I disagree. This is good. Honestly, I don't understand why so many people on this site tow the Chinese government's official views? The right to free speech, cultural heritage, and movement are good things. Just because a state has incorporated socialist/communist imagery doesn't justify it's actions.
Also, I see a lot of people here give critical support of AOC, which is a good thing. Every person in a position of power should only expect conditional support based on their actions. However, a lot of ML's seem to believe that the mere success of gain power of people, i.e. Mao and Stalin's rise, seem to justify their support. I know we talk a lot of shit on this site, but state-run crackdowns on dissidents and cultural traditions is a sign of a unjust society.
Can you not separated what is right vs what's wrong. Democracy and civil liberties are good, there's nothing wrong with encouraging other countries to accept them. I mean look at Russia's help to socialist revolutionary groups around the world. New flash, most countries are run by very very evil people. There's no point in taking sides. Just support those that pushing for equality, democracy, and civil liberties.
what you're doing is deliberately abstracting the situation away from reality into the realm of the sheer concepts of democracy and equality without regard for actual history or conditions
Saddam wasn't just a cunt, he was a sadistic motherfuck. Go watch a video of 1979 Ba'ath Party Purge and look at pictures of chemical weapons attack on the Kurds. Honestly, I'll never forgive Bush Senior for letting Saddam's Army retreat back into Iraq to suppress Kurdish and the general uprising. Saddam should have never been allowed into power. Most countries just let genocide slide. There's no international support to remove dictators unless they hurt somebody's bottom line. 😔
Well though Iraqi soldiers ended up killing ten of thousands of innocent civilians the resulting uprising against Saddam's regime. The US could have prevent the massacre and ensure that Saddam didn't stay in power. Also, yes, that's my point. Bush wasn't interested in actually doing any good.
I'm saying that AOC seems to genuine care about freedom, democracy, and equality. This is something that sets her apart from the ghouls that rule most of the world.
Shit the US supported him up until the late 80s. Not really, he didn't help people that I'm aware of, besides liberating people from this world. He got in trouble by interrupting world's oil supply.
So you are completely ignoring that the user above pointed out that she is straight up lying about whats happening on Tibet and just respond with general slogans
There is always this pattern with concern trolls, they 99% have no clue of what they are talking about, like as if this is a competition for Xi bucks instead of understanding the entire historical and material context at play here.
Wow, I'm glad those Tibetans have those enlightened Han to make sure they don't backslide into feudal depravity. Without them, they'd be back to living in Mud huts!
Not like me and my big brain that thinks Tibet will massively improve materially and socially by being thrown overnight into the hungry mouths of the big wolf called global capitalism.
I mean poverty is decreasing world wide so maybe it would be best for Tibet to go at it alone! I am sure I can find some great white male saviour Bill Gates tweet to support my thesis.
Not like me and my big brain that thinks Tibet will massively improve materially and socially by being thrown overnight into the hungry mouths of the big wolf called global capitalism.
Yes, those are definitely the only two options, the PRC certainly could not just set up a separate communist state with Tibetan leadership.
Big brain take: I trust China to setup overnight some separate independent socialist state but I don't trust China to actually govern the region like it has done for over 50 years now.
Please spend at least 2s thinking about the actual outcome here for the people involved in the struggle against imperialism.
2-China vows to support the socialist government at all costs.
3-Suddenly like nobody could ever see this coming a """"movement"""" starts crying for DEMOCRACY so now they ask big brother USA to help them because big bad China is literaly holding Tibet as a satellite state you know because the Tibetan people deserve DEMOCRACY or some shit.
Result: China gets balkanized but still has to support this territory for security and ideological reasons.
Sounds great to me we should ask the Tibetan people if they want independence right away...
Big brain take: I trust China to setup overnight some separate independent socialist state but I don’t trust China to actually govern the region like it has done for over 50 years now.
I don't trust it to do either, it's a bourgeois state and it'd set up a bourgeois state in this thought experiment. But it'd still be less of an imperialism.
Result: China gets balkanized but still has to support this territory for security and ideological reasons.
They don't have to do shit. They let Myanmar sink or swim, don't tell me they couldn't do the same for Tibet.
Conquering another country for "security reasons" is pure fucking imperialism, it's the same shitty reasoning used for the Japanese colonization of Korea and China. Not like it's even applicable here - it'd suicide to try an invade China through Tibet, the logistics are ridiculous.
What part of what i just wrote made you think I give a shit about western opinion polls either?
I don’t have one offhand that isolates Tibetan responses, but there’s a pretty good chance you can find one. At the very least, you should be able to extrapolate a range from looking at the places where responses were isolated and then using population proportions to set up a possible range for the local average.
Why would I do a bunch of work to derive a number that I think is completely worthless, like all opinion polls?
You’re literally just keeping yourself in a state of epistemic suspense so that you can continue to lick boots.
Pretty sure I'm the only one not licking boots here. Sorry I don't start chowing down as soon as I see that the boot is red.
I can buy that logic, but it would really only apply to western state propaganda - western businesses who are active in china (who would the ones taking the poll) would absolutely still be incentivized to side with the PRC.
Fair enough, this is basically the situation I was thinking of, and the contents makes it clear they'd want to fudge things, but have trouble with it.
Now, this poll isn’t particularly relevant to the question of Tibet (though perhaps it might cool your hatred of the PRC?)
I don't hate the PRC, certainly not more than any other bourgeois state. I just don't see the need to make excuses' for their imperialism because they have a socialist aesthetic. I also don't believe in the outlandish Uyghur genoicde claims, although the PRC are clearly run by Han chauvinists.
but I think it provides an analytical basis for getting some information on how things stand in Tibet.
Now that I really don't see. The contents of the pdf fit with my opinion that China is, despite authoritarian, a capitalist state that is in less decay than much of the west. This competency translates both into real material gains and popular support - but I don't see how that changes the situation in Tibet. There are absolutely historical examples, like Lombardy or Bohemia, in which an imperial power managed to govern competently and create a decent economy, but is still oppressive and did not have popular support.
This is not about Tibetans as a group somehow not having the capacity to self-govern.
Then why is Tibet's fedual past even brought up in the first place? Surely that was a consequence of the socio-political system of the previous regime, and once destroyed it becomes no longer relevant. The only justification for bringing it up would be trying to portray the Tibetan people as somehow inherently primitive, and that any new state would backslide into it - a common racist justification for imperialism.
This is about the historical incident that the ruling class of Tibet before China took it over was overtly depraved,
And you're still bringing it up NOW!
be much better than that when some US-backed reactionary is put in charge of a state.
I said conditions, not roads. Look at the decrease in poverty. Look at the increase in children actually being able to complete primary school. Look at just about any metric you want and you will find that it has improved.
So fucking what? Of course it should improve, they're not fucking feudal lords, of course it's going to be a massive step up. But Tibet in the the 1950s is not the counterfactual we're comparing it to, it's the theoretical independent communist tibetan state.
The insistence that without the guiding hand of the Imperialist, the region would inevitably fall into authoritarianism, anarchism or owned by the "bad" imperalist, is an absolute classic piece of Imperialist propaganda.
Can you point to anything to suggest that the state that has successfully overthrown dozens of nations and has a “Tibetan Government-in-Exile” just waiting to take over wouldn’t be able to do so?
Because the US is not omnipotent, and more often than not, it completely falls flat on it's face?
The US has completely failed to pacify a nation that borders Tibet, that is both much smaller and less mountainous. A country that borders China had a very long war for it's independence, in which the US was actively involved for 10 years, and during that war it also ended up having to fight china itself. Falling to western imperialism is not inevitable, and any attempt to pretend otherwise it really just an attempt to legitimize chinese imperialism.
And, again, equivocating between the US and China is absurd.
Fundamentally, I think this where we're at an impasse. I think they absolutely are equivocal, both fundamentally being bourgeois states seeking to increase their power through imperialism - the only difference being danger - China is less dangerous to most of the world than the US, but to the Uyghur and Tibet, absolutely not.
Then why is Tibet’s fedual past even brought up in the first place? Surely that was a consequence of the socio-political system of the previous regime, and once destroyed it becomes no longer relevant. The only justification for bringing it up would be trying to portray the Tibetan people as somehow inherently primitive, and that any new state would backslide into it - a common racist justification for imperialism.
Imperialism is when anyone is apart of a country that isn’t ran by people that look and speak exactly like them. True leftists only support ethno-states that the majority of the actual population don’t actually desire which coincidently aligns with the United States foreign policy objectives that have historically led to the deaths of millions and some of the most dramatic drops in standard of living in human history.
True leftism is when we conquer another nation because it paid tribute to the Emperor of the Qing, thus it is a completely natural part of the borders of our empire socialist state.
Explain to me how the Tibetan people in any remotely practical or material sense lost real sovereignty or freedom when serfdom, a system that 95% of them were subject to, was abolished and supplanted by the CPC integrating the Tibetan Communist Party and instituting a egalitarian system that allowed them comprehensive access to education, healthcare, participation in local elections and modern infrastructure for the first time In their history.
You’re, without hyperbole, whinging that a vanishingly small amount of the Tibetan elite no longer has their own lines on a map to rule as feudal fiefdom under the veneer of protesting supposed imperialist oppression that no one but western backed reactionaries substantiate.
What? Surely you aren’t implying these chauvinists masquerading as leftists are cynically utilizing using an entire population of people as pawns in their rhetoric while obstinately refusing to actually learn an iota of information about them or their history or views are you?
America and AOC genuinely want what’s good for the Tibetian people, I don’t know why you can’t see that.
that doesn’t mean that topping oppressive regimes isn’t a bad thing.
Who gets to decide when a government is so oppressive that it should be overthrown by foreigners? How many examples of benign intervention are there compared to examples of harmful intervention?
When westerners talk about free speech towards socialist states its the right to freely speak for the destruction of socialism, the right for international bourgeoise media to slander freely in that country.
I disagree. This is good. Honestly, I don't understand why so many people on this site tow the Chinese government's official views? The right to free speech, cultural heritage, and movement are good things. Just because a state has incorporated socialist/communist imagery doesn't justify it's actions.
Also, I see a lot of people here give critical support of AOC, which is a good thing. Every person in a position of power should only expect conditional support based on their actions. However, a lot of ML's seem to believe that the mere success of gain power of people, i.e. Mao and Stalin's rise, seem to justify their support. I know we talk a lot of shit on this site, but state-run crackdowns on dissidents and cultural traditions is a sign of a unjust society.
deleted by creator
Can you not separated what is right vs what's wrong. Democracy and civil liberties are good, there's nothing wrong with encouraging other countries to accept them. I mean look at Russia's help to socialist revolutionary groups around the world. New flash, most countries are run by very very evil people. There's no point in taking sides. Just support those that pushing for equality, democracy, and civil liberties.
what you're doing is deliberately abstracting the situation away from reality into the realm of the sheer concepts of democracy and equality without regard for actual history or conditions
in short, pure ideology
deleted by creator
Saddam wasn't just a cunt, he was a sadistic motherfuck. Go watch a video of 1979 Ba'ath Party Purge and look at pictures of chemical weapons attack on the Kurds. Honestly, I'll never forgive Bush Senior for letting Saddam's Army retreat back into Iraq to suppress Kurdish and the general uprising. Saddam should have never been allowed into power. Most countries just let genocide slide. There's no international support to remove dictators unless they hurt somebody's bottom line. 😔
deleted by creator
Well though Iraqi soldiers ended up killing ten of thousands of innocent civilians the resulting uprising against Saddam's regime. The US could have prevent the massacre and ensure that Saddam didn't stay in power. Also, yes, that's my point. Bush wasn't interested in actually doing any good.
deleted by creator
I'm saying that AOC seems to genuine care about freedom, democracy, and equality. This is something that sets her apart from the ghouls that rule most of the world.
deleted by creator
Yeah but in 1979 he was still on the US's payroll, wasn't he?
He only became a “dictator" to us when he tried to start social programs in an attempt to help people.
Shit the US supported him up until the late 80s. Not really, he didn't help people that I'm aware of, besides liberating people from this world. He got in trouble by interrupting world's oil supply.
So you are completely ignoring that the user above pointed out that she is straight up lying about whats happening on Tibet and just respond with general slogans
deleted by creator
CW:
spoiler
This is cultural heritage, free speech and movement that Tibet is missing.
There is always this pattern with concern trolls, they 99% have no clue of what they are talking about, like as if this is a competition for Xi bucks instead of understanding the entire historical and material context at play here.
Wow, I'm glad those Tibetans have those enlightened Han to make sure they don't backslide into feudal depravity. Without them, they'd be back to living in Mud huts!
Not like me and my big brain that thinks Tibet will massively improve materially and socially by being thrown overnight into the hungry mouths of the big wolf called global capitalism.
I mean poverty is decreasing world wide so maybe it would be best for Tibet to go at it alone! I am sure I can find some
great white male saviourBill Gates tweet to support my thesis.Yes, those are definitely the only two options, the PRC certainly could not just set up a separate communist state with Tibetan leadership.
Big brain take: I trust China to setup overnight some separate independent socialist state but I don't trust China to actually govern the region like it has done for over 50 years now.
Please spend at least 2s thinking about the actual outcome here for the people involved in the struggle against imperialism.
1-Tibet becomes socialist "independent" satellite.
2-China vows to support the socialist government at all costs.
3-Suddenly like nobody could ever see this coming a """"movement"""" starts crying for DEMOCRACY so now they ask big brother USA to help them because big bad China is literaly holding Tibet as a satellite state you know because the Tibetan people deserve DEMOCRACY or some shit.
Result: China gets balkanized but still has to support this territory for security and ideological reasons. Sounds great to me we should ask the Tibetan people if they want independence right away...
I don't trust it to do either, it's a bourgeois state and it'd set up a bourgeois state in this thought experiment. But it'd still be less of an imperialism.
They don't have to do shit. They let Myanmar sink or swim, don't tell me they couldn't do the same for Tibet.
Conquering another country for "security reasons" is pure fucking imperialism, it's the same shitty reasoning used for the Japanese colonization of Korea and China. Not like it's even applicable here - it'd suicide to try an invade China through Tibet, the logistics are ridiculous.
I don't trust it to do either
deleted by creator
I too am glad that Tibet has been colonized by China instead of the United States. What a massive improvement.
deleted by creator
Are you seriously fucking tell me to look at opinion polls?
deleted by creator
Oh I'm sorry, you're right, those opinion polls are correct because they were produced by the red bourgeoisie and not the blue bourgeoisie.
deleted by creator
What part of what i just wrote made you think I give a shit about western opinion polls either?
Why would I do a bunch of work to derive a number that I think is completely worthless, like all opinion polls?
Pretty sure I'm the only one not licking boots here. Sorry I don't start chowing down as soon as I see that the boot is red.
deleted by creator
I can buy that logic, but it would really only apply to western state propaganda - western businesses who are active in china (who would the ones taking the poll) would absolutely still be incentivized to side with the PRC.
deleted by creator
Fair enough, this is basically the situation I was thinking of, and the contents makes it clear they'd want to fudge things, but have trouble with it.
I don't hate the PRC, certainly not more than any other bourgeois state. I just don't see the need to make excuses' for their imperialism because they have a socialist aesthetic. I also don't believe in the outlandish Uyghur genoicde claims, although the PRC are clearly run by Han chauvinists.
Now that I really don't see. The contents of the pdf fit with my opinion that China is, despite authoritarian, a capitalist state that is in less decay than much of the west. This competency translates both into real material gains and popular support - but I don't see how that changes the situation in Tibet. There are absolutely historical examples, like Lombardy or Bohemia, in which an imperial power managed to govern competently and create a decent economy, but is still oppressive and did not have popular support.
deleted by creator
Unironically
Imperialism is imperialism, let it come from whom it may.
deleted by creator
Then why is Tibet's fedual past even brought up in the first place? Surely that was a consequence of the socio-political system of the previous regime, and once destroyed it becomes no longer relevant. The only justification for bringing it up would be trying to portray the Tibetan people as somehow inherently primitive, and that any new state would backslide into it - a common racist justification for imperialism.
And you're still bringing it up NOW!
Then don't put a US-backed reactionary in charge.
deleted by creator
It's certainly a risk. But we're comparing a possible imperalism to one that is actively ongoing.
deleted by creator
Oh I see, colonialism is just fine when you build infrastructure.
deleted by creator
So fucking what? Of course it should improve, they're not fucking feudal lords, of course it's going to be a massive step up. But Tibet in the the 1950s is not the counterfactual we're comparing it to, it's the theoretical independent communist tibetan state.
deleted by creator
The insistence that without the guiding hand of the Imperialist, the region would inevitably fall into authoritarianism, anarchism or owned by the "bad" imperalist, is an absolute classic piece of Imperialist propaganda.
deleted by creator
Because the US is not omnipotent, and more often than not, it completely falls flat on it's face?
The US has completely failed to pacify a nation that borders Tibet, that is both much smaller and less mountainous. A country that borders China had a very long war for it's independence, in which the US was actively involved for 10 years, and during that war it also ended up having to fight china itself. Falling to western imperialism is not inevitable, and any attempt to pretend otherwise it really just an attempt to legitimize chinese imperialism.
Fundamentally, I think this where we're at an impasse. I think they absolutely are equivocal, both fundamentally being bourgeois states seeking to increase their power through imperialism - the only difference being danger - China is less dangerous to most of the world than the US, but to the Uyghur and Tibet, absolutely not.
deleted by creator
Imperialism is when anyone is apart of a country that isn’t ran by people that look and speak exactly like them. True leftists only support ethno-states that the majority of the actual population don’t actually desire which coincidently aligns with the United States foreign policy objectives that have historically led to the deaths of millions and some of the most dramatic drops in standard of living in human history.
:very-smart:
True leftism is when we conquer another nation because it paid tribute to the Emperor of the Qing, thus it is a completely natural part of the borders of our
empiresocialist state.Explain to me how the Tibetan people in any remotely practical or material sense lost real sovereignty or freedom when serfdom, a system that 95% of them were subject to, was abolished and supplanted by the CPC integrating the Tibetan Communist Party and instituting a egalitarian system that allowed them comprehensive access to education, healthcare, participation in local elections and modern infrastructure for the first time In their history.
You’re, without hyperbole, whinging that a vanishingly small amount of the Tibetan elite no longer has their own lines on a map to rule as feudal fiefdom under the veneer of protesting supposed imperialist oppression that no one but western backed reactionaries substantiate.
deleted by creator
Not advocating a return to a feudal Tibet. Nor am I advocating continued Chinese rule. You think it has to be either or?
Good thing that the big majority of Tibetians rn dont want independence from China or discontinuation of the Tibet autonomous region
What? Surely you aren’t implying these chauvinists masquerading as leftists are cynically utilizing using an entire population of people as pawns in their rhetoric while obstinately refusing to actually learn an iota of information about them or their history or views are you?
America and AOC genuinely want what’s good for the Tibetian people, I don’t know why you can’t see that.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
you're literally applying "isn't a bad thing" to the fucking Iraq War
where the fuck do you people come from
You're a toddler. Tibet doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is nothing but 100% ideological western chauvinism
glad to see you're coming out in support for China's liberation of Tibet
:cringe: :cringe:
Who gets to decide when a government is so oppressive that it should be overthrown by foreigners? How many examples of benign intervention are there compared to examples of harmful intervention?
deleted by creator
yeah we live in global hegemonic imperialism. The realistic alternative to a Chinese Tibet is a CIA infested puppet state. It's either or.
deleted by creator
When westerners talk about free speech towards socialist states its the right to freely speak for the destruction of socialism, the right for international bourgeoise media to slander freely in that country.