are racist. I think most of them are naive, some are subconsciously racist, and some may well be vicious reactionaries. I know you wouldn't draw racist caricatures of the "yellow peril" or attack a handicapped woman. And yet the Tibet movement has done just that. I'm also not too thrilled about the SWP's position on this, it is one of the many political problems with the SWP.

I think saying most are naive is unfair somewhat, as most responded to what is genuine repression and authoritarianism. When I went out on the streets it was in defense of a people being attacked by an authoritarian regime.

[Wanted Man]

The difference is that the goals of the Bolivian reactionaries were distinctly opposed to a progressive government and was openly and solely racist, authoritarian in anture. If we accept the definition of free tibet to be a Tibet free from the rule of an authoritarian dictatorship currently engaged in free market policies, etc, then we see this movement is progressive and aims to liberate an oppresed people.
The comparison with Bolivia is good, actually. The movement of the Dalai Lama, his buddhist sect, its monks in Tibet, his government in exile, his CIA backers... they are also all racist and authoritarian, if not theocratic. They say they want democracy and peace, just like it used to be before 1959. But anyone who studies history knows that before 1959 it was a theocracy, where slaves and serfs were brutally exploited by the old elite. The movement is based on this old elite and represents its interests. How can it be progressive?


Just because there were no strikes and such doesn't mean the working class did not support the movement. If you can provide statistics I'll concede that point.
Well, I'm sure nobody tried to hold opinion polls in the middle of a riot. But a look at the perpetrators (monks of the sect that justifies the old elites) and its targets (anyone who has the "wrong" race or religion) is very telling already. Also, not everything that "the working class supports" is automatically a revolution, or even progressive at all.

[Wanted Man]

I think saying most are naive is unfair somewhat, as most responded to what is genuine repression and authoritarianism. When I went out on the streets it was in defense of a people being attacked by an authoritarian regime.
They responded to genuine repression and authoritarianism, this is true. But they did so at the behest of a reactionary clique that semi-openly wants a return to a barbaric past. That is naive, in my opinion.

[Pogue]

The comparison with Bolivia is good, actually. The movement of the Dalai Lama, his buddhist sect, its monks in Tibet, his government in exile, his CIA backers... they are also all racist and authoritarian, if not theocratic. They say they want democracy and peace, just like it used to be before 1959. But anyone who studies history knows that before 1959 it was a theocracy, where slaves and serfs were brutally exploited by the old elite. The movement is based on this old elite and represents its interests. How can it be progressive?


Well, I'm sure nobody tried to hold opinion polls in the middle of a riot. But a look at the perpetrators (monks of the sect that justifies the old elites) and its targets (anyone who has the "wrong" race or religion) is very telling already. Also, not everything that "the working class supports" is automatically a revolution, or even progressive at all.

But the movement of the Dalai Lama is different from the movement I particiipated in, which was one which wanted a people liberated from an authoritarian regime.

The protests attacking people base don ethnicity and religion were disgusting. I understand however they also initially attacked government buildings and staged more peaceful protests.

[Wanted Man]

But the movement of the Dalai Lama is different from the movement I particiipated in, which was one which wanted a people liberated from an authoritarian regime.
Which movement is that, then? Any links explaining its views?


The protests attacking people base don ethnicity and religion were disgusting. I understand however they also initially attacked government buildings and staged more peaceful protests.True, there were also other forms of protests. But the wave of protests as a whole were not even slightly related to an actual proletarian movement of any kind. This can be recognised without supporting the brutal response of the government. Even a case like Hungary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascists-1956-hungarian-t98321/index.html) is much less clear cut.

[BobKKKindle$]

If we accept the definition of free tibet to be a Tibet free from the rule of an authoritarian dictatorship currently engaged in free market policies, etc,Condemning the "Free Tibet" movement is not the same as apologizing for the corrupt elite which currently holds the reigns of power in Beijing - but it is also blindly naive to assume that an independent Tibet would have a realistic chance of implementing policies which benefit the Tibetan working class and allow Tibet to defend itself against imperialist exploitation. By your own admission, the key section of the "Free Tibet" movement - the Dalai Lama and all the other religious leaders who were forced to flee to India and other neighboring countries after they were overthrown by the Tibetan working population with the help of the PLA - continues to receive assistance in various forms from the US. Why would the US want to give all this help if they lacked a guarantee that an independent Tibet would serve their own interests? Would the US be willing to accept the existence of a democratic and progressive government after having given such extensive support to the movement for more than four decades? This is what we mean when we accuse the "Free Tibet" movement of being naive - its adherents do not consider what the real political consequences would be if Tibet split away from the rest of China and formed its own independent state because if they did consider these issues they would realize that the movement they support is simply a tool in the hands of the US and will never bring real benefits to the working people of Tibet.

Incidentally, HLVS, should socialists also call for Taiwanese independence? What about the independence of Hong Kong?


This can be recognised without supporting the brutal response of the governmentActually, the government response was impressive considering the circumstances - medical help was always available for protesters who were harmed by the local authorities, and the police generally restricted their response to non-lethal weapons such as water cannons. This is not in any way to support the Chinese state, because Marxists oppose all capitalist states, but maintaining an accurate version of events is always desirable.

[Pogue]

Which movement is that, then? Any links explaining its views?

True, there were also other forms of protests. But the wave of protests as a whole were not even slightly related to an actual proletarian movement of any kind. This can be recognised without supporting the brutal response of the government. Even a case like Hungary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascists-1956-hungarian-t98321/index.html) is much less clear cut.

On the first point I meant it more from my perspective, which was me particpating in a day of protest against the murder of civilians by an authoritarian regime.

The uprising in Hungary was thoroughly proletarian, a rebellino against capitalism and authoritarianism.

[RedStarOverChina]

If capitalism is to blame, why don't you support me in my attempts to try and put a socialist bent on the Free Tibet movement?

Also please source your claims about Tibet as I have done.

Because there is no socialist alternative. Dalai and his cronies are the only game in town, and supporting them is no different from supporting imperialist interventions in China. Most supporters of Dalai Lama are as anti-communist as they can be, so good luck trying add a socialist flavour to their cause.

The majority of Tibetans are farmer-herders---thinly spread across an area the size of France. Many if not most of the rural population, believe it or not, are devoutly loyal to the Chinese Communist Party, or at least their image of the CCP. One farmer from a rural town near Lhasa proudly showed me the picture of Mao in his livingroom, telling me how he wouldn't be living off the land if it weren't for "the Party"; while agreeing with disappointment that the CPC is not what it used to be. How can there be anything that remotely resemble a socialist movement under these circumstances?

At the end of the day, Tibetan nationalism as it is today has little progressive element in it, and creates many more problems than it even attempts to solve.

Since I am working for the moment, I cannot flip throw books and cite evidence for everything I wrote. But if you want to learn more about the Tibetan independence movement, go to Youtube and google Dorje Shugden and watch some of the videos.

[Pogue]

Because there is no socialist alternative. Dalai and his cronies are the only game in town, and supporting them is no different from supporting imperialist interventions in China. Most supporters of Dalai Lama are as anti-communist as they can be, so good luck trying add a socialist flavour to their cause.

The majority of Tibetans are farmer-herders---thinly spread across an area the size of France. Many if not most of the rural population, believe it or not, are devoutly loyal to the Chinese Communist Party, or at least their image of the CCP. One farmer from a rural town near Lhasa proudly showed me the picture of Mao in his livingroom, telling me how he wouldn't be living off the land if it weren't for "the Party"; while agreeing with disappointment that the CPC is not what it used to be. How can there be anything that remotely resemble a socialist movement under these circumstances?

At the end of the day, Tibetan nationalism as it is today has little progressive element in it, and creates many more problems than it even attempts to solve.

Since I am working for the moment, I cannot flip throw books and cite evidence for everything I wrote. But if you want to learn more about the Tibetan independence movement, go to Youtube and google Dorje Shugden and watch some of the videos.

But we achknowledge that class or socialist conciousness is low pretty much everywhere in the world. The point is that we're meant to help create it. I see no reason why Tibet is any different. I want these people to understand their suffering is at the hands of capitalism and the state, and that, to those specific elements who attacked different ethnic groups in the fighting, the fight is internationalist, and so other ethnicities and nationalities are not the enemy, but the nation state and the bourgeois class are.

The fact there was ethnic hatred from some people is evidence of how much socialist input is needed to direct anger at the real enemy, capitalism. Same as with anywhere else in the world. Thats why I participated in the protests.

[RedStarOverChina]

But we achknowledge that class or socialist conciousness is low pretty much everywhere in the world. The point is that we're meant to help create it. I see no reason why Tibet is any different. I want these people to understand their suffering is at the hands of capitalism and the state, and that, to those specific elements who attacked different ethnic groups in the fighting, the fight is internationalist, and so other ethnicities and nationalities are not the enemy, but the nation state and the bourgeois class are.

The fact there was ethnic hatred from some people is evidence of how much socialist input is needed to direct anger at the real enemy, capitalism. Same as with anywhere else in the world. Thats why I participated in the protests.

What does socialism have to do with Tibetan independence, though? To me, the two concepts seem contradictory for the moment. Do you honestly believe the communist cause can be helped if Tibet declares independence?

Quite the contrary, in my opinion. Ethnic divides will only strength if such a thing is to happen. If, say, the Dalai Lama and his men gain reign of Tibet and declares an independence. They will have to literally ethnically cleanse the other ethnicities in order to get rid of the economic inequalities that exists among ethnicities. That's not good, in my opinion. Not to mention the effect the restoration of priestly power will have in Tibet.

I'm not a typical believer in the myths of "economic development", but the CCP has got the cash and it ain't shy about throwing it around. That could prove to be key in alleviating Tibetans from poverty.

China's capitalist policies have disastrously failed to benefit Tibetans as it has failed to benefit the poor in the rest of China, because blindly pursues further "development" while alienating the poor and destroying traditional social institutions setup during Maoist years.

But lets face it, if CCP's cash can be used in a less reckless manner, it could improve the livelihood of ordinary Tibetans and eventually obtain equal status among different ethnicities.

That, ultimately is good, because it will develop Tibet into a humane society and eventually readies it for communism.

[Pogue]

What does socialism have to do with Tibetan independence, though? To me, the two concepts seem contradictory for the moment. Do you honestly believe the communist cause can be helped if Tibet declares independence?

Quite the contrary, in my opinion. Ethnic divides will only strength if such a thing is to happen. If, say, the Dalai Lama and his men gain reign of Tibet and declares an independence. They will have to literally ethnically cleanse the other ethnicities in order to get rid of the economic inequalities that exists among ethnicities. That's not good, in my opinion. Not to mention the effect the restoration of priestly power will have in Tibet.

I'm not a typical believer in the myths of "economic development", but the CCP has got the cash and it ain't shy about throwing it around. That could prove to be key in alleviating Tibetans from poverty.

China's capitalist policies have disastrously failed to benefit Tibetans as it has failed to benefit the poor in the rest of China, because blindly pursues further "development" while alienating the poor and destroying traditional social institutions setup during Maoist years.

But lets face it, if CCP's cash can be used in a less reckless manner, it could improve the livelihood of ordinary Tibetans and eventually obtain equal status among different ethnicities.

That, ultimately is good, because it will develop Tibet into a humane society and eventually readies it for communism.

Well if we view communism as international which I assume everyone here does, sees it as neccesary the revolution is internaitonal and desires to spread it everywhere, destroying national boundaries, then it has to be established in Tibet just as it has to be established in Britain, Israel, palestine and the North Pole, so we should be fighting for communism there as we fight for anywhere else.

[BobKKKindle$]

so we should be fighting for communism there as we fight for anywhere else.

Of course we should - but why does this require us to support a movement which does not command the mass support of the Tibetan working class and would severely undermine the interests of the working population if it ever managed to gain power?

[Pogue]

Of course we should - but why does this require us to support a movement which does not command the mass support of the Tibetan working class and would severely undermine the interests of the working population if it ever managed to gain power?

Well thats why, and perhaps I was unclear becuase at times I was forced to dispel certain myths about the Dala Lama and movement in general from an intellectual viewpoint only - my participation in the protests or 'movement' if you'd like to call it that was from a general perspective as an anarchist triyng to side with people under an authoritarian regime. So when I talk about a free tibet, I mean a socialist tibet, free from US, Chinese or feudalistic influence.

[Invincible Summer]

Well thats why, and perhaps I was unclear becuase at times I was forced to dispel certain myths about the Dala Lama and movement in general from an intellectual viewpoint only - my participation in the protests or 'movement' if you'd like to call it that was from a general perspective as an anarchist triyng to side with people under an authoritarian regime. So when I talk about a free tibet, I mean a socialist tibet, free from US, Chinese or feudalistic influence.

Were you the only one? Lots of people I know at my university campus jizz themselves over Tibet - the "Free Tibet!" movement is quite strong here, due to all the yuppies and hippies no doubt. But they're all definitely reactionary, unlike your stance which I sort of understand now.

We've even got Tibetan prayer flags strung up around campus for "solidarity" for fuck's sake!

[Kassad]

This horse will be beaten to death forever. The 'free Tibet' supporters refuse to understand that there are two choices. Tibetan freedom, which means religious feudalism or Chinese intervention which will sustain the social reforms. There is no socialist movement brewing there, so that is just a fantasy. Asserting otherwise is contradictory to facts.

[Hiero]

participated in that movement, from the perspective of fighting an dictatorship of behalf of a people whose land as taken from them

The "people" owned the land?

The "people" were slaves and serfs, they worked the land they didn't have land to be taken from them. When the Tibetan's rose up against their fuedal oppressors in line with the rest of the progresive forces in China it was only after this revolution did the people come closer to having land that could be taken from them through the collectivisation program.

Your comment only shows how reactionary and stupid the Free Tibet movement is, and no serious Communist will ever take it serious.

[PRC-UTE]

This horse will be beaten to death forever. The 'free Tibet' supporters refuse to understand that there are two choices. Tibetan freedom, which means religious feudalism or Chinese intervention which will sustain the social reforms. There is no socialist movement brewing there, so that is just a fantasy. Asserting otherwise is contradictory to facts.

they dont seem to be interseted in facts that's true.

here's an article some might find useful



Free Tibet?



Liam O Ruairc • 12 May 2004
In Western countries, the movement to 'free Tibet' from Chinese occupation is very popular among the 57 different varieties of liberals and human rights campaigners. The media generally presents a very positive image of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is hailed as a modern saint, and an idealized image of Tibet before the Chinese take over is given. However, it is worth examining what sort of place Tibet was before the Chinese intervention, who benefited and who lost from it, and who the people campaigning for 'free Tibet' are (1).
In Tibet, prior to the Chinese take over, theocratic despotism had been the rule for generations. An English visitor to Tibet in 1895, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the Tibetan people were under the "intolerable tyranny of monks" and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama's rule as "an engine of oppression" and "a barrier to all human improvement." At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O'Connor, observed that "the great landowners and the priests . . . exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal," while the people are "oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft the world has ever seen." Tibetan rulers, like those of Europe during the Middle Ages, "forged innumerable weapons of servitude, invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition" among the common people (Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder, The Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1964, 123-125). In Tibet, slavery was the rule.
The following account was written by Sir Charles Bell, who was the British administrator for Chumbi Valley in 1904-05: "'Slaves were sometimes stolen, when small children, from their parents. Or the father and mother, being too poor to support their child, would sell it to a man, who paid them _sho-ring_, "price of mother's milk," brought up the child and kept it, or sold it, as a slave. These children come mostly from south-eastern Tibet and the territories of the wild tribes who dwell between Tibet and Assam.' (Charles Bell, Tibet: Past and Present, Oxford, 1924, pp. 78-79. Taken from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/tibet-faq/))
In 1953, six years before the Chinese takeover, the greater part of the rural population (some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000) were serfs. Serfs and other peasants generally received no schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time working for the monasteries and high-ranking lamas, or for a secular aristocracy that numbered not more than 200 families. They were in practice owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death (for more details see http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html).
Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet after 1959, they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labor. They started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They built the only hospitals that exist in the country, and established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. They constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa. They also put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment under Buddhist rule. Chinese rule in Tibet has often been brutal, however its extent has often been exaggerated.
The accusations made by the Dalai Lama himself about Chinese mass sterilization and forced deportation of Tibetans, for example, have remained unsupported by any evidence. Both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation. This figure is more than dubious. The official 1953 census, six years before the Chinese take over, recorded the entire population of Tibet at 1,274,000. Other estimates varied from one to three million. Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million (Pradyumna P. Karan, The Changing Face of Tibet: The Impact of Chinese Communist Ideology on the Landscape, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1976, 52-53). If the Chinese killed 1.2 million then entire cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated - something for which there is no evidence. The Chinese military force in Tibet was not large enough to round up, chase, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing this.
It is worth examining who is behind the 'Free Tibet' movement. The former elites lost many of their privileges due to the Chinese takeover. The family of the Dalai Lama lost no fewer than 4000 slaves! It is thus not surprising that feudal lords should campaign against the social gains of Maoism. Their campaign has found an international echo thanks to the CIA. Throughout the 1960s the Tibetan exile community received $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. The Dalai Lama's organization itself admits that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annual share was $186,000, making him a paid agent of the CIA. Indian intelligence also financed him and other Tibetan exiles (Jim Mann, "CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show," Los Angeles Times, 15 September 1998; and New York Times, 1 October, 1998). Today, mostly through the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits that are more respectable-sounding than the CIA, the US Congress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans in India, with additional millions for "democracy activities" within the Tibetan exile community (See Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002, for example).
Also, while presenting himself as a defender of human rights, the Dalai Lama supports more than dubious causes. For example, in April 1999, along with Margaret Thatcher and George Bush senior, the Dalai Lama called upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet.
While Chinese rule is resented by many in Tibet, people are also afraid to loose the social gains of Maoism. A 1999 story in the Washington Post notes that the Dalai Lama continues to be revered in Tibet, but "few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves say they, too, don't want their former masters to return to power. "I've already lived that life once before," said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, "I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave." (John Pomfret, "Tibet Caught in China's Web," Washington Post, 23 July 1999)


(1) This article has benefited greatly from much of the information contained in http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html.


http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/freetibetlor.html

[Pogue]

Were you the only one? Lots of people I know at my university campus jizz themselves over Tibet - the "Free Tibet!" movement is quite strong here, due to all the yuppies and hippies no doubt. But they're all definitely reactionary, unlike your stance which I sort of understand now.

We've even got Tibetan prayer flags strung up around campus for "solidarity" for fuck's sake!

I was probably in a minority. But leftists are in a minority everywhere, and false conciousness (whether it be fascism, nationalism, or worship of the Dalai Lama and religion) is also prevalent everywhere in a world lacking class conciousness. The point is we have to build it, and oncemore I see no reason why Tibet is an exception.

[PRC-UTE]

I was probably in a minority. But leftists are in a minority everywhere, and false conciousness (whether it be fascism, nationalism, or worship of the Dalai Lama and religion) is also prevalent everywhere in a world lacking class conciousness. The point is we have to build it, and oncemore I see no reason why Tibet is an exception.

fascism, nationalism and theocracy aren't products of false consciousness. they're the correct manifestations of specific class interests.

[Kassad]

At the current time, it's a matter of cutting losses. If Tibet is freed right this very moment, all the social reforms will be lost and the religious bourgeoisie will regain power and the workers of the nation will be at the bottom of the food chain just like they were before. I'll stick with what will preserve revolutionary reforms for the working class at the moment.

[Killfacer]

This horse will be beaten to death forever. The 'free Tibet' supporters refuse to understand that there are two choices. Tibetan freedom, which means religious feudalism or Chinese intervention which will sustain the social reforms. There is no socialist movement brewing there, so that is just a fantasy. Asserting otherwise is contradictory to facts.

I would rather the freedom of self determination over involountary occupation any day.

[Kassad]

I would rather the freedom of self determination over involountary occupation any day.

So be specific. Stop hiding behind your terminology. You would rather there be a free Tibet, meaning it would be ruled by a feudalist theocracy, instead of an occupied Tibet with revolutionary reforms that benefit the proletariat?

[Pogue]

So be specific. Stop hiding behind your terminology. You would rather there be a free Tibet, meaning it would be ruled by a feudalist theocracy, instead of an occupied Tibet with revolutionary reforms that benefit the proletariat?

Revolutionary reforms? Most of China's reforms by-passed the Tibetan population.

A free Tibet does not equal a feudalist theocracy. Theres no evidence of this. The Free Tibet movement does not call for this.

[PRC-UTE]

Revolutionary reforms? Most of China's reforms by-passed the Tibetan population.

source?

this is shocking as all the evidence points to the contrary.



A free Tibet does not equal a feudalist theocracy. Theres no evidence of this. The Free Tibet movement does not call for this.

if that Dali Liar weren't the head of the "free tibet" cause we might believe you.

in fact their "humble" spirituality seems to be their selling point with most western liberals like you.

[Pogue]

source?

this is shocking as all the evidence points to the contrary.



if that Dali Liar weren't the head of the "free tibet" cause we might believe you.

in fact their "humble" spirituality seems to be their selling point with most western liberals like you.

Oh cool another accusation of liberalism. I refer you to my offers to request I am banned if anyone can prove I am a liberal in the debate forum. But seeing as you're just using it as a meaningless insult because you don't agree with me and don't like it, I doubt you'll take me upon on that offer. Or maybe you'll suprise me and back up your claim. How about it?

[Kassad]

Revolutionary reforms? Most of China's reforms by-passed the Tibetan population.

A free Tibet does not equal a feudalist theocracy. Theres no evidence of this. The Free Tibet movement does not call for this.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8845


Here's a description of pre-liberation Tibet.


Education was almost non-existent, and what did exist was exclusive to the nobility. Health conditions were abysmal, with an estimated 90 percent of the people suffering venereal disease and about 30 percent infected with smallpox. (4) In 1959, infant mortality was 430 deaths per 1,000 births and average life expectancy was 35.5 years. (5)
Of a serf’s production, 50 to 70 percent was owed to his manorial master, in addition to forced labor called "ulag." Dozens of taxes had to be paid, including a butter tax, meat tax, wool tax, woolen cloth tax and a tax on tsampa—a staple food usually made from barley—to support the monasteries. Prayer festival taxes, hay taxes, utensil taxes, meat taxes, past-due taxes, corvée taxes in the form of labor, military taxes and others had to be paid to the government. Many additional taxes were paid to the feudal lord.

Sounds fun, right? Here's a description of post-liberation Tibet.


Infant mortality has dropped from 430 deaths per 1,000 births, to a range of 6.61 to 24.5 per 1,000 in 2002. Where only 2 percent of school-age children in the 1950s were in school, today the figure is 85.8 percent; however, there is still a need to increase secondary-level educational levels. The region’s 6,348 hospital beds and 8,948 medical personnel exceed China’s national per-capita average. (11)
Before the revolution, the masses had no elections or political life. In 1965, the First People’s Congress of Tibet was held, which led to the founding of the Tibetan Autonomous Region and the Regional People’s Government. There are 70,000 elected representatives on all levels of government in the TAR.
Beijing is intensifying its development programs in Tibet, with substantial investments in housing, medical care, infrastructure and restoration of cultural sites.
The Ninth People’s Congress of the TAR put forth a housing plan for farmers and herders—the backbone of Tibet’s economy—that will build 52,000 housing units in 2008. By 2010, new housing will have been constructed for 80 percent of farmers’ households. (China Radio International, March 22)
In 2006, the annual income of farmers and herders grew 13.1 percent, the fourth double-digit growth in as many years.

Sources are provided with the link. So... your baseless assertion has been destroyed, not that it hasn't already been destroyed dozens of times by multiple posters.

Anyway, I know you're not advocating feudalism personally. Still, the Dalai Lama is the head of the 'Free Tibet' movement. He is a theocrat who wants to re-enslave Tibet so his elitist oligarchy can once again reclaim the land from the people. If China were to leave Tibet, the Dalai Lama would come into power. There is no denying it and no matter how much you dance in your argument, you can't deny that. The people who would claim power would be the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist monks. There is no dancing around that fact because they are the figureheads of the Free Tibet movement. The Free Tibet movement supports the Dalai Lama, does it not? By supporting the Dalai Lama, they advocate religious feudalism.

[Pogue]

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8845


Here's a description of pre-liberation Tibet.


Sounds fun, right? Here's a description of post-liberation Tibet.


Sources are provided with the link. So... your baseless assertion has been destroyed, not that it hasn't already been destroyed dozens of times by multiple posters.

Anyway, I know you're not advocating feudalism personally. Still, the Dalai Lama is the head of the 'Free Tibet' movement. He is a theocrat who wants to re-enslave Tibet so his elitist oligarchy can once again reclaim the land from the people. If China were to leave Tibet, the Dalai Lama would come into power. There is no denying it and no matter how much you dance in your argument, you can't deny that. The people who would claim power would be the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist monks. There is no dancing around that fact because they are the figureheads of the Free Tibet movement. The Free Tibet movement supports the Dalai Lama, does it not? By supporting the Dalai Lama, they advocate religious feudalism.

No where in the Free Tibet organisations writings does it call for the Dalai Lama to be reinstated as the leader of Tibet.

[Kassad]

Oh cool another accusation of liberalism. I refer you to my offers to request I am banned if anyone can prove I am a liberal in the debate forum. But seeing as you're just using it as a meaningless insult because you don't agree with me and don't like it, I doubt you'll take me upon on that offer. Or maybe you'll suprise me and back up your claim. How about it?

It's cute that, while you claim he has no evidence to back up his claim, you also dodge his request for evidence to back your claim!

[Pogue]

It's cute that, while you claim he has no evidence to back up his claim, you also dodge his request for evidence to back your claim!

You find that sort of thing cute?

At the moment I'm more concerned with actually bringing someone to an open debate about me being a liberal because the people who have accused it have always been to ignorant and cowardly to actually meet me in a debate about it.

[PRC-UTE]

Oh cool another accusation of liberalism. I refer you to my offers to request I am banned if anyone can prove I am a liberal in the debate forum. But seeing as you're just using it as a meaningless insult because you don't agree with me and don't like it, I doubt you'll take me upon on that offer. Or maybe you'll suprise me and back up your claim. How about it?

You oppose the enemy of your own ruling class- Irish republicans, even leftist ones, and the Red Chinese. You support the causes of your own ruling class, the exiled Tibetan theocrats. yours are reactionary politics wrapped in the red flag. I could've more accruately called you a social chuavinist, but I didn't think you'd get the reference and it amounts to the same thing.

[Kassad]

No where in the Free Tibet organisations writings does it call for the Dalai Lama to be reinstated as the leader of Tibet.

Really, now?

http://www.freetibet.org/about/statements-dalai-lama



Supporting the Dalai Lama

In Tibet, it is illegal for Tibetans to carry pictures of the Dalai Lama, and 'patriotic re-education' programs are common, designed to force monks to denounce their spiritual leader.

China's ongoing campaign to smear the name of the Tibetan spiritual leader is an attempt to undermine the support he has from the Tibetan people, but fifty years after he was forced into exile, Tibetans still stand up and express their desire to see their leader return to Tibet.

Although the Dalai Lama's 'middle way' approach has won him much support in international politics, the Chinese regime continues to label him a 'splittist', and to blame him for orchestrating riots in Tibet.

So the page starts off with 'Supporting the Dalai Lama', which is blatantly throwing support out for him. So, your assertion fails. Also, they are quick to support Tibetans who 'express desire to see their leader' put back into power. There's no squirming here. The Free Tibet movement idolizes the Dalai Lama and want him back in power, thus, religious feudalism.

[Pogue]

I'm going to take a different approach now.

If we assumed that China did develop Tibet, surely the Marxist position would be that these gains should be defended and built upon whilst still giving freedom and rights to Tibetans in Tibet? I'm sure I'm arguing here against the same anti-Imperialists who would criticise the idea of 'social imperialism', saying imperialism is an evil unto itself and is never beneficial to the state that is occupied.

Surely you'd support the gains made through Chinese reofmr but still support a people's right to autonomy and political freedom? Especially as China has embraced the free market so much. Thats my problem - I see the position on Tibet/China versus eveyr other occupied nation as different from comrades here.

[Pogue]

You oppose the enemy of your own ruling class- Irish republicans, even leftist ones, and the Red Chinese. You support the causes of your own ruling class, the exiled Tibetan theocrats. yours are reactionary politics wrapped in the red flag. I could've more accruately called you a social chuavinist, but I didn't think you'd get the reference and it amounts to the same thing.

Ok, so do you accept the debate?

[Pogue]

You oppose the enemy of your own ruling class- Irish republicans, even leftist ones, and the Red Chinese. You support the causes of your own ruling class, the exiled Tibetan theocrats. yours are reactionary politics wrapped in the red flag. I could've more accruately called you a social chuavinist, but I didn't think you'd get the reference and it amounts to the same thing.

By the way, gangster groups who murder proletarian civlians in the name of national liberation are just another form of oppresion. The Red Chinese? China's government is openy neo-liberal, not to mention the most authoritarian government in the world.

At no point did I say I supported theocracy or theocrats, I merely dispelled myths that Tibetan society i will be or the society is (in exile) controlled in a dictatorial manner by theocrats.

Reactionary politics in a red flag? I'm active in anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-Imperialist, anti-capitalist campaigns. Nice try though.

Are you going to accept the debate now, or would you rather just throw meaningless and baseless insults at me?

[PRC-UTE]

By the way, gangster groups who murder proletarian civlians in the name of national liberation are just another form of oppresion.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. The INLA don't murder civilians. some were killed by mistake, but that's not the same as murder which is a legal concept. during the Troubles, the vast majority of their attacks were aimed at the occupation forces.

furthermore, the INLA were a proletarian army who dfended the working class from attack. that's a lot more meaningful than posturing.



Are you going to accept the debate now, or would you rather just throw meaningless and baseless insults at me?

Here's another one- your substitionist tendencies are liberal as well. The working class aren't a subject in your analysis, so your argumentation follows whether or not independence would be positive for Tibet. Your approach is one based in abstract principles. There is no class analysis. If you could point to class struggle in Tibet being waged against the ruling class to back up your views, it would be another story.

[Pogue]

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. The INLA don't murder civilians. some were killed by mistake, but that's not the same as murder which is a legal concept. during the Troubles, the vast majority of their attacks were aimed at the occupation forces.

furthermore, the INLA were a proletarian army who dfended the working class from attack. that's a lot more meaningful than posturing.



Here's another one- your substitionist tendencies are liberal as well. The working class aren't a subject in your analysis, so your argumentation follows whether or not independence would be positive for Tibet. Your approach is one based in abstract principles. There is no class analysis. If you could point to class struggle in Tibet being waged against the ruling class to back up your views, it would be another story.

Ok, so do you accept the debate? Will you have it with me in the debate thread? Yes or no?

[PRC-UTE]

Ok, so do you accept the debate? Will you have it with me in the debate thread? Yes or no?

I'm debating you now. It'd be nice if you could respond rather than talk about responding in another forum.

Don't try to be clever, for your own good. It makes you look foolish.

[Pogue]

I'm debating you now. It'd be nice if you could respond rather than talk about responding in another forum.

Don't try to be clever, for your own good. It makes you look foolish.

I mean specifically on the topic of me being liberal. This isn't the thread for that. Would you like to specifically have a debate on me being liberal in the Debate forum?

[Kassad]

I do like how you completely ignored my last post, since it completely proves your entire argument false, H-L-V-S.

[Pogue]

I do like how you completely ignored my last post, since it completely proves your entire argument false, H-L-V-S.

Sorry mate I got a bit distracted.

I haven't put what I really mean across very well in this thread, for which I apologise.

What I was saying is that Free Tibet is a movement calling for a people to be liberated from a foreign power which currently occupies their land. It could be called a national liberation movement. Now, I understand Tibetans are not suffering to the same extent as Palestinians. Having attended every Free Palestine protest there has been in my area since the more recent assault on Gaza has happened, I am fully aware of the situation in Palestine. I don't see Free Tibet as my political priority, thats why I'm not a formal member of any group. But during the Olympic period and before it I attended a few demonstrations for Tibet.

I did this because I believed in showing solidarity with people living under the Chinese regime, from an Anarchist point of view that those people, just like everyone else in the world, should be liberated from oppresive states and capitalism.

I do not want a theocracy, although I understand that some comrades would equate a Tibet free from Chinese rule to one beig controlled by the CIA and general Imperialist interests. However, this could be avoided if the Tibetan people could be imbued with revolutionary class conciousness. Just the same as how in Palestine, we'd like it if everyone there was imbued with revolutionary class conciousness and thus we will aim for this in our capacity. In Tibet, as with everywhere else in the world, at the moment there is no such conciousness. Well, no ones denying as socialists we have an uphill struggle.

On the question of Chinese developement in Tibet. If raised living standards were an argument for not overthrowing a government, surely we'd not be calling for a reovlution in any of the 'first world' countries with raised lviing standards? I want a revolution in Chinese occupied Tibet as much as I want one in every other naiton of the world. I want even better conditions for the Tibetans, in the form of a communist society.

I understand that I've been unclear on this because I've digressed onto some form of defense of the Free Tibet movement and trying to refute certain things comrades have said, but this is fundamentally what I believe and is why I participated in those protests.

[Kassad]

Sorry mate I got a bit distracted.

I haven't put what I really mean across very well in this thread, for which I apologise.

What I was saying is that Free Tibet is a movement calling for a people to be liberated from a foreign power which currently occupies their land. It could be called a national liberation movement. Now, I understand Tibetans are not suffering to the same extent as Palestinians. Having attended every Free Palestine protest there has been in my area since the more recent assault on Gaza has happened, I am fully aware of the situation in Palestine. I don't see Free Tibet as my political priority, thats why I'm not a formal member of any group. But during the Olympic period and before it I attended a few demonstrations for Tibet.

I did this because I believed in showing solidarity with people living under the Chinese regime, from an Anarchist point of view that those people, just like everyone else in the world, should be liberated from oppresive states and capitalism.

I do not want a theocracy, although I understand that some comrades would equate a Tibet free from Chinese rule to one beig controlled by the CIA and general Imperialist interests. However, this could be avoided if the Tibetan people could be imbued with revolutionary class conciousness. Just the same as how in Palestine, we'd like it if everyone there was imbued with revolutionary class conciousness and thus we will aim for this in our capacity. In Tibet, as with everywhere else in the world, at the moment there is no such conciousness. Well, no ones denying as socialists we have an uphill struggle.

On the question of Chinese developement in Tibet. If raised living standards were an argument for not overthrowing a government, surely we'd not be calling for a reovlution in any of the 'first world' countries with raised lviing standards? I want a revolution in Chinese occupied Tibet as much as I want one in every other naiton of the world. I want even better conditions for the Tibetans, in the form of a communist society.

I understand that I've been unclear on this because I've digressed onto some form of defense of the Free Tibet movement and trying to refute certain things comrades have said, but this is fundamentally what I believe and is why I participated in those protests.

Understandable. Just don't get mixed up with those Free Tibet groups. The group-think mentality isn't good for anyone. But mostly, they're very sympathetic to the Dalai Lama and I can't understand that for the life of me.

[Pogue]

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. The INLA don't murder civilians. some were killed by mistake, but that's not the same as murder which is a legal concept. during the Troubles, the vast majority of their attacks were aimed at the occupation forces.

furthermore, the INLA were a proletarian army who dfended the working class from attack. that's a lot more meaningful than posturing.



I wasn't the one who brought up the INLA.