Tibetan Independence

**carmen510** · Komsomol Member Posts: 158 Join date: 2008-01-27

Do you support Tibetan independence, and if so, why? (And if you don't, also explain)

My views:

I believe Tibet shouldn't become an independent nation, but I DO believe Tibet should have more autonomy under the Chinese government.

Tibet has been an independent nation, I will not argue with that. HOWEVER, it has long been, shall we say, a puppet nation under the rule of China for around 600-900 years, depending on the different viewpoints. The truly "independent" Tibet manifested due to British invasion and intervention in the region during the late 1800s-early 1900s. Afterwards, it was "occupied" by the Communist Chinese.

If Tibet should become independent, I would definitely NOT support the return of the Dalai Lama theocracy. Before the Communist occupation, Tibet was a nation of serfdom and slavery, with a ruling priest class. Crimes were severely punished, and torture was common. (And even harsher than Stalinist and Maoist techniques)

Since the Communist takeover, there has been oppression of the Tibetan minority, I will not deny that. They are treated rather badly by the Communist officials. Nonetheless, the region has improved drastically. They now have running water, proper infrastructure, power, and a somewhat less draconian system of law. Even if the quality of life isn't much better, it is STILL an improvement in the right direction.

I think of this situation of the lesser of two evils.

**WeiWuWei** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:25 am

"Yes, I Hate China"

_________________

**Liche** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:50 am

"yes, I hate China"

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:00 pm

I choice for "Yes, a new government"
If I had another choice "Yes, I hate China".

Also, Carmen dont think they will return to what was before, torture and priests and shit, no, I think if they will get independed they will have a new government.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Tyrong Kojy** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:44 pm

As sucky as China is in it's rule, it's stil better than when the Dahli Lama ruled. WAY better, and people actually have MORE freedom. But China sucks in it's rule,t oo, so a new one would be best.

_________________
"Jenaveve took everything from me.
My friends,
My family,
Everything!
Her ambitions to dominate the universe are terrifying,
Evil beyond imagining.
I,
Tyrong Kojy,
The one whose power even the creator fears,
Will stop her.
Even if I have to destroy the universe to do it!"
Tyrong Kojy/Jenaveve by Nicholas Rivest

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:24 am

No, I like China. Capitalist world politics are like football matches where innocent blood is spilled by the prominent parties involved.

If I have to choose one of two hypocrites, I choose the collectivist one.

_________________

**Tyrong Kojy** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:44 am

China still sucks.

_________________
"Jenaveve took everything from me.
My friends,
My family,
Everything!
Her ambitions to dominate the universe are terrifying,
Evil beyond imagining.
I,
Tyrong Kojy,
The one whose power even the creator fears,
Will stop her.
Even if I have to destroy the universe to do it!"
Tyrong Kojy/Jenaveve by Nicholas Rivest

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:57 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

China still sucks.

Haha, indeed.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:59 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No, I like China. Capitalist world politics are like football matches where innocent blood is spilled by the prominent parties involved.

If I have to choose one of two hypocrites, I choose the collectivist one.

Well China is getting moar capitalism and free market, so I rather choose for a capitalist country with high HDI and reasonable police that lets you protest without permission.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:16 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

Well China is getting moar capitalism and free market, so I rather choose for a capitalist country with high HDI and reasonable police that lets you protest without permission.

China has always been extremely capitalist. China is as capitalist today as it was 50 years ago. The only difference is that the state is little by little loosening its monopoly, that's all.

Still they're self-proclaimed collectivists so I better choose them over a damn theocratic monarchy.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:57 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

China has always been extremely capitalist. China is as capitalist today as it was 50 years ago. The only difference is that the state is little by little loosening its monopoly, that's all.

Still they're self-proclaimed collectivists so I better choose them over a damn theocratic monarchy.

No.. not really, 50 years ago, indeed it was mostly a monopoly kinda, protectivism and all, but I dont think the state then wanted to make profit of everything, and since more companies invest in shit, for profit it is kinda changing.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:20 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

No.. not really, 50 years ago, indeed it was mostly a monopoly kinda, protectivism and all, but I dont think the state then wanted to make profit of everything, and since more companies invest in shit, for profit it is kinda changing.

Capitalism, no matter how it manifests, is capitalism. The state, with or without intention, de facto had to profit to keep the economy running making China defacto a State Capitalism like the USSR. They realized that the more liberalized their market was the more profit they achieved through taxation so they liberalized it more. That's all. No big difference except the end of the total monopoly of the Chinese state and the inclusion of foreign investors. The economic framework where the Chinese workers are exploited for profit, keeping economy running, is still there.

_________________

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:23 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

I choice for "Yes, a new government"
If I had another choice "Yes, I hate China".

I agree 100%. Though i do hate China's bullshit, i feel "a new government" is more to the point.

As human beings we should support everyone's right to self-determination.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

Guest

"i hate china"
the reason i chose that is because, there is no government, like no government.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:00 pm

Black_Cross wrote:

I agree 100%. Though i do hate China's bullshit, i feel "a new government" is more to the point.

As human beings we should support everyone's right to self-determination.

Whatever self-determination is within a capitalist context.

_________________

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:08 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

I agree 100%. Though i do hate China's bullshit, i feel "a new government" is more to the point.

As human beings we should support everyone's right to self-determination.

Whatever self-determination is within a capitalist context.

Indeed. Here's my thought process: There are wage-slaves who accept their slavery and actually support it; Dumb? Yes, but it is their choice to make. Freedom simply isn't something you can force on anyone. Those people need to learn for themselves that their conditions won't improve significantly, if at all, as long as they support, and therefore perpetuate the capitalist, statist [dis]organization of society. However, if anyone is having slavery forced down their throats, that organization becomes illegitimate (obviously this is the case all of the time, because you'll never get everyone to accept slavery as normal). So no matter which way things go in Tibet (whether China's violent rule remains, or that of a Tibetan state takes over), that illegitimacy will remain. So i support a Tibetan independance from China for the reason that the people of Tibet will inevitably learn from it at least a couple of things: 1) How best to govern themselves and 2) That China is not the cause of their problems, but simply another problem.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:59 pm

BC wrote:

So i support a Tibetan independance from China for the reason that the people of Tibet will inevitably learn from it at least a couple of things: 1) How best to govern themselves

Are you sure? They could just be under someone else's more subtle grip, like Mexico.

BC wrote:

and

2) That China is not the cause of their problems, but simply another problem.

It'd be nice for them to realize bt most probably, like with all nationalist movements, if they're not doing fine the rulers will blam teh workers for not working hard enough and the workers will blame themselves, also for not working hard enough entering the ridiculous race of competitivity.

And if they stay behind they can always say "China fucked us up, putting us in disadvantage".

For the purpose of realizing what the problem is it eventually ends up being the same if they're ruled by Chinese or Tibetan masters, all that changes are the faces, names and the proximity to the capitol.

Besides, we must take into account the actual world's political reality. The world is being divided into different spheres of influence, which are mainly US, European Union, Russia, China and incipiently Latin America. Whenever a group wants independence, far from self determination it only exchanges one sphere of influence for other. For example, the Chechen separatists which want to impose a theocratic muslim rule and which are supported by the western sphere of influence just because they oppose Russia. The western sphere of influence would find it handy to have a redoubt there.

In all honesty, since the predominant capitalist sphere of influence is US and to a leser extent Western Europe, I prefer them to lose influence rather than winning it and Tibetsplitting from China coudl be a potential increase of that influence.

_________________

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:25 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Are you sure? They could just be under someone else's more subtle grip, like Mexico.

Do you think the theocracy would be subtle? Or do you mean US imperial influence?

Either way, they're much closer to learning when they're "independant" than being overtly dominated by an outside force (one that has no right over their territory). That way, they made their own decision, and they're still f'ed up. The dispute therefore becomes internal, sharpening class antagonisms, if only little by little, rather than none at all (as i believe is the case under chinese rule).

Quote:

It'd be nice for them to realize bt most probably, like with all nationalist movements, if they're not doing fine the rulers will blam teh workers for not working hard enough and the workers will blame themselves, also for not working hard enough entering the ridiculous race of competitivity.

How many times and/or how long do you think the workers would be fooled by this? Cos if Tibet had had this so called independance back in the 50's when they were invaded, they might have already learned this trend of the bourgeoisie and its constituents.

But, as it stands, they've stagnated in the face Chinese imperialism since 1950, time the working class could've used to perceive class antagonisms with their own bourgeoisie, and its constituent theocracy, rather than that of another country, which could only have sharpened this nationalist sentiment of the Tibetan population.

Quote:

And if they stay behind they can always say "China fucked us up, putting us in disadvantage".

I believe this is true. Sure, the ruling class will use this excuse, and the workers will likely buy it for some period of time, but as time goes by, that excuse will hold less and less credence in the ears of those who are carrying the load of the country.

Quote:

For the purpose of realizing what the problem is it eventually ends up being the same if they're ruled by Chinese or Tibetan masters, all that changes are the faces, names and the proximity to the capitol.

For 50 years they've been under chinese control, and for 50 years their sentiments about theocracy have remained the same, or am i mistaken?

I'm not at all saying this situation is ideal, but we're left with these two choices, imperialist domination/Tibetan theocratic, bourgeois domination, and i believe the latter of the two will sooner bring about a revolutionary current (whereas chinese control will only ferment this ugly nationalism).

Quote:

Besides, we must take into account the actual world's political reality. The world is being divided into different spheres of influence, which are mainly US, European Union, Russia, China and incipiently Latin America. Whenever a group wants independence, far from self determination it only exchanges one sphere of influence for other.

So self-determination is only self-determination if they isolate themselves from everyone else? It's self-determination, it's just idiotic.

I don't like the idea of a US influenced tibet, and i don't like the idea of a Chinese influenced tibet, but this isn't our choice to make (and certainly not China's), it's the choice of tibet.

Quote:

For example, the Chechen separatists which want to impose a theocratic muslim rule and which are supported by the western sphere of influence just because they oppose Russia. The western sphere of influence would find it handy to have a redoubt there.

That sucks, and we should oppose that 100% because those who would be subjected against their will to theocracy have a right to self-determination. When/If Tibet becomes a theocracy, we should still oppose that rule because it is detrimental to the physical, mental and spiritual health of the Tibetan working class, but until the Tibetan working class comes to that realization for themselves, there's nothing to be done about it.

Quote:

In all honesty, since the predominant capitalist sphere of influence is US and to a leser extent Western Europe, I prefer them to lose influence rather than winning it and Tibetsplitting from China coudl be a potential increase of that influence.

Simply preferring one imperialist domination to another in determining what's best for the tibetan people gets the left nowhere. If you really don't want US influence in Tibet, then hope China starts making the tibetan working people docile through sheer force, otherwise tibet will continue its anti-chinese-imperialism struggle, making stronger the legitimacy of any future US claims to influence Tibet's economy.

PS - how long has it been since we actually disagreed on something, haha

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**WeiWuWei** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:57 am

"Yes, Return to Theocracy - 1"

Huh?

By the by, I should say that if the answer "Yes, New Government" was worded differently - like "Yes, New Social Organization" - I might have voted for that instead. Keep in mind that the "Free Tibet" movement, though largely popular and loving of the Dalai Lama, need not inherently want to "free" Tibet from one power - "Communi$t China" - into the hands of another - like some sort of benevolent autocratic theocracy, or something. Like, I want to "free" Tibet in the same way I want to free any other country on this planet from its parasitic State.

Know what I mean?

_________________

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Tibetan Independence Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:17 pm

^^^ I completely understand your voting for "I hate China", but a government isn't necessarily a state; A state is necessarily a form of government, but even anarchism has government, it is just self-government.

Quote:

"Yes, Return to Theocracy - 1"

Huh?

I second that.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--