The point is; if Tibet was to be given autonomy today, it would resemble Sweden more than anywhere, and would in no way repeat previous mistakes.
May I ask why you think Tibet would resemble Sweden? Why not postulate that’d it be Sikkimized or Bhutanized? Why not postulate that it would have been a repressive, caste society like the one recently overthrown in Nepal? Why wouldn’t it’s ruler simply become a satrap of a larger power? All these possibilities seem much more likely, especially since the rioting secessionist Tibetan’s displayed a profound xenophobia when they vandalized property, committed arson, assaulted in some cases even killed people solely because they (or the owners of the property) were the wrong ethnicity.
The damaged people you mention, some of whom I have met on my visit to Tibet were not harmed by the Lama. Stop this foolish revisionism.
By that logic Mussolini didn’t use chemical weapons on entire villages in Ethiopia. His soldiers did. Does this mean he should be exonerated just like the Dalai Lama?
As regards the CIA funding issue, I was attempting to place his payments within a wider context.
…and what context would that be? What need does he have for a personally salary of nearly $200,000 during the 1960s in India? The CIA was already paying for unnecessary violence in Tibet.
I didn't miss your point, and I am well aware of the Sino-Soviet split, but that is only part of the picture. Mao had a very healthy support amongst the intelligentsia for many years, and the critiques coming from the other Communist parties were rarely about Mao's human rights policies.
Could you please provide some proof or something for this “very healthy support amongst the intelligentsia for many years”?
Regarding the idea that critiques on Mao were rarely about the issue of human rights, that is most certainly not the case; hence why the Kruschevites flipped their shit when Zhou Enlai laid a wreath of flowers on Stalin’s grave. Needless to say, the Trotskyites had derided Mao from the start due to his agreement with Stalin on many key issues, and this rejection was only amplified after the Great Leap Forward. Naturally, all groups which opposed the Soviet Union and Bolshevism from the start also derided Mao from the get-go…. which includes your Luxembourgists, DeLeonists, Anarchists, etc.
More logical fallacy. How the hell do you know what the Lama was thinking as he was forced out of his own nation? You have personal insight into his mind that at this given moment, not that given moment, he may or may not have been sincere.?...you're getting into pure personal spite here.
If you could quote the particular portion of my post that you’re referring to here it’d make me job a lot easier.
The quotations you give are not at all contradictory. The Lama believes in freedom to strive and succeed materially, but he doesn't believe in the capitalist system that would seek to force power upon others.
They aren’t contradictory? So you’re saying Marx, the man who coined the phrase “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, the man who advocated expropriating the means of production from the rich and giving them to the proletariat, and the man who developed the wage theory of labour – a theory which states people are paid the bare amount necessary for the laborer’s to reproduce themselves – would have no problem with the statement:
“ “those who live in abundance”: “It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And to the poor he offers this admonition: “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.”
Maybe I am crazy, but it would seem to me that Marx would have a _big_ problem with anybody who claimed the life of luxury enjoyed by the ultra rich was due not to their exploitation of the working class, but due to their being more holy than the poor in a prior life.
To return to Sweden; that nation has poor and rich without exploitation and blind chasing of profit; therefore mixing both capitalism and socialism. That's where the Lama is coming from.
As you stated, “How the hell do you know what the Lama was thinking...”
; we have to go off what the Lama said. Again, Marx advocated a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx advocated Communal ownership of the means of production. If the Lama was
referring to Sweden (for some reason), then why would he call himself a Marxist? Marx, remember, has that famous quote (and this isn’t verbatim, mind you) – “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
The role of the CCP (your cheap shot backfired there) should be mentioned in such a debate regardless of how well known or not it may be.
To what cheap shot are you referring?
Anyways, this entire thread was more or less a bash China thread, and you added your two cents without mentioning anything positive about China (until I arrived); I view my self as having imparted new information to the thread and helping creating a more balanced view of China, a view of a China which has drastically improved the situation in Tibet by eliminating a Feudal Theocracy of outstanding brutality and avarice and by continuing to invest in massive infrastructure development projects in the impoverished region. The PRC gave Tibet public schools and healthcare for the poor; the Lama’s regime viewed them as property, and developed an entire religion that legitimized their exploitation of the poor.
I respect your interest in this topic, but please don't resort to sarcasm and personal attacks. Let's keep this chat about the subject, ok?
“I have a life and a job, so I'll keep this short.”, “this Mormon fellow must be a troll”, “Chinese apologists find their way on to the most obscure threads. Hello to all the goose-steppers out there!”
The transition from Communist repression to a free market is painful (and politically they haven't gotten to where they need to be yet).
Personally, I don’t think China is going to cease being a Communist ruled nation anytime soon,
The issue also factors into economic policy. As China has grown less dependent on foreign capital - and sometime more suspicious of the motives of foreign companies operating in China - it has shown signs of tipping into a mood of economic nationalism.
Chinese policy makers were happy to use foreign economic participation as a catalyst "but want such participation only as long as it is necessary and beneficial," said one investment consultant in Beijing, who asked not to be identified because of the topic's sensitivity.
Reflecting that approach, and China's now-abundant supply of capital, foreign investors are meeting less receptivity than they did just a few years ago, especially in sectors with potentially strategic value, like railroads and power generation.
"Tightening of the Open Door policy has always been just a matter of time," the consultant said