Serfs' Emancipation Day for Tibet

Serfs' Emancipation Day for Tibet

China has declared a new annual holiday in Tibet called Serfs' Emancipation Day, to mark the end of what it says was a system of feudal oppression.

The local parliament in Tibet has passed a bill which declares 28 March as the new holiday.

The announcement comes in the run-up to the 50th anniversary of the escape into exile of the Dalai Lama.

The 49th anniversary a year ago led to widespread protests by monks and others in and around Tibet.

Tibetan independence is a fraud. They have long been allies to the Imperialist's and will cut a deal for just about anyone so long as they get their "autonomy". I am a staunch supporter of a single Chinese state, Socialist ran.

You know, what the free Tibet people seem to forget is that the British invaded the country way back in 1905. I can't figure out any reasons why except that the army wanted some target practice. The British invasion was brutal compared to the Chinese relatively peaceful take over of the country. And the Chinese have a valid point in saying Tibet was a Feudal nation before absorption into the PRC.

The Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1950 was an act of imperialist aggression that is, even today, ignored by Communist organisations throughout the world. Many of these organisations create excuses to justify the invasion - all the while condemning similar invasions by U.S. imperialists (Iraq, Afghanistan).

Sam Marcy, the former leader of the Workers World Party, had this to say:

"The Chinese, we believe, used sound judgment in 1950, when they simply made Tibet an autonomous region within the Chinese Republic. They subsequently signed an agreement with the Tibetan government, which gave the Chinese People's Republic control over no more than the foreign policy of Tibet, and the right to maintain the Chinese Army within its borders."

Marxism-Leninism teaches historical materialism, which is, at its core, objective. The above statement by Marcy is nothing but Chinese propaganda, and not at all objective. The "agreement" was forced on the government of Tibet with the threat of complete military conquest. Giving up foreign policy control, and being forced to maintain a foreign countries military is invasion - not autonomy (Ask the Iraqis!). As such, the "agreement", which was signed under duress, was a lie and is invalid.

Marcy concludes his article with the following:

"The correct answer to the question of Tibet we believe lies in this: that the Socialist rights of 650 million people involved in building a new social order are far greater than the bourgeois-democratic rights of an ancient, ossified, and decadent nobility disguised in the form of a theocracy, even though they may still command the greater portion of the population at this time."

Marcy made several vague arguments about a free Tibet being a magnet for U.S. imperialism, and that justified the Chinese invasion. So much for the Communist concept of democracy. To say that the people of Tibet had less rights - simply because they were not Socialist - is ridiculous to the extreme.

The Red Phoenix - the "news" blog of the American Party of Labor, recently published an article about the meeting of Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama. Among the ridiculous assertions made in that article is that the Dalai Lama was a Nazi collaborator. The Dalai Lama, born in 1935 (two years after Hitler came to power), was only 10 when World War II ended. The notion that a little boy had Nazi sympathies is outrageously ridiculous!

A second attempt to link the Dalai Lama to Nazi Germany involved Bruno Beger, a member of the 1938 -1939 Nazi expedition to Tibet. Since the current Dalai Lama was only 4 years old at the time, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that he could not have had anything to do with the expedition, or Beger. In fact, the current Dalai Lama was not even recognised as such until his 6th year - two years after the end of the expedition.

A Nazi Collaborator, indeed!

The Red Phoenix also dredges up the old Chinese chestnut about how much of a despot the Dalai Lama was. China invaded in 1950 - when the Dalai Lama was 15 years old. He was not invested with his authority until he was 16 - the year after China invaded. Tibet was ruled by regents until then, but by that time - China was in control. Most despots have complete and total control over a country. The Dalai Lama had no control - in fact, he spent most of the years between 1941 and 1951 in school.

Mao Tse-tung was enraptured by the mineral and material wealth of Tibet. He wanted Hitlerian style "breathing room" for the exploding Chinese population. He wanted to flex his new found muscle. Tibet, and the Tibetan people, paid the price for his imperialist aggression, and they continue to pay the price.

Sadly, Communists the world over choose to ignore this. The hypocrisy of stating that a Communist nation can invade foreign nations at will, but capitalist nations cannot - is one of the reasons why Communism has lost its credibility.

It would be funny if Tibet got independence and then got overcome with a Maoist revolution like its neighbor to the South.

darian88 wrote:

The Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1950 was an act of imperialist aggression that is, even today, ignored by Communist organisations throughout the world. Many of these organisations create excuses to justify the invasion - all the while condemning similar invasions by U.S. imperialists (Iraq, Afghanistan).

How was it imperialists? In 1949 the PLA liberated the Chinese people from centuries of imperialist occupation, the oppressed stood up to oppressors and expelled them from the mainland. Hell a capitalist government toppling an autocratic feudal regime would be progressive but these were communists who dismantled the feudal state.

It would also be incorrect to state that Country A invades Country B is the same as Country Y invades Country Z because you aren't looking at the ruling class of those countries. China invading Tibet was the oppressed fighting against a feudal monarchy. The US invading Afghanistan/Iraq was the capitalists invading a tribal/underdeveloped capitalist state.

The ISO and SPUSA have been rather supportive of the feudal government in exile and vocal in their anti-China campaigns.

darian88 wrote:

Marcy made several vague arguments about a free Tibet being a magnet for U.S. imperialism, and that justified the Chinese invasion. So much for the Communist concept of democracy.

Exactly what was democratic, free or even vaguely not a violation fundamental human rights in Tibet before the PLA came in 1950?

darian88 wrote:

Most despots have complete and total control over a country.

So a Tibet wasn't a despotic feudal regime as long as the dictator is to young and had regents administering the country?

darian88 wrote:

Mao Tse-tung was enraptured by the mineral and material wealth of Tibet.

Then why is so much of that wealth that Mao "stole" invested back into Tibet? 400 new power stations have been built in 50 years. 86% of children go to school compared to education that did not exist prior to the PLA's arrival.

darian88 wrote:

He wanted Hitlerian style "breathing room" for the exploding Chinese population.

China didn't act policies concerning the "exploding" population until 1978, i.e. after Mao was dead.

darian88 wrote:

He wanted to flex his new found muscle.

Or continue the Revolution? Perhaps Mao wanted to create a "breathing room" in Korea for their "exploding" population and that taking on the USA was actually a smart imperialist move.

darian88 wrote:

Sadly, Communists the world over choose to ignore this. The hypocrisy of stating that a Communist nation can invade foreign nations at will, but capitalist nations cannot - is one of the reasons why Communism has lost its credibility.

The US government would agree with you.

I suggest reading:
What do socialists defend in China today?
Imperialists commemorate 1959 CIA-backed uprising of Tibetan elites
Tibet, imperialism and the right of self-determination

Kirvo wrote:

It would be funny if Tibet got independence and then got overcome with a Maoist revolution like its neighbor to the South.

More likely Tibet would look like some of the former Soviet Republics and end up in the toilets. Then they'd be ripe for the imperialist powers investment.

It would take too much time to refute each of your points. I'll just answer a few.

A massive influx of Chinese began to happen in the late 1950's, early 1960's. It didn't start in the late '70's.

I never claimed that Tibet was a free, democratic state. It was, in fact, a feudal theocracy. However, that does not justify anything. Mao had just come to power, and he was already invading his neighbour. That is imperialism, in fact, if not in name.

Power stations and schools were built to accomodate the growing Chinese population (that now outnumbers the Tibetan population).

Mao wanted to "continue the revolution" in Tibet, when it had not even been completed in China? I guess the CR was just for kicks, since Mao's work in China was done.

So what if the U.S. government agrees with me? I'm talking about credibility. The average person in the U.S, will make no distinction between one invasion and another. Since the U.S. made claims about their invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that were similar to those of Mao and his invasion, the average person will see hypocrisy. Semantics is not a hard science, but it exists.

Ripe for the imperialist powers? I think China benefits from imperialist powers quite nicely, and has since Mao and Nixon sat together and hammered out their truce. Tibet has not, and will not, accept Communism because of the negative way it was forced upon them. So, you're right - they probably would end up like the Soviet Bloc, which had Communism forced upon them. Are any of them Communist today? Do any of them even seem likely to turn Communist in the near future?

I am amazed that people can use wordplay to justify anything. Mao was a Communist? Oh, well, then it's okay for him to invade because he was one of the "oppressed masses". Do you think China got nothing but warm feelings and happy thoughts from the Tibetan people? No. They received tremendous wealth.

In my own visit to Tibet, no matter where in the country I went, no matter what stratum the person belonged to (monk/nun, student, elderly, young, and etc...) do you know what people asked me for? Not Mao's Collected Works, not his Little Red Book, not a history of Communism in China - they asked if I had photos of the Dalai Lama. Those people did not believe they were oppressed (although I agree that they were), because their nation was built on a religious base. Can you really liberate someone that does not want liberation because they don't believe they need liberation?

Ask the Eastern Europeans that question. They all want to join NATO.

A book for you: PEKING REACHES OUT: A Study of Chinese Expansionism available here:http://www.leninist.biz/en/1980/PROCE270/index.html

people always have sympathy for the lost regimes, just like in russia people are nostalgic of the soviet union. defenders of the tibet language and auto-determination admit that they couldn't be in the university that they go to if tibet stayed a theocracy. to pretend that all the power station and infrastructure built in tibet only served the new chinese resident is preposterous. the country that i am part of, which i want to seceed from canada, has some rights and autonomy within the canadian federation, so does tibet. it would be hypocritical for me to deny their rights to autodetermination but i wouldn't accept anything but a referendum which they win over 50% of the votes. even if the chinese are present there is no alternative than to make them vote too, as far as i know there are many immigrants, irish ,native americans and english canadians in quebec who often voted no and it actually showed that we had efforts to do with our cultural minorities to convince them that our nationalism is justifiable and their rights would be respected in an independant quebec.

Unification of Russia and Kazakhstan in one state:Soviet Union,was progressive and socialist,because Kazakhstan got the status of a union state,and Kazakhs got access to services only Russians and others had before(Moscow state university etc)
The country saw explosive progress and was becoming more and more capable of sustaining itself,and catch up with Russia.
But the Chinese...Tibetans killed,together with their priests,their temples destroyed,and Chinese from the "mainland" forced to go to Tibet and serve as government clerks,policeman etc.
It doesn't sound progressive or socialist to me.

well how many killed, how many building destroyed, etc. you need statistics to figure that out. and tibetans have access to services only chinese had before. like what happened with kazakhstan

How do hell could i know when Chinese themselves probably don't have access to this info.
All i can get are western estimations.
It was a turbulent time(and remember that the first modern pop. census in PRC was in 1957 if i'm correct) and the Chinese weren't exactly keen on creating files about their actions(the Cultural revolution for example is still largely "gray area" because the lack of info)

Loz wrote:

Unification of Russia and Kazakhstan in one state:Soviet Union,was progressive and socialist,because Kazakhstan got the status of a union state,and Kazakhs got access to services only Russians and others had before(Moscow state university etc)
The country saw explosive progress and was becoming more and more capable of sustaining itself,and catch up with Russia.
But the Chinese...Tibetans killed,together with their priests,their temples destroyed,and Chinese from the "mainland" forced to go to Tibet and serve as government clerks,policeman etc.
It doesn't sound progressive or socialist to me.

And people in the other non-Russian republics in the Soviet Union weren't killed? And there was no persecution against religion at all? Are you kidding? The Red Army was deployed in several of the nations that had broken away from the Russian Empire and then incorporated once again into the USSR. I know that it happened, at the very least, in both Georgia and Ukraine, and that the Red Army, in the late 1910's and early 1920's, fought the Whites, nationalist leaders in the breakaway regions (e.g., Symon Petlyura in Ukraine), and even other socialists who were not fully on board with the Bolsheviks in countries like Ukraine, Georgie, etc, which resulted also in the killing of non-Russians in their native land. Even so, and maybe I'm wrong because I'm new here, but I don't see many people being quick to condemn the USSR in this regard.

Is it because the USSR was able to bring up standards of living, literacy rates, and better conditions overall to these regions, and promoted the cultures of the ethnic minorities (even under Stalin, mind you)? Indeed, these are laudable achievements. However, there seems to be some double-standards involving China in this respect, and I don't necessarily fault anyone for this. After all, P.R. China has not exactly helped its image around the world with some of its actions, and the media are quick to condemn China for anything it does. Plus, I'm sure that P.R. China's adoption of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (aka capitalist restoration) has not endeared itself to many of you. Nevertheless, what China did in the 1950's in Tibet was indeed "progressive," in that it resulted in the overthrow of a feudal aristocratic theocratic order, and furthermore, China had claim on the region, just as the RSFSR had on the breakaway regions of the Russian Empire. Yes, Tibetans were killed, but contrary to what has been presented by non-Chinese media, it was not a planned genocide, and like I said, similar things happened in the formative years of the USSR, and again, in the 1930's, during the Purges.

As for the temples, yes some were destroyed, and others were shut down. I'm sure many were, in fact. Indeed, there was persecution based on religion. However, not every single temple destroyed, and many were preserved for cultural reasons - enough for there to have tourism in Tibet where people could visit those temples in present-day China, and for Tibetan monks to pray there. A lot of those Tibetan temples had been closed down in the 1950's and the Cultural Revolution, but they were then reopened in the liberalization period in the 1980's. Irony is, this is the same liberalization that is often condemned by socialists, such as you, because it also paved way for capitalist restoration (jeez will you people make up your mind?).

I would like to point out, though, that the Soviets did similar things in the early years before Stalin's rapprochement with the Orthodox Church in the Great Patriotic War, and there was even a Society of the Godless that basically carried out anti-religious activities - but I don't see moral indignation at that, at the Orthodox churches that were closed down and the priests who were condemned and run out of their churches. No, it's always, "China is bad." All. The. fragging. Time. No, I'm not saying that the People's Republic of China is perfect, or that it's always right, but I'm getting a little sick of everywhere I go, having people hate on my country of birth, and sometimes me, by association (not here, luckily), because they don't know enough about what the hell they're saying or have some bizarre double standards where other countries can do things, but P.R. China can't and is even condemned when it does.

Edit: Apologies for my emotionally-induced stream of consciousness that resulted in a single massive paragraph. Re-edited, with paragraphs breaks, now that I am calmer and in a clearer state of mind.

I sympathise with your position Komissar_KW, and you're not alone with your opinions on China. I think you'll find most people here support the Chinese position on Tibet, even if they write the Chinese revolution off as a failure generally. Loz is in the minority here if anything.

btw. It'd be great if you could edit some paragraphs into your post. It was a little hard to read.

Fellow Comrade wrote:

btw. It'd be great if you could edit some paragraphs into your post. It was a little hard to read.

Point taken, haha. I'll do that. Sorry, I got emotional and just wrote that in a stream of consciousness mode.

i think that literacy rate in tibet was under 2 digits before the chinese invasion. that's a population purposely kept in ignorance. also it sounds like there was a genocide of tibetans. what do you think of these numbers komissar?

Quote:

since the Chinese invasion over 1 million Tibetans were murdered by the Chinese. Six million Tibetans lived in Tibet before the invasion. So it was over 17% of the entire population of Tibet that the Chinese killed. For example, in the Amdo region of northeast Tibet, of the 100,000 people of the nomadic Golok tribe who lived there before the invasion, as of 1979 there were left only 4,700 survivors!

i didn't believe the figures to be that high, mind you it is a pro-tibet website. i would be more inclined to exclude the chinese from a referendum for independance if there was such a genocide.

I am not familiar with those numbers. In China, this is not discussed, or rather, any and all mentions of repressions in the region is attributed to the People's Liberation Army's actions against nationalists/separatists and remnants of the feudal theocratic order. In the West, I recall a textbook that I had once say something along the lines of "thousands" for deaths. However, it is incredibly difficult to figure out, due to lack of access to numbers. I also find getting accurate numbers on this issue difficult, as searching for "Tibet," "China," and/or "genocide" would usually lead to politically-charged and agenda-driven web-sites (both pro-Tibet and pro-PRC).

Greenanarchism wrote:

i didn't believe the figures to be that high, mind you it is a pro-tibet website. i would be more inclined to exclude the chinese from a referendum for independance if there was such a genocide.

That those numbers that you mentioned came from a pro-Tibet web site makes the charges dubious, as it is similar to the way the famines in the 1930's USSR are often used by Ukrainian nationalists for political gains. Furthermore, Mao's economic policies also caused famines and plenty of deaths, and while the worst of it happened in the Great Leap Forward (which was before China's takeover of Tibet), the effects reverberated through the 1960's and 70's as well, and problems associated with the Cultural Revolution did not help matters. As such, I feel that it was not so much just Tibet (though I do not doubt that Tibet also heavily affected), but rather all the peoples of PR China that suffered as a result of some of Mao's mismanagement and excesses.

Quote:

Mao's economic policies also caused famines and plenty of deaths, and while the worst of it happened in the Great Leap Forward (which was before China's takeover of Tibet),

ah yes it makes sense that tibet would accuse china of the famine's death. problem is they did not talk about it, which means that the charge of intellectual dishonesty can be leveled against them.

was there any violence during the cultural revolution? by the population against those who were religious or too reactionary? if so then i think there would be some of it aimed at tibetans who are still attached to buddhism.

Greenanarchism wrote:

was there any violence during the cultural revolution? by the population against those who were religious or too reactionary? if so then i think there would be some of it aimed at tibetans who are still attached to buddhism.

Not entirely sure about the extent of violence, but it existed. Most of what I know comes from anecdotes from my family, who lived in eastern Mainland China, so I know very little of what went on in Tibet. I also have not really read that much about it, so my knowledge is minimal. What I can tell you is this, based on anecdotes:

1) Public denunciations and humiliation against those with "right-wing" or "reactionary" tendencies did occur. Intellectuals were frequently targeted. Many accused of these things had to write self-criticism and publicly renounce, at least, those charged with lighter offenses. Some people were executed for heavier charges levied against them that went beyond "reactionary" and to like "counter-revolutionary" and "enemy of the People." Even some who had made public renunciations of their former beliefs and criticized themselves were punished with imprisonment. Some people have been accused of crimes solely for making a joke at the wrong time that could have been misconstrued as counter-revolutionary. Whether or not all charges were justifiable is uncertain, but I'm sure there were innocents who were unfairly punished, much like how innocents in America were punished during the various Red Scares of the 20th century.

2) There was indeed armed violence that escalated into violent clashes. Not sure how widespread those were, however. My mother (who was very young at the time) had to leave her hometown with my maternal grandparents because of the violence. However, the violence was not really directed at my family. During that time, there were factions forming around various figures in the CPC, and militias organized by local political leaders supporting different factions often fought in the streets.

I don't know what happened in Tibet, exactly, but likely, there was violence or similar denunciations there as well, perhaps against nationalists, remnants of the old feudal aristocracy, and those who were too "open" about "Tibetan-ness."

My family got out of the Cultural Revolution without many problems. Their biggest complaints were food shortages, bad rations (low in quantity and quality), and having had to move because of violence and street-fighting.

well, it is a tad fragged up. reactionary intellectuals could be spat upon on the streets a sad thing. were people who opposed the revolution peacefully or at least under the pretense of peaceful opposition executed? it doesn't sound like there was state approved violence against those people. this is something that i would disapprove of, at worst they can be jailed.

Quote:

The Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1950 was an act of imperialist aggression that is, even today, ignored by Communist organisations throughout the world. Many of these organisations create excuses to justify the invasion - all the while condemning similar invasions by U.S. imperialists (Iraq, Afghanistan).

Quote:

Sadly, Communists the world over choose to ignore this. The hypocrisy of stating that a Communist nation can invade foreign nations at will, but capitalist nations cannot - is one of the reasons why Communism has lost its credibility.

This is absolutely historically incorrect. Parroting the bourgeois line is not "Marxist", and neither is quoting Sam Marcy on "imperialism", considering that his heirs, the WWP and PSL, both support the reactionary Soviet social-imperialist regime from Krushchev up to Gorbachev and it's imperialist actions in the Warsaw Pact, Ethiopia, Angola and Afghanistan.

On to your reactionary ramblings:

Tibet was a feudal, sparsely populated region, with no proletariat, and was, as such, unable to carry forward socialist revolution.

There was no invasion. If you have read about the 17-point agreement between the Tibetan ruling class serf-owners and the PLA, you'd know that they marched peacefully into Lhasa. The 17-point agreement point 7 attended: "The policy of freedom of religious belief laid down in the Common Programme of the CPC shall be carried out. The religious beliefs, customs and habits of the Tibetan people shall be respected and lama monasteries shall be protected. The central authorities will not effect a change in the income of the monasteries." Historically, Tibetan Buddhism had been a tool of the ruling serf-owners to justify their exploitation and oppression of the serfs. However, the serfs couldn't independently carry forward or lead a socialist revolution to the end, only the proletariat can do that. As such, the first and foremost aim of the CPC was to develop a proletariat in Tibet and spark a revolution.

"During those first years, the PLA worked as a great construction force building the first roads connecting Tibet with central China. A long string of workcamps stretched thousands of miles through endless mountains and gorges. Alongside these camps, the Han soldiers raised their own food using new collective methods. Serfs from surrounding areas were paid wages for work on the road."

"The rulers of old Tibet treated the serfs like "talking animals" and forced them to do endless unpaid labor--so the behavior of these PLA troops was shocking to the Tibetan masses. One serf said, "The Hans worked side by side with us. They did not whip us. For the first time I was treated as a human being." Another serf described the day a PLA soldier gave him water from the soldier's own cup, "I could not believe it!" As serfs were trained to repair trucks, they became the first proletarians in the history of Tibet. One runaway said: "We understood it was not the will of the gods, but the cruelty of humans like ourselves, which kept us slaves."

What the Tibetan serfs witnessed from the PLA soldiers was absolutely the opposite of anything they had received from the serf-owners: humane behavior.

"Once the first white-sand road was completed, long caravans of PLA trucks arrived, carrying key goods like tea and matches. The expanded trade and especially the availability of inexpensive tea improved the diet of ordinary Tibetans. By the mid-'50s, the first telephones, telegraphs, radio station and modern printing had been organized. The first newspapers, books and pamphlets appeared, in both Han and Tibetan. After 1955, Tibet's first real schools were founded. By July 1957 there were 79 elementary schools, with 6,000 students. All this started to improve the life of poor people and infuriated the upper classes, who had always monopolized all trade, book-learning and contact with the outside world."

And then, the turning point:

"In March 1959, armed monks and Tibetan soldiers attacked the revolutionary garrison in Lhasa and launched a revolt along the Tibet-India border. One monk later said, "All of us were told that, if we killed a Han, we would become Living Buddhas and have chapels to our name." Without much support among the masses, the lamaists were soon dug in at some shrines. The main revolt was over within a few days."
- Mike Ely, The True Story of Maoist Revolution in Tibet

For the first time in your life, you're treated as a human being. The old oppressive serf-owning monks then starts a revolt against those very people who treated you with respect. This was basically what triggered revolution in Tibet. Simplistic black-and-white portrayals of events, such as claiming this was an "imperialist invasion" are not Marxist, in any sense of the word.

The True Story of Maoist Revolution in Tibet
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth