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.
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.