CHINA AND THE RIDDLE OF TIBET
The force of the ideology of political nationalism can be measured by the way that social conflicts that are only tangentially national, are expressed in terms of national politics. Political nationalism is a concept just over two hundred years old, yet the idea that the world is divided into nations is now seen as so natural and permanent as to precede history.
To understand the politics we must be concrete and particular, both in terms of the specific material and social circumstances, but also in terms of the political objectives and ideology of a political movement. In what sense is Tibet a nation? Is the Free Tibet movement a national liberation struggle? and should socialists support it?
The first thing we need to do is understand some of the historical context.
When Chinese troops re-entered Tibet in 1951, the average life expectancy in the country was just 35 years old, literacy stood at just 10% and the feudal lords, comprising just 5% of the population held 95% of the wealth. All religions except Buddhism were illegal, and the serfs were kept in place by brutal violence: the agricultural workers belonged as chattels to the monasteries.
Today, the life expectancy is between 65 and 70 years, and 85% of the population is literate. Per capita health and welfare spending in Tibet is higher than the national Chinese average. There is freedom of religion, and Tibetan Chinese, unshackled from serfdom, can progress towards prosperity and influence not just in the Autonomous Region, but in the main metropolitan centres of China.
It is true that on average Han Chinese in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China have a higher standard of living than the average for Chinese Tibetans. But the explanation for this is more complex than simply ethnic discrimination, though Han chauvinism is a real factor in modern China. The majority of Han Chinese who go to the Autonomous Region are entrepreneurs, or contract labourers, if their business fails or their contract ends then there is no social and family support network for them, so they return to the other parts of China from which they have come – which means there are very few unemployed or poor Han Chinese in Tibet, but there are many poor Tibetan Chinese. One of the interesting developments of recent years has been an increasing development of Tibetan Chinese taking over from Han Chinese in running hotels, and other businesses. And of course the rebellion of forces in 1959 seeking to restore feudalism failed due to the fact that many Tibetan Chinese were prospering under Communist rule and feared a return to the bondage of feudal slavery.
Like in most parts of China over the last many years, there has been population migration from the countryside to the cities in Tibet, and there are reservoirs of very poor and unemployed Tibetan Chinese in the towns, many of whom are desperately excluded and alienated. The Autonomous Region has seen steady economic growth, but absolute poverty still exists.
The recent riots and looting by the urban poor have been ruthlessly suppressed by the Chinese government, in exactly the same way that the Chinese state has ruthlessly suppressed discontent by other people in China – for example the terrible massacres after the Tiannanmen Square pro-democracy protests in 1989, most of those killed then were Han Chinese. Similarly, the historical defacing of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries during the Cultural Revolution was mirrored by the same defacing of Zen monasteries, mosques, churches and synagogues – it was not an aspect of national oppression, but of the China wide campaign of secularisation.
So while the recent riots in the Chinese Autonomous Region of Tibet have taken on an ethnic character, and been articulated as nationalist, they are just as much an expression of the discontent of the dispossessed urban unemployed, and frustration at the prevailing lack of democracy and growing wealth inequality that affects most of China. The nationalism is not a progressive one seeking a modernising and democratising national state, but nihilistic politics based upon expressing economic grievances in ethnic terms
Nevertheless, clearly many Tibetan Chinese do favour independence, and this view is enthusiastically promoted by Western liberals. So what is the political content of this campaign? What would be the nature of an independent Tibet?
This is where simply exporting Western European understanding is misleading, where for the most part the nation state in Western Europe has been historically relatively homogenous.
In contrast, China has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-lingusitic state, and although Confusionism was dominant, the Empire also included Buddhists and Muslims. The unique characteristic of China is that the political rule of the mandarinal bureaucracy was coincident with the use of the Putōnghuà language and the pictoral script, but in most of the vast empire, Putōnghuà was only spoken by the bureaucracy as a lingua franca. In analogy to Europe, imagine that everywhere that Latin was spoken by clerics in mediaeval times had been a single centralised state.
Only during the Ming dynasty was the bureaucracy the preserve of ethnic Han Chinese, and since the start of the Manchu/Qing period in 1644 the Chinese government has been open to Chinese of any ethnicity or language, provided they mastered the Putōnghuà language and pictoral script. (in the same way that English is a unifying administrative language in modern India)
The manner in which Tibet and the rest of China became politically united is also important to understand: both the Tibetan Chinese and the Han Chinese were conquered by the Mongols under Genghis Khan in the 13th century, and only when the Mongol Yuan dynasty collapsed in 1368 the successor state, the Han Ming dynasty, ruled the whole former empire of the Yuan, including Tibet. This is analogous to the way that both England and Wales were conquered by the Norman French, and the subsequent English state inhereted the union. There was never an annexation of Tibet by the Han Chinese.
Today China includes and recognizes 56 ethnic groups, who comprises 7% of the population (90 plus million people), the majority Han population also speak a variety of languages, there are for example 77 million Wu speakers, 71 million Cantonese speakers, 36 million Xiang speakers, etc. So the modern Chinese nationalism, that starts with Sun Yat-Sen and has been inherited by the Chinese Communist Party has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural vision of a united nation – and the role of the national state was to pursue economic modernization and social reform. (It is worth noting that even in the absence of formal political democracy, economic emancipation and universal access to education is a democratising social process - and therefore by that measure modern Tibet is much more democratic than it was before 1951.)
The unifying factor of the modern Chinese nation was the historical legacy of the Mandarin bureaucracy, based upon the Putōnghuà language of the governing elite – the political mission of the Chinese nationalists was to democratise that society through extending universal education and ending feudalism and bonded forms of labour, as well as throwing off foreign domination.
Similar democratic nationalist movements occurred throughout Asia, for example with the founding in 1908 of the Young Men’s Buddhist Association in Rangoon in Burma, or the 1938 founding of the Malay nationalist Kesatuan Malayu Muda, etc. But there was markedly no such popular national movement in Tibet.
Instead, the separation of the province of Tibet from China was enforced by the British in India. Having invaded Chinese Tibet in both 1888 and 1903, the British finally encouraged a puppet regime to announce secession from China in 1913, but this was never recognised by the Chinese republic, who were at that time still seeking the expulsion of colonialists and imperialists from the four corners of China.
The important thing here to note is that modern political nationalism has been predicated on the development of free labour, and universal education, to create a shared national community of culture. This has not been the trajectory of those seeking Tibetan independence. The pro-British feudal lords and monasteries in the period between 1913 and 1951 relied upon indentured labour, and widespread illiteracy, there was no progressive dynamic.
We should also consider that while all Tibetan Chinese, through common ancestry and language, and through geographic isolation and harsh environment have many shared characteristics, the working poor of Tibet under feudalism, were uncultured, illiterate, mired in poverty and brutalized – in social and political terms they were not a part of the nation, but only tenants of the nation. In so far as there was a shared Tibetan cultural community, it was exclusive to the landlords and the monasteries. Therefore the political separation of Tibet from the rest of China was reactionary, and a cynical alliance between the geo-political interests of the British Raj with the most obscurantist barbarians who benefited from Tibetan feudal backwardness.
Tibetan independence between 1913 and 1951 was a sham, an illusion that could only prosper under the patronage of the British Empire and the fact that the whole of China was fighting against imperial domination. But today could it be different?
No people can have self determination if they cannot control their own culture and economy. Tibet is too marginal to the world economy and too poor to be genuinely independent and develop a national economy and high culture of its own. In reality it can only exist as either part of China or as a bankrupt client state of Western imperialism – the fact that the figurehead for the Free Tibet campaign is the Dalai Lama, the feudal figurehead of the old slavery and barbarism is illustrative of the fact that no progressive national-popular and democratic campaign exists among the mass of the Tibetan Chinese, rather the movement is the expression of declassed intellectuals and dispossessed exiles. In the absence of a popular national dynamic to create a viable independent state, there is no prospect of self determination. The lack of such a popular dynamic towards independence is even recognised by the Dalai Lama who no longer argues for independence, but only autonomy within the Peoples’ Republic of China.
The liberals, and not so liberals, who advocate Tibetan independence, are often well intentioned, and they are justified in highlighting the excesses by the Chinese government and to protest against oppression and repression in China.
But the campaign for democratization in Tibet cannot be separated from the campaign to democratize all of China; and the people who can carry out that democratisation are the Chinese themselves, including the Han Chinese, the Tibetan Chinese, and all of the other 56 ethnic groups within China. Breaking the unity of the historical Chinese state and nation will not strengthen the Chinese people in their struggle for economic and democratic progress, but only carve China up at the mercy of the imperialists.
So do Tibetans have the right to self determination, or not?
Comment by paul — 19 March, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Socialist Worker, unsurprisingly, has an alternative, anti-colonialist perspective: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14452
Comment by chjh — 19 March, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
There is no national liberation movement in Tibet. There is no social class in Tibet that is capable of building a progressive national state, and there is no meaningful sense that Tibet can have national self-determination.
The premise that there is a universal right to self determination is inhereted from US president Woodrow Wilson, and has never been unconditionally accepted by the socialist movement, who have always argued that it is a question of political context, and the requirement is that there is a popular national democratic movement.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
#2
chjh, Do you by any chance know the author of that article personally?
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Well, “progress towards prosperity”, is a strange thing to say Andy, given the degree to which capitalism has been let rip with no democratic channels or organisation, and independent trades unions banned.
There have been fantastic riches produced by this process, though they sit side by side with absolute poverty and exploitation of Victorian proportions (if not worse. I don’t know enough to say how this impacts on the material conditions in Tibet.
By the way, the ’secularisation’ at the time of the so-called Cultural Revolution, was a wiildly ultra-left barbarism which revered Mao like a God. The problem wasn’t secularism it was the anti-democratic content of a campaign which was rooted in an intra-bureaucratic struggle.
I’m not sure what this means:
“The nationalism is not a progressive one seeking a modernising and democratising national state, but nihilistic politics based upon expressing economic grievances in ethnic terms.”
What is a modernising state?
I’m not sure that the imperialist countries will seriously support the break up of the Chinese state. After all, a growing sector of the US economy depends on Chinese money. They will make ‘democratic’ noises of course. But really supporting a movement for independence would cut across the real-politic which has led the major powers to applaud the restoration of capitalism whilst content to accept the dictatorial regime’s oppressive measures.
In this sense supporting the right to self-determination does not automatically lead you to end up supporting the imperialists.
I’m not sure that it is true to say that socialists have never
Comment by Martin Wicks — 19 March, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
I think the Socialist Worker piece is quite good. The problem with it is that it doesn’t do enough damage to the Dalai Lama (an individual with the same class base and moral authority as Bono).
But Andy, your formulation in the last paragraph raises a question, that I’m sure we’re going to hear a lot more of. Given the scale of the protest (as far as I can tell), isn’t it the case that Tibetans are now very much part of the campaign for democracy, in all China?
Socialists are therefore in an all too common position, of fighting on the side of the oppressed (economically in this case) while shaking off the imperial bilge that attaches itself.
As we get closer to the Olympics this might just be a touchpaper that others are waiting on - the best of all possible worlds would have mass protests in Tiananmen while the medals are being handed out…
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 19 March, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
no arguments with the basic thrust of the article
just some corrections i’d like to point out:
“Zen” is Japanese, developed from Chinese “Chan” Buddhism. you could probably also include the defacing of Daoist, Confucian and other symbols of traditional Chinese folk religion, rather than bring up churches and synagogues.
the Chinese script is not “pictoral” or even “ideographic”. even a quick perusal of the wikipedia articles should help dispel the myths behind oft-used these (mis-)labels. perhaps also take a look at The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy by John DeFrancis.
Comment by anon — 19 March, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Martin,
My point about individuals prpgressing towards prosperity is that there is no bar within the Peoples Republic to prevent someone of Tibetan Chinese descent becoming personally successful in political, academic or economic life at the metropolitan centres. this is an importnat index of colonialism, for example Australians and new Zealanders could rarely if ever come to political prominenve in th UK during the Empire, and this was one of the drivers of “creole nationalism” in the Americas. if the colonists and creoles were excluded, then even more so the colonial subjects - the anglo-indians given a European eductaion in the Raj could only ever have influence in India, while a British person’s career could be anywhere in the Empire.
The potential access for individual Tibetan Chinese to all parts of Chiensese society is an important indictator that this is not a colony. In contrast, under Tibetan feudalism, the vast majority of Tibetans could never leave the hovel they were incarcerated in. This is an index of social progress.
In answer to your question, what do i mean by a modernising state - a modernising national state has traditionally been one that abolishes feudalism and introduces universal eductation, and social mobility, and excludes foreign domination. A modernising state certainly fits with the thrust of Sun Yat-Senism, and the later Chinese nationalism of the Chinese CP or Koumintang who abolished the worst excesses of the old Chinese Empire, foot binding, serfdom, illiteracy, etc, etc.
And yes socialists do support the right to self determination, my point perhaps clumsily explained is that this has never been an unconditional one, but rather one that depends upon context. Just repateing “right to self determination” like a mantra gets us no-where, and I fear there is a tendency for some to do this.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Isn’t it typical? Andy Newman can be relied upon to take a reactionary position on every contemporary political issue. Its rubbish to say the right of self determination comes from Woodrow Wilson. It was part of the Bolsheviks programme from 1907.
But never mind the ins and outs of socialist history, should Tibet have the right to self determination?
It’s a no brainer for a socialist, or course they should.
Certainly China has brought economic development to Tibet. So what? The British brought economic development to India. I daresay Andy Newman would have opposed Indian independence on the same grounds, which by the way is also marginal to the world economy and even now dominated by imperialism, with a ruling class based on feudal lords and divided into myriad regional groups.
But then again Andy Newman’s far from being a socialist.
Forward to the physical suppression of national identity!
Long live the People’s Liberation Army!
Crush the bankrupt Western client staters!
Comment by bill j — 19 March, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
This seems like a rather long-winded attempt to justitfy George Galloway MPs support for the occupation of Tibet. Galloway also regards Chechnya as being part of Russia. Galloway also disgustingly in Morrocco became an apologist for the repression of the Saharawi people whose country has been occupied for decades, thousands of them rotting in refugee camps longing to return home, publiclly supporting the “integrity of the Morrocan state”.
Andy makes a valid point about the romanticism of the rather reactionary buddhist feudal fundamentalist, the Dalai Lama, but it is very strange for someone who is obsessed with Welsh nationalism to be lecturing us that Tibet is not nation. One can think of many popular movements that socialists would support that are led by figures who are representatives of unprogressive strata in society.
But some of his statements are strange:
“No people can have self determination if they cannot control their own culture and economy. Tibet is too marginal to the world economy and too poor to be genuinely independent and develop a national economy and high culture of its own.”
If Israel were to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza tomorrow, a Palestinian state would emerge that would be economically crippled, militarily weak and dominated economically by Israel, such a reality has led many to reject the two-state solution as failing to resolve the issues, but never to argue that Palestinians do not have the RIGHT to self-determination on the West Bank/Gaza/East Jerusalem if they wished.
Andy’s position would also lead to siding with the Turkish state against the legitimate rights of the people of Kurdistan. Afterall, would a Kurdish state be ‘viable’?
The argument that Tibet is not developed enough to have a ‘high culture of its own’ sounds vaguely patronising if not racist. It is also more fundamentally untrue - and therefore an obscene statement.
Andy also glosses over the oppressive nature of China’s rule in Tibet, for example, the attempt to change the ethnic make-up of the country by bringing Chinese setlers to the country.
I think of many countries such as Cuba that are quite poor but nevertheless have achieved self-determination.
Surely, socialists should represent the democratic rights of people to decide their own constitutional arrangements?
“Breaking the unity of the historical Chinese state and nation will not strengthen the Chinese people in their struggle for economic and democratic progress, but only carve China up at the mercy of the imperialists.”
More evidence of Andy’s popular front Stalinism.
First of all this presupposes that China is not itself an imperialist country, currently involved in a new scramble for Africa in competition with the EU and America. China also supported the war in Afghanistan and has troops in Haiti.
Secondly, the unity of capitalist states is not a matter of principle for socialists. And Tibet’s has been run by the Chinese as a colony for decades not as part of a unified state.
Thirdly, in certain circumstances one could imagine that a national uprising in Tibet could trigger waves in China Indeed, in many ways the repression unleashed on the Tibetans in 1989 was a prequel for the carnage in Tiannemen Square.
Fourthly, Andy supports the break-up of the British state, so why not the Chinese? I think the desire for national liberation is more visible on the streets Lhassa at present than on the streets of Cardiff!
“There is no national liberation movement in Tibet. There is no social class in Tibet that is capable of building a progressive national state, and there is no meaningful sense that Tibet can have national self-determination.
The premise that there is a universal right to self determination is inhereted from US president Woodrow Wilson, and has never been accepted by the socialist movement, who have always argued that it is a question of political context, and the requirement is that there is a popular national democratic movement.”
Between 1948 - 1968, Palestinian nationalism was at an extremely low ebb and there was no mass national liberation movement. Does this mean that Palestinians didn’t have the right to self-determination?
Andy (who has rather wacky views on Wales) argues that Wales has the right to self-determination, but I have to say that there was a period of around 400 years where national consciousness was at an extremely low ebb. And even in the last hundred years, national consciousness was far lower in the 70s than at present.
Actually, there has been a consistent movement for national liberation in Tibet for years, and many of the younger Tibetans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the movement around the Dalai Lama which is seen as discredited and ineffectual.
This is an extraordinary statement from Andy and frankly astonishing. There has been a national movement in Tibet since the 50s when 55,000 people fled the country after China militarilly occupied the country. There is a substantial national feeling in Tibet. The colonial status of Tibet can be seen in the fact that until the late 70s there wasn’t even a single Tibetan with a senior government post. There have been riots demonstrations at different times of thousands in Tibet’s capital over the last 50 years.
His comments that Tibet has ‘no culture’ are even more obscene when one considers that for 30 years, the Chinese led a major assault to erradicate all traces of a Tibetan culture in the country.
But Andy has taken to the stalinist practice of re-writing history to fit the argument, rather than re-writing the argument to fit history!
Touche!
Comment by Adamski — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Bill - the mantra of national self determination as parroted by farleft groups today has little in common with the contextualised postion of Lenin and the Bolsheviks - it is however similar to that of Woodrow Wilson.
The failure comes from not looking at the social and political context that led the Bolsheviks to the paosition, and thereofre failure to correct for situations where the necessary contingent factors are absent.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Adamski
I couldn’t be bothered to read what you wrte, but the difference with Wales and the break up of the UK, is that there is the potential for a democratic and progressive independent Wales, and a democratic and progressive independent England, and in Wales there is a democratic national-popular dynamic based upon an advanced economy and devleoped social infrastrcture - if you like it would be a post-nationalist nation.
In the current historical circumstances, an independent Tibet would be a step backwards.
Your fundamentall dishonesty is illustrated by you writing that i said Tibet had no culture, which I did not, I said that the majority of Tibetans were excluded from that culture.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/18/free-tibet-back-chinas-workers-and-oppressed
Comment by David Broder — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
I get it Andy. Send in the tanks.
Comment by paul — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Andy Newman - as I have a position on nationalism that is half-way between Luxemberg and the Austro-Marxists I cannot but agree that Marxist stand on naitonalism starts off fairly scepticially to begin with. As way about Tibetan national aspirations as I am, I do however believe in democracy. Which is the real issue here.
Moreover I am intrigued by your description of ‘obscurantist barbarians’. In fact the word, while talking about Tibet, crops up more than once.
Is this some new Marxist category in the modern world?
‘Obsurantists’, that’s a fine word: such as Galloway’s Islamicist mates, well that’s a term we could (and do) use.
But what is the class nature of barbarism? What kind of social formation was/is barbarism in the Tibetan plateau? No doubt Tibet was dominated by wandering bands of hunter-gatherers, or were they simply non-Greeks or Romans?
Or, have, or had, the Tibetans passsed, without going through capitalism and imperialism, to the barbarism predicted by Rosa, Trotsky et.al. as the alternative to socialism?
Comment by Andrew Coates — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Andy #8
’socialists do support the right to self determination, my point perhaps clumsily explained is that this has never been an unconditional one, but rather one that depends upon context. Just repeating “right to self determination” like a mantra gets us no-where’
The most important principle, over and above anything else is the interest of the working class - democracy, self-determination are principles, but they do not take precedence.
So,Andy you are right. However, before we get into the Spartacist mode of ‘Hail the Red Army in Afghanistan’, those working class interests may sometimes be backed up by democracy, better than by force.
I have nothing but admiration for the achievements of Chines communism in that from a feudal backward country they are now on the point of becoming the world’s biggest manufacturer and have withstood the IMF. I have rather less admiration for their political agenda and that there is repression to protect the bureaucracy’s political rule. Socialists also have something to say about the reduction of the Tibetan population being replaced by Chinese. My understanding is that this has been huge.
What criteria apply for self-determination? Language, nationality are obvious ones.
I’m not so sure about the size of the working class having come out of feudalism as being as important as the likelihood of Imperialism encroaching on any newly ‘liberated’ nation. Just consider the world’s working class post 1991 and US missiles aimed at Russia from Poland, operations in Kazakstan, wars on the border of Russia in former Soviet republics and of course Yugoslavia. If Tibet were to become ‘independent’ what else could it be besides a NATO puppet?
Clearly there are no easy answers - certainly not sitting in England. Perhaps the best demand is as for an autonomous region for Tibetan and Chinese people within China as suggested.
I disagree with Battersea Power Station #6 ‘As we get closer to the Olympics this might just be a touchpaper that others are waiting on - the best of all possible worlds would have mass protests in Tiananmen while the medals are being handed out’. It won’t be you and me who will be killed in those mass protests, so be careful.
Comment by Howard T — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
The sweeping away by Maoist China of the theocratic feudalism that once existed in Tibet was undoubtedly a historically progressive act. Clearly many self styled supporters of the Tibetan people such as the Free Tibet Campaign in Britain have a somewhat rose tinted view of what life was like in Tibet under the rule of the Lamas. Nevertheless the Tibetan people have clearly been at the sharp end of a racist policy by the Chinese government. Principally a policy of population transfer of ethnic Chinese into Tibet, presumably with the goal of making the Tibetan people a minority within Tibet itself. Not to mention the widespread discrimination in jobs, housing etc within Tibet that Tibetan people suffer at the expense of ethnic Chinese people.
Andy euphamistically talks about the protests in Tibet as “The recent riots and looting by the urban poor”. It seems the image he is trying to conjure up is that of a lumpenproletarian rabble out on the rampage.
What Andy describes as the “urban poor” I would describe as the urban proletariat and what he describes as “riots and looting” I would describe as protests against the national and racist oppression of the Tibetan people by China.
The Tibetans are an oppressed nationality, certainly in the way Lenin used the term. On that basis alone we should support their right to self determination up to and including secession from China if that is what the majority of the Tibetan people want.
Comment by Patrick Scott — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Patrick is spot on here.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 19 March, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
There must be someone, other than the Chinese Embassy, that supports Andy’s line. Socialist Unity indeed.
Comment by paul — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Howard wrote (16),
“…It won’t be you and me who will be killed in those mass protests, so be careful.”
And I quite agree.
I wasn’t, for a moment, underestimating the lethal side of the Chinese state shown toward its own. My point was that their (the state’s) room to manoeuvre while the Olympics is running might, hopefully, allow a space for genuine protest.
According to the World Service’s correspondent he spent “several hours” watching armoured conveys on the way to Tibet yesterday and today. In these situations it is quite clear with whom socialists stand.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
CWI take on things: http://www.chinaworker.org/en/content/news/391/
Comment by Buy Crack Online! — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
From the standpoint of those of us who are in Britain, the starting point is the crocodile tears and hypocrisy of our own rulers.
The BBC is aghast at the use of police to clear the streets of protesters. Unlike the poll tax, miners strike, etc here.
Tories and hard Atlanticist Labour MPs and peers are running round Westminster throwing their hands up in horror at occupying forces behaving brutally, while supporting the occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and, in most cases, Palestine.
Overcoming anti-Tibetan discrimination and unifying the mass of peasants and workers in China (this was the rationale for Lenin’s policy in relation to the oppressed nationalities in the Tsarist empire) is above all a matter for them. The perpetrators of the Pentagon’s long war - whose ultimate target is a 21st century China - have nothing to contribute to that.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Weasel words Ovenden.
Comment by paul — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
if you like it would be a post-nationalist nation.
and if you like, you would be an post-marxist buffoon
honestly, a what? to think you’ve sunk to a liberal defence of imperialism
Comment by Dave Festive — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Andy Newman has jumped the shark!
Comment by demonstrator — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Paul
No. They are words rooted in the British political reality rather than in some abstract space where politics becomes simply entering values into a misunderstood algorthim.
If some of the loudest voices defending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and propelling us to a possible conflict with Iran start wrapping themselves in the shroud of Tibetan suffering at the hands of the Chinese state, then, in real politics, you deal with that in a way that does not feed the obvious attempts to rehabilitate “humanitarian” imperialsim (and the British army abroad) on the fifth anniversary of the war.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
23. Why are they “weasel words”? Kevin is quite right to point at the croc. tears and hand-wringing in parliament and the Beeb. Plus we shouldn’t ever forget that once/if stability is gained in Iraq the gun sights are going to swivel further east…
Let’s see how far NuLabour’s commitment to the oppressed goes in Tibet. An Olympic boycott? Not a blood-stained chance!
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Andy,
There’s a certain echo in what you’re writing of the socialist supporters of colonialism who raised their head in the Second International in 1904. It’s a really dangerous direction.
I agree with you when you say that Lenin’s position is quite distorted on the British left, to suggest that Marxists should automatically support self-determination under all circumstances. Lenin’s position was support the oppressed against the oppressor. In this situation, it’s clear that Tibet suffers deep oppression. Tibet can never be free while it lies in chain, and China cannot be free while it enslaves another country. Nor will the exploitation of Tibet, which is reminiscent of colonialism, lead to the development of a revolutionary proletariat. The national question needs to be addressed first.
Comment by Chris Brooks — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Kevin,
I think you underestimate the capacity of the public to draw conclusions about Iraq, whilst also knowing that China ‘communism’ is brutal force. Me thinks you’ve left the world of the politics from below for politics from the Westminster gallery, albeit cheering on the enemy.
Comment by paul — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Chris
Being concrete about the national question is vital. In 1914 Serbia was oppressed by Austria-Hungary - but it wasn’t worth a world war over.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Oh come off it, Kevin!
“Overcoming anti-Tibetan discrimination and unifying the mass of peasants and workers in China (this was the rationale for Lenin’s policy in relation to the oppressed nationalities in the Tsarist empire) is above all a matter for them.”
Leaving aside whatever Lenin thinks, which isn’t a terribly important matter (one reason is because he wanted to oppress the “nationalities in the Tsarist empire”), I don’t think you mean what you’ve written. Yes, any cause is “above all” for those directly involved, but that is obvious and, if you’ll forgive me, not worth stating.
The issue here is also about what we outside Tibet can do to further their cause. Like any movement, we risk inadvertently aiding imperialism, but that is not a reason to say that it’s for the Tibetans to do. We don’t say that about Palestine, and we didn’t say it about South Africa, although in both those particular cases progress means and meant a defeat for imperialism.
Yes, the U.S. is targeting China and would like to break it up, and doing so for the most cynical of reasons. The lesson is that we should choose our allies accordingly. But it was ever thus. Suppose Tibet became an independent national state overnight. Would it revert to feudalism and backwardness? Well, possibly, maybe even probably. No one ever said it would be easy!!!
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Tawfiq
Is Han Chinese chauvinism an obstacle to the emergence of a progressive proletarian force in the Chinese state? Yes. Who is going to challenge that? Forces within that country, from the majority and minority nationalities and ethnicities. It won’t be overcome by the British state or political forces here.
Rather than sloganeering, I prefer to engage with the actual political arguments that are taking place in Britain. As with Darfur and Zimbabwe, they are shaped by serious attempts to rehabilitate liberal interventionism in the wake of the Iraq disaster.
Those actually in government, of course, are in a bind because for all the bluster they know that they are increasingly imbricated with China economically. These are the hypocrisies and realities that need to be explained in order to strengthen the radical movement here.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
I’m sure there are a whole lot of reactionaries jumping on the “Free Tibet” bandwagon as well as the campaign to discredit China prior to the Olympics.
There are many elements in the West who are fearful of China’s growth, its huge reserve of foreign currency holdings and its economic and military progress.
That of course doesn’t justify Chinese attempts to make Tibetans a minority in their own country, or other anti-democratic measures taken by the bureaucracy in Peking.
If there are any popular democratic forces in Tibet who aren’t controlled by the feudalists or paid by the West, they should be arguing for a federal solution and for genuine Socialism in China.
We’re never on the side of “Wilsonian” self-determination as an end in itself *anywhere*
Comment by prianikoff — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
This is a completely wrongheaded line of argument. The people who are rioting in Tibet, as best we can make out, have broken with the Dalai Lama because of his willingness to make concessions to the Chinese bureaucracy. That is a very welcome development. And even if Tibet is dirt poor with only a marginal culture of its own we should support those who are taking to the streets rebelling against national oppression. Quite apart from anything else if socialists don’t support their demands for liberation then we are handing the movement as a gift wrapped present to our own imperialists.
Comment by Liam — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Rather than sloganeering Kevin Ovenden prefers to totally evade the question at issue. Name one western government that supports Tibetan independence? Gordon Brown urges “restraint” and “dialogue”. His position isn’t a million miles away from Andy Newman’s.
Which of the “liberal interventionists” want to intervene into Tibet? Not even the Dalai Lama supports the protests.
Not a good week for Galloway’s credentials as a tribune of the oppressed methinks. Or for Andy Newman’s. Or for Kevin Ovenden’s for that matter.
Comment by bill j — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Kevin makes a valid point about exposing the hypocrisy of our rulers crocodile tears over Tibet, I do notice that certain liberal types get very worked up over Tibet, Burma etc.
What is hillarious is that Andy argues for Welsh independence but opposes Tibetan independence!
Andy: “Your fundamental dishonesty is illustrated by you writing that i said Tibet had no culture, which I did not, I said that the majority of Tibetans were excluded from that culture.”
I genuinely misunderstood your phrase which is very ambiguous that you wrote here: “Tibet is too marginal to the world economy and too poor to be genuinely independent and develop a national economy and high culture of its own”
Even so what you say is misleading. There IS a Tibetan culture and national identity that even China’s colonial policies of giving hundreds of thousands of Chinese Han settlers economic incentives to move into Tibet to dillute Tibetan identity remains.
It is true that for several centuries, Tibet was ruled by the Chinese, but it always had a separate identity, just as during the British Empire period, the Indian Raj wasn’t dissolved into the Emprire.
By the way, I would heartilly recommend people see a film called “The Angry Monk”, about a leftwinger called Gendun Choephel who died in the 1950s who opposed both the religious theocracy and the chinese. He not only wrote the first history of Tibet but also translated the Kama Sutra into Tibetan. He was a member of the Tibetan Revolutionary Party who wanted to overthrow the regime of the Lamas.
The tragedy of indigenous Tibetan marxism can be seen in this article from New Left Review:
http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2576
I would also recommend this article by the same author that refutes Andy’s claim that there is no national movement in Tibet:
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2388
Comment by Adamski — 19 March, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Andy: “The difference with Wales and the break up of the UK, is that there is the potential for a democratic and progressive independent Wales, and a democratic and progressive independent England, and in Wales there is a democratic national-popular dynamic based upon an advanced economy and devleoped social infrastrcture - if you like it would be a post-nationalist nation.”
Would the break-up of the British state into three states be a good thing? In certain circumstances, yes. But you might ask why should Welsh workers walk away from the fabulous wealth in Britain rather than reclaim it for ALL workers. A socialist Britain would be better than an independent capitalist Wales and Scotland?
Personally I’m agnostic on the question of independence - I have no emotional attachment to the British state and such questions are the democratic choice of Welsh workers. But if the break-up was on a left wing basis then surely it would be marked by an upsurge of class struggle in Wales - but if in Wales why not in the rest of Britain? It’s hard to believe that a militant left wing movement would arise in Wales and not in England at the same time. Indeed, in such a scenario, the ruling class might well use nationalism to split the insurgent movement, playing off Welsh workers against English workers.
But the claim of nationalists that independence would represent an anti-imperialist blow against the Empire are belied when we see the nationalists in Wales supporting St Athan’s UK Military Academy.
It is perfectly conceivable that post-independence the remaining British state would have military bases like St Athan’s in Wales even after independence, just as the US has bases here. I can even imagine an independent Wales sharing an army with the rest of the UK or having some form of military alliance, so a change of policy with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan would be unlikely - another nationalist pipedream.
We know that another small country, Ireland allowed its bases to be used for the Iraq War, we could expect the same in Wales.
Andy falls into the nationalist trap of thinking that a constitutional re-ordering of the constituent parts of the British state would equal a major blow against state power and empire.
I am pretty certain that in a globalised economy the global elites could quite happily live with an independent Wales, indeed such a set up might even please them! An end to subsidies for example. All the evidence suggests that an independent Wales would face the “start-up” costs of independence that would leave the country with a budget deficit. If the new ruling class of Wales is not prepared to tax corporations and the rich then this would mean driving down wages and living conditions of workers. So while independence could be sold on left wing arguments, it might result in right wing attacks on workers in the longer term.
Nationalists like to make left wing rhetorical statements about “destroying” the British state, but the state wouldn’t be destroyed by transfering it’s role from London to Cardiff. As Marx said socialists can’t use the existing state machinery they have to smash it and replace it with democratic workers power.
In a globalised world a post-nationalist nation doesn’t offer an alternative to neoliberalism.
By the way, Andy should stop abusing Gramsci. Read Perry Anderson’s excellent article on the ‘Antinomies of Gramsci’ from a few years back.
Comment by Adamski — 19 March, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Sounds like there’s some Buddophobia at work here. It needs to be watched.
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 19 March, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Andy, your article reeks of official PRC nationalism:
“China has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic state, and although Confusionism was dominant, the Empire also included Buddhists and Muslims. The unique characteristic of China is that the political rule of the mandarinal bureaucracy was coincident with the use of the Putōnghuà language and the pictoral script, but in most of the vast empire, Putōnghuà was only spoken by the bureaucracy as a lingua franca. In analogy to Europe, imagine that everywhere that Latin was spoken by clerics in mediaeval times had been a single centralised state.”
Your analogy fails completely, as it equates central Chinese rule in its historical peripheries, such as the south-east, where the administrative system was simply extended, with Chinese rule in territories which were conquered late, and never integrated into the imperial system in the same way (Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia). If you’re trying to suggest that there was the same level of integration between the Han ruling elite and the Muslims of Xinjiang, for example, as there was between the nationalities of the Great Britain, you’re way off the mark.
“Only during the Ming dynasty was the bureaucracy the preserve of ethnic Han Chinese, and since the start of the Manchu/Qing period in 1644 the Chinese government has been open to Chinese of any ethnicity or language, provided they mastered the Putōnghuà language and pictoral script. (in the same way that English is a unifying administrative language in modern India)”
Don’t you even realise how offensive this formulation “Chinese of any ethnicity” is to Tibetans or Uyghurs? These groups entirely reject the notion that they are “Chinese” in any way, despite having their history rewritten to incorporate bogus theories of the “Greater Zhonghua Nation”. It’s rubbish to suggest that the Qing bureaucracy was open to any ethnicity. You name me a single Turkic-speaking Muslim from Xinjiang who served in the central administration. Don’t bother looking, because there wasn’t one.
“Today China includes and recognizes 56 ethnic groups, who comprises 7% of the population (90 plus million people), the majority Han population also speak a variety of languages, there are for example 77 million Wu speakers, 71 million Cantonese speakers, 36 million Xiang speakers, etc. So the modern Chinese nationalism, that starts with Sun Yat-Sen and has been inherited by the Chinese Communist Party has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural vision of a united nation – and the role of the national state was to pursue economic modernization and social reform.”
Again, straight from the CCP Institute of Marxism. Ask any Tibetan or Uyghur (I assume you didn’t bother before you wrote this) and they will tell you that Great-Han chauvanism has been present in PRC ideology since day one.
Not to mention the orientalist tone of your piece, which presupposes some kind of eternal “China”, which is so fascinatingly different from the west. It’s hardly surprising to find the PRC ideologues justifying their suppression of popular movements on that basis, but I’m dismayed to find their line being parroted here.
Comment by Keith — 19 March, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Andy falls into a trap here I think.
The oppression of Tibet is disgusting and whatever our views on the Dalai Lama actually it seems a lot of the protests are coming from the oppressed.
Kevin #33, we can pinpoint our own rulers’ hypocrisy whilst alo standing firmly on the side of freedom, democracy and self-determination for Tibet.
As for socialist federalism of course- but actually to be able to effecitvely mobilse and organise for this the rights of self-determination up to and oncluding independence have to be recognised.
I’ve no time for further discourse on this today due to having been up half the night with a combination of illness and over-work but then that’s my problem but the positions taken by Andy and some others here are I think quite disappointing and certainly deserve further debate and clarification.
Comment by Jason — 19 March, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
There’s not much to clarify Jason. Andy and his mates support the “state capitalist” ruling class against a revolt by an oppressed people. If the only the ruling class was American, or suchlike…..
Your mate Bill was spot on.
Comment by paul — 19 March, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Andy
Comment by Martin — 19 March, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
What’s interesting is how apolitical Andy’s defence of Galloway’s stance is. The abstract praise of colonialism as being ‘progressive’ and ‘modern’ has, as Chris Brooks points out, the whiff of Second International paternalism about it, but it also echoes the case made by liberal defenders of the British or French empires. Literacy levels raised, life expectancy raised, the opportunity to progress through the imperial bureaucracy… Assimilation of a tiny minority of the oppressed has been a feature of most empires - it doesn’t alter the reality of national oppression.
The history is, as Keith says, straightforward ‘great-Chinese chauvinist’ nationalism. China was a ‘multi-ethnic’ empire in the same way that the Austro-Hungarian empire was - no-one was in any doubt who dominated. And 500 years ago Tibet was arguably more of a nation than Germany or Italy were at the time. The account of imperial conquests misses out the resistance that Tibetans put up to both Mongol and Han Chinese, and the fact that for much of the Ming and Qing dynasties Chinese ‘control’ of Tibet amounted to little more than the Tibetan government paying tribute, in the same manner as other ‘barbarian’ rulers on China’s borders.
But there’s an unanswered question at the heart of his argument. He admits that Many Tibetans do favour independence (Tibetan Chinese is a nonsense term, by the way), but never says why this might be so. If life under the Chinese is so much better than it was before, why would anyone want independence? If you’re not blinkered by Stalinist notions of ‘progressive’ nations liberating ‘the backward peoples’, the answer is pretty obvious.
Comment by chjh — 19 March, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
And Kevin, you should be ashamed of yourself. In 1989, one could equally have argued that the starting point is the crocodile tears and hypocrisy of our own rulers. The BBC is aghast at the use of police to clear the streets of protesters. Unlike the poll tax, miners strike, etc here.
But we didn’t, did we? Were we wrong then? And if we weren’t, what is the difference?
Comment by chjh — 19 March, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Can we take the Dalai Lama at his word? Ever since I learnt that he allowed the weird Steven Seagal to be proclaimed a “reincarnated Lama”, a rung below his “Holiness” himself, I’ve been a little dubious of the utterances of the Tibetan leader. If one buys into religion, you have to take on board some strange stuff. But this is a bit stranger than we have become accustomed to. I’m surprised that the Chinese haven’t brought the world’s attention to the Dalai Lama’s ecclesiastical choice of “reincarnated Lama”. Surely it’s only a matter of time before Jonny Wilkinson or Richard Gere or Keanu Reeves get the surprise of a lifetime (or two or fifty or a thousand). Goldie Hawn, too, if women are so honoured.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 19 March, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
What does the Archbishop of Canterbury have to say about all this, Andy?
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 19 March, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
When Chinese troops re-entered Tibet in 1951, the average life expectancy in the country was just 35 years old, literacy stood at just 10% and the feudal lords, comprising just 5% of the population held 95% of the wealth. All religions except Buddhism were illegal, and the serfs were kept in place by brutal violence: the agricultural workers belonged as chattels to the monasteries.
I strongly suspect this is Chinese propaganda - who precisely is compiling these stastics - but even if it was true, what on earth has it got to do with anything? It’s precisely the same argument that imperialists use to justify the British empire.
It’s very unfortunate that Andy is now a propagandist for Chinese imperialism.
Comment by Ed D — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Kevins had a good week.
He can’t bear to defend his Gaybaiting boss over Iran.
So does it over Tibet.
Oh Dear
Comment by mj — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
If one buys into religion, you have to take on board some strange stuff. But this is a bit stranger than we have become accustomed to.
It’s less strange than blowing up a load of civilians in the name of Allah.
Comment by Ed D — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Of course, the People’s Republic of China (for all it’s faults)is a socialist country, which in itself is an answer to any spurious charges of “imperialism”. Particularly when, as Andy Newman points out, there is a net investment balance in favour of “Tibet”. That was never the case with the British Empire, capital flows were always heading to the UK.
Comment by Graham Day — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Oh for goodness sake. It seems many of you are simply incapable of distinguishing between what i have written and what I have not written. And I have no idea what galloway has said about this issue, so this is far from being a defence of his position - as i don’t even know what that is.
I have not denied Han chauvinism (having worked in China myself, even as a guilo you come across it), I have not denied there is oppression and repression in Tibet, but the fact that national or ethnic oppression exists doesn’t necessarily mean that political nationalism and independence is the best or most appropriate solution, or is even viable.
African-Americans have suffered and do suffer racism, and historically the Jim Crow laws and the lynchings were far worse than anything in modern Tibet, yet the idea of an independent black nation state in north America has never caught on.
Look how despertately un-Marxist Charlie Hore’s arguments are at #43.
To say as Charlie does: “And 500 years ago Tibet was arguably more of a nation than Germany or Italy were at the time.” is terribly confusing, as it mixes up the existence of a nation as a people with a common community of culture, language, economy etc, with the ideas of the national state which is an entirely different matter. It also ignores the question of which social classes embody the nation, and which are excluded from it - five hundred years ago any sense of a shared German national culture was in transition from the knights to the bughers, but it certainly did not include the vast majority of people living in germany whose mental and physical horizons didn’t extend beyond their village, their church and their plough. The concept of a nation state and universal citizenship of that state is a bare two hundred years or so old. The idea that the brutalised serfs indentured to monastaries whose life was brief and without dignity were someohe participants in a Tibetan national culture in any meaingful sense is ridiculous, any more than to believe that a serf in Wiltshire who never left his village, knew maybe fifty people, and spoke a dialect incomprehensible to anyone outside his immediate circle was part of the same national community of culture with Thomas mallory or Geoffrey Chaucer.
I laugh at Charlie’s sureness about who benefitted from the hapsburg Empire? Who was it? I assume Charlie is implying that it was the Germans and Hungarians? But it was a dynastic not a national state, the beneficaries were the nobility, whatever their nationality. Remember that in the hapsburg Empire the Austrians did not have a majority in their half, and the Magyars did not have a majority in their half, so there was a very complex system of ethnic and class alliances. One of the most priviliged groups was the Polish nobility who had disproportionate influence, and the Czech nationalists often blocked legislation by filibustering in the Austrian parliament. Siilarly in the Czar’s empire, it was barely a russian Empire - Russian was not spoken at all at court until around 1860, Russian was not made the official language of the Empire until 1880, in many provinces no-one spoke Russian, in the baltic states the nobility spoke German, whicle the peasantry spoke Estonian, let or whatever; In Finland the nobility spoke Swedish. indeed politicall nationalism did not start in the Czarist Empire in the government, but among the Finnish and Ukranians, who developed nationalist ideas inspired by Manzini in the mid nineteenth century. What is more, at that time all nationalisms were assimliationist - a view accpeted by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who supported the right to national self determination, and that those nations who acheived a nation state would assimilate internal minorities - this was a common place view at the time, as can be seen from the polemics with the Bund
So we need to be very careful in transposing modern ideas and concepts of national identity and nationalism onto societies in other eras and contexts. Five hundred years ago Tibet was part of China, admittedly in a very loose way, and was an isolated mountain area of little importnat with suzeraibity to Beijing. But the importnat thing to understand is that the Chinese Empire was not based upon ethnicity nor first language not common mode of economics, but on a common bureaucracy, and a bureacratic class that employed Mandarin. It was not a modern nation state in any way shape or form, and there was huge economic and social diversity within Qing China, so Tibet was noot particularly unusual.
So with the origin of modern Chinese nationalism, and the independence war aganst the Japanese, neither the Chinese Communist party nor the Koumintang saw Tibet as any different from any other part of China under foreign occupation. It was completely natural that after throwing out the Japanses and the British, the very next step was to send the troops into Tibet to overthrow the feudal landlords and free the serfs. To describe this as colonialism is bizarre.
So where does that leave us?
There are undoubtedly all sorts of problems with the rule of the Chinese communist party, especially now it is so far down the “capitalist road”. There is ethnic Han chauvinism, appalling health and safety, low wages, environmental destruction, etc.
But the vain-gloriousness of western leftists huffing and puffing about the “right to self determination” when there are no social forces in Tibet capable of building a nation state is self delusion of the first water.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Plus, I note that the troll “Ed D” is now contributing… this is of course someone who will spare no effort to excuse the US/UK slaughter in Iraq - even to the extent of pretending that Robin Cook believed things other than his final statements.
We should all draw relevant conclusions from his posts.
Comment by Graham Day — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
There are undoubtedly all sorts of problems with the rule of the Chinese communist party, especially now it is so far down the “capitalist road”.
Actually human rights and transparency have marginally improved since they went down the capitalism road, but that is besides the point.
Where did you get these statistics on the state of Tibet before Chinese imperialism rolled in?
Comment by Ed D — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
#53 “Where did you get these statistics on the state of Tibet before Chinese imperialism ”
BBC World Service.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
And 500 years ago Tibet was arguably more of a nation than Germany or Italy were at the time
500 years ago, I think you’ll find that the concept of the “nation” didn’t exist… from a Marxist perspective, it’s a product of the French Revolution. In fact, at that period the dominant mode of production was feudal - and Tibetan society was a particular example of that. As we see, “Tibet” was never able to advance from that point, not least because of the self-interest of British imperialism, which throughout the second half of the 19th century was taking advantage of the breakdown of central authority in China.
Comment by Graham Day — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Or, Ed D, campaigning for Armageddon in the name of God. And those the target of the “rapture”/Armageddon cynically aiding the most virulent anti-Semites on the planet to further ethnically cleanse and murder those who don’t share this strange belief. Or Hindus massacring thousands of people because, apparently, billions of years ago some God was born in Ayhodya. God does indeed move in mysterious ways.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Actually human rights and transparency have marginally improved since they went down the capitalism road
It would be nice if “Ed D” could provide evidence of same, but given his previous record, I know what I expect…
Comment by Graham Day — 19 March, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Andy, your reference to the views of early Chinese nationalists (including the Communists, who adapted to Chinese nationalism under Stalin’s guidance) is puzzling. Indeed, most Chinese nationalists of this period held to the assimilationist view that all the peoples of the Qing Empire belonged to a single “Chinese” nation. However, this view flew in the face of the sentiments held by the peoples in question. It was maintained (and still is by some), for example, that the Central Asian peoples of the northwest (Uyghur, Kazakh etc.) were not Turkic, despite speaking a Turkic language, and considering themselves to belong to a greater Turkic community.
Would the arguments of a Great Russian chauvinist be taken as evidence that the Ukrainians should be denied the right to self-determination? According to your logic, they would be.
So where do you stand on this question Andy? Are the peoples of China entitled to develop their own views of their history and ethnic identity, or must they swallow the line pushed by Han nationalists (and, it seems, yourself)?
And please, under the Ming and Qing dynasties, the peoples of Tibet were unequivocally classified as “Barbarians” (fan). I don’t know where you’ve got this idea that ethnicity was irrelevant in imperial China, but it is a complete fabrication.
Comment by Keith — 19 March, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Keith: this view flew in the face of the sentiments held by the peoples in question
Any evidence for that statement?
Comment by Graham Day — 19 March, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
“When Chinese troops re-entered Tibet in 1951, the average life expectancy in the country was just 35 years old, literacy stood at just 10% and the feudal lords, comprising just 5% of the population held 95% of the wealth… Today, the life expectancy is between 65 and 70 years, and 85% of the population is literate. Per capita health and welfare spending in Tibet is higher than the national Chinese average.”
Whaaa?
As someone said previously, I’d like to see where those figures came from, alas they hold no purpose at all. The right to self-determination should be re-thought because of ‘advances’ in life expectancy?
I think the people of Tibet should heed Andy’s words and be very, very thankful to China’s state capitalism.
And Galloway probably.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 19 March, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
#46 chjh
But, Charlie, that was exactly the position Chris Harman and the rest of us took over Tianamen. Have you forgotten?
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 March, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
There seems to be a glut of abstractions in this thread (surprise) without any serious consideration of the context of what we are dealing. The notion of ’self determination’ is banded about as if since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have a greater degree of self-determination and more human rights. Lets leave aside the former satellite countries who joined the EU and look at just a few others: Iraq, Afghanistan are the obvious ones. What about the former Soviet Republics: Tadjikstan, Uzbekistan or Georgia? Is Kosovo really liberated? I dare say some would say yes, but I would contend that they are largely under US domination.
Why is this important? If we simply recite timeless principles with no specific context, they become meaningless. Self-determination for the Palestinian people is in a very clear context - free of Zionist domination as the regional agents of Imperialism. Being Jewish in origin, I do actually believe that there is a basis for Jewish self determination as a people - I am not a Zionist and cannot support that ’self-determination’ being carried through at the expense of the Palestinian or anyone else - in practice I recognise that there is no way that that right can be brought about without imperialist oppression. Certainly not as a nation state. The best possible solution, which also isn’t going to happen, is for a secular state with guaranteed rights for a Jewish people.
The most daft case of abstract self-determination I ever heard was during the Falklands War when the left opposed the war and raised the slogan ‘Malvinas Argentina’ some grop (who cares who) raised the slogan Malvenas for the Malvanise - a non-existent people as the Argentinians wewre never then, and never since, allowed to settle in the Falklands.
So where does my rambling get us to in relation to Tibet? Wehave to put self-determination in the context of China and its relationship with the US dominated economy and that the US is not averse to invading the odd country, although it has also managed to negotiate its way into a few too, especially placing those nice missile systems in countries bordering Russia just to show it means peace.
In this context, Tibet would be just another playground for US military intentions.
Having said that, I don’t believe that Socialists have nothing to say about the actions of the Chinese bureuacracy in relation to Tibet and the repression of Tibetans within Tibet. I can only re-iterate a point from an earlier posting that we should advance the notion of a Tibetan autonomous region that guarantees rights as the basis for any negotiated settlement - cessation would be disastrous for the Tibetans and Chinese. I don’t think the Chinese bureaucracy are bothered by what we think, but that to me is the only progressive option in the context of the region.
Comment by Howard T — 19 March, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Graham, current events in Tibet should be evidence enough, but how about the fact that after decades of being told that they’re Chinese, you’d be hard pressed to find a single Tibetan/Uyghur/Mongol who thinks of themselves as anything other than Tibetan/Uyghur/Mongol. None of these groups were involved in the elaboration of Chinese nationalism - they were busy developing their own nationalisms in response to colonial rule from Beijing.
Comment by Keith — 19 March, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
#51 “But the vain-gloriousness of western leftists huffing and puffing about the “right to self determination” when there are no social forces in Tibet capable of building a nation state is self delusion of the first water.”
So now people only have a right to democracy if it’s deigned there are social forces capbable- for the working class in the region including neighbouring China to play any progressive role they will have to recognise the basic democratic right of determining their own government, including up to independence, though it may well be autonomy is the better option but it’s not ours to proclaim. It’s our class duty to angage in solidarity with workers and small farmers in struggle.
This means the withdrawal of Chinese troops. It’s basic solidarity and what’s with the western?
My partner lived through a civil war to overthrow a barbaric dictatorship and became an internal refugee after the independence movement in Eritrea. She knows from basic class solidarity which side she is on when soldiers on th eorders of th capitalist ruling class are shooting the peasants and working class.
Comment by Jason — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Andy ‘But the vain-gloriousness of western leftists huffing and puffing about the “right to self determination” when there are no social forces in Tibet capable of building a nation state is self delusion of the first water’
Surely the point is that it is for the Tibetan people to decide and determine for themselves their own future, their own struggle and their own politics in that struggle and not for western lefties to pontificate on whether it is actually worth their struggle.However impossible the Tibetan struggle for self determination might appear DOESNT make it any less valid.You could say the same of many situations which appeared impossible such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor or the present brutal Israeli occupation and repression of the Palestinian people.
China is a brutal state capitalist imperialist dictatorship which hjas a contradictory, dialectical relationship with and to western capitalism and imperialism.It occupies Tibet and sites many of it’s nuclear weapons in Tibet,which gives Tibet particular geo-political importance to the Chinese regime vis a vi India,Pakistan and South Korea supported by US imperialism (along with the historical enmity towards Taiwan fully supported and armed by the US) and Russia and the ongoing unsaid hot and cold war that exists.There are a huge number of nuclear weapons pointing at eachother in this region.
We witness the western crocodile tears for Tibet and the Tibetan’s just as we witnessed the same for the Burmese people.China supports the regime in Burma just as western imperialism does, as it’s good for business.China trades with western capitalism as it’s very good for business and vice versa.The obscene spectacle of the Olympics fast approaches and vast amounts of profits are at stake for all concerned.
The Tibetan people are victims of this hot-cold war and fully deserve our support.
Comment by Gramsci — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:32 am
chjh
Given the harshness of your comment, I think you ought to respond. It’s true, isn’t it, that we in the SWP differentiated ourselves from first off from the BBC and the others over Tiananmen. There’s much to say about Tibet, and much to learn (I’m sure I can learn from you, but equally have much to learn from the actual movement of people). But none of that is meaningful unless it’s rooted in the real way this is discussed in British politics. Without that you’re left with the kind of FI pomposity we used to so confidently disparage.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:33 am
Much as I like this blog most of the time, I am genuinely shocked by Andy’s position here.
If anyone wants to know why the Left is so discredited among the wider population, then it has to be for its habit of making up convoluted arguments that defend the indefensible. This is classical Stalinism at its best (worst).
I don’t know too much about Tibet but I have been to Mongolia and been exposed to their perspective on the question. What is at stake here is the survival of a language and a culture, China has an appalling historical record in this regard, which is why Andy’s passing comment about the recognition of minorities is just outrageous. Today the Chinese state is busy obliterating Mongolian cultural identity within its borders and has almost succeeded, mostly by swamping the territory with huge numbers of Han Chinese. In Inner Mongolia today Mongolians form about 10% of the population. Support for Mongolian culture (there is Mongolian language TV for example) is in fact nothing of the kind, for Mongolian is only tolerated so long as it defined as an echo of a traditional past - everything living and modern is defined in Chinese terms. Support for a culture by freezing it in the past is in fact nothing other than cultural genocide. In Inner Mongolia for example, the traditional form of the script is preserved, even though this is dysfunctional for modern forms of the spoken language and extremely unsuitable for mass literacy, which was why in Mongolia itself first the Latin and then the Cyrillic script was adopted during the 20th century, although there are obvious problems with this too.
Mongolian culture only survives as a living entity because of the existence of the Mongolian state, where language and cultural forms are alive and evolving. Mongolian rap music is a good case in point - it is both distinctly Mongolian but also something new (its good stuff too). The most famous Mongolian rapper is actually based in London, but there is no denying the link to Mongolia itself in this music form (its even piped through on buses in Ulaan Baatar btw), Mongolia as it is today not in an imaginary past.
Mongolians look at Tibet and see their future too, if they didn’t have their own state. They cite the fate of the Manchurian language and identity as evidence. The Manchus even ruled China for two hundred years but it didn’t save them. Things don’t look too good for Tibet at the moment either.
To focus on economic development as the basis for taking a position here may sound ‘Marxist’ but really it is a very crude economic reductionism, and pretty dubious on its own terms too. Mongolia is currently developing very quickly, with a growth rate around 8% driven by the resources boom. Its independence is precarious, but is based mainly on a strategy of playing its big neighbours off against one another. I don’t see why an independent Tibet couldn’t do the same, nor develop economically, if it was allowed to do so.
Finally a reference to Bolshevism is in order. There was a famous incident in the early ’20’s where a Bolshevik leader in Central Asia was disciplined by the party for acting like a Russian chauvinist. The charge against him was that he was ‘impeding the development of class consciousness by reinforcing national divisions in the area’ (Kyrgyzstan or somewhere like that). An enlightening perspective I think.
Mezhrayontsi
Comment by Mezhrayontsi — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:36 am
Jason, #64 : “So now people only have a right to democracy if it’s deigned there are social forces capbable”
This is why i have such difficulty with taking people seriously who claim that they follow Lenin, who wrote:
“If one interprets the Marxist programme in Marxist fashion, not in a childish way, one will without difficulty grasp the fact that it refers to bourgeois-democratic national movements. That being the case, it is “obvious” that this programme “sweepingly”, and as a “mere platitude”, etc., covers all instances of bourgeois-democratic national movements. No less obvious to Rosa Luxemburg, if she gave the slightest thought to it, is the conclusion that our programme refers only to cases where such a movement is actually in existence. “
So the right to self determination as recognised by the Bolsheviks was not unconditional based upon oppression, but where there was a national democratic movement already in existence - the context of course was the support for particular and specific national movements in Poland, the Ukraine and Finland.
Now personally i think that Lenin’s arguments are problematic, but nevertheless the claim that he stood for a right to self determination is unfounded - the Bolsheviks in very specific and concrete historical circumstances argued for the rigt to national self determination in those cases where there existed a bourgeois democratic national liberation movement - that would carry out the tasks of the democracy, emancipation and economic development.
This also means, following Lenin, that a national movement which cannot actually acheive self determination, but merely swap national subordination by one great power for another is not a genuine national liberation movement to be supported because all it is doing is making the nation in question a patsy for great power rivalry.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:36 am
The Dalai Lama on Marxism:
“Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to do some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people.
Instead, the Chinese communists brought Tibet a so-called “liberation.” These people were not implementing true Marxist policy. If they had been, national boundaries would not be important to them. They would have worried about helping humanity. Instead, the Chinese communists carried out aggression and suppression in Tibet. Whenever there was opposition, it was simply crushed. They started destroying monasteries and killing and arresting lamas.”
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/99/0927/lhasa.html
He is also quoted by Bertell Ollman as having said:
“Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes - that is the majority - as well as with those who are underprivileged and in need; and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For these reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems to be fair… The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist and half-Buddhist.”
Comment by Ed D — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:43 am
Andy, enlighten me, where does Lenin argue that national movements must be capable of establishing independent states for themselves in order to win the support of revolutionaries? I suspect you’re not “following” Lenin at all here.
Comment by Keith — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:46 am
#67 Mezhrayontsi
I believe my position is only shocking if you think I am arguing something different from what i am.
I fully support cultural autonomy for Tibet, and safeguards for Tibetan culture and interests. I also therefore support the protests of Tibetans against aspects of Han chauvinism and the undemocratic rule of the CP, and the subordination of almost everything to economic growth. This requires widespread democratic reform in China to permit these things. Nothing I have written here contradicts these positions.
I am very unconvinced that an independent Tibet is possible, becasue it would not be economically or politically independent, but immeditately subordinated to NATO and US interests. What is more it is very unclear whether there is any social force in Tibet capable of promoting seccession from China without leveraging off US military and economic power.
In practical terms it is a precondition for a successful nationaal movement in Tibet that there should first be a relaxing of political repression in the whole of China - and if that precondition was satisfied then it may be that pursuing greater cultural autonomy was a better option than pursuing independence.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Tawfiq got all upset when I referenced Lenin over national questions a while back.
Well, it was because various (mis)readings of Lenin undergird what many commenters are saying here.
But also, in my view, it’s because Lenin’s approach is valuable. He ripped the national question away from economic gradualism, and from the ethics of European societies shot through with imperialism, and from reactionary anti-capitalism. Instead he placed nationalism and the national question firmly as a political phenomenon.
If you’re engaged, the Chinese repression in Tibet is a political question; it is knotted in the fabric of politics, not ideology or schematism.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:51 am
#70 Keith, Ii have no idea what you are talking about.
Firstly, I don’t particularly “follow Lenin” on this issue, as I think the position of the Bolsheviks was very specific to the conditions of the Czarist Empire, and the anti-Colinial struggle of the “heroic age” of imperialism.
BUt in “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” Lenin clearly argues that the Russian party’s “programme refers only to cases where such a [bourgeois-democratic national] movement is actually in existence”.
In Tibet there is a national aspiration, but no popular-democratic nationalist movement, that is it is clearly a case where no bourgeois-democratic national movement is actually in existence
Lenin also argues: “The demand for a “yes” or “no” reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very “practical” one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy. The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its “own” nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation. ”
Now for Tibet to exercise the right to self determination, there needs to be a political movement capable of exerting that demand, and forming a potential popularly supported government. By definition for example the 1959 landlords and slave holders rebellion was not a bourgeois democratic national movement, but rather an attempt to restore feudalism. In the modern era it is utterly abstract to demand the right for Tibet to secede from China when no political movement in Tibet is capable of making that demand.
If a national libertaion movement emerged, then we would need to address that changed circumstance, but there is no point trying to devlop politics based upon science fiction speculation.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2008 @ 1:10 am
#72
True Kevin, the enduring positive acheivement of Lenin over the national question is to point out that it is a practical political question, not one based on ethics or fairness, or abstract check lists.
Each question is decided in its concrete specificity depending on how it politically impacts.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2008 @ 1:13 am
#34 Liam “…Quite apart from anything else if socialists don’t support their demands for liberation then we are handing the movement as a gift wrapped present to our own imperialists.”
That’s more relevant as an argument against those in power who use brute force and ethnic discrimination against national minorities.
What socialists in Britain say about Tibet or Kosovo will have very little effect on on people there.
In the concrete political situation we face, all of the nationalist movements on the peripheries of Russia and China have the potential to be used as pawns in the geopolitical struggle against them.
Whether one defines them as state capitalist, or some (very) degenerate form of workers state, the elements of state control in their economies is something that their Western rivals would like to dismantle. That’s because its an obstacle to the complete penetration of Western capital and obstructs the break up of these countries into manageable parcels which Imperialism can control.
Under these circumstances, failing to distinguish between the radical democratic elements of a national movement and those elements which are wittingly, or unwittingly acting to bring about such a scenario is disastrous.
Such mistakes were made over Yugoslavia and in a slightly different way, Poland and Czechoslovakia in the past.
Of course it was right to oppose the sending of troops into Czechoslovakia in ‘68 and the introduction of Martial Law in Poland.
But it was utterly wrong to fail to recognise the rightist elements which existed in ‘Solidarity’ and its links with the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Poland. I think it was Jacek Kuron said before he died, “We fucked up, sorry”
Czechoslovakia ended up being split into 2 states, Poland has a right wing government and both of them are now sources of cleaners, builders and pea-pickers for the British economy. Yugoslavia is collection of Ruritanian mini-states run as NATO protectorates.
That, in practice, is what “Wilsonian” self-determination means in the modern context. Such an outcome can only be avoided by developing an internationalist socialist leadership which recognise the dual nature of nationalism.
Tail-ending Tibetan Nationalism, along with a bunch of Hollywood stars and new age Bhuddists won’t get any recruits for socialism in Lhasa and disorganise the left in Britain even further.
Comment by prianikoff — 20 March, 2008 @ 7:58 am
Priankoff
Of course it was right to oppose the sending of troops into Czechoslovakia in ‘68 and the introduction of Martial Law in Poland.
But it was utterly wrong to fail to recognise the rightist elements which existed in ‘Solidarity’ and its links with the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Poland. I think it was Jacek Kuron said before he died, “We fucked up, sorry”
Reply:
I disagree with this. Not all insurrections are in the interests of the international working class, and the two examples you cite were certainly not given what happened thereafter with the eventual collapse of the SU.
Current events in Tibet for me clearly fall under the category of the West’s ongoing campaign to discredit and attack China, not out of humanitarian concerns, as promulgated, but fearing its emergence as a world economy.
Comment by John W — 20 March, 2008 @ 8:41 am
I gave a talk at the Oxford SWP branch the week after the Tianenmen Square massacre and the only British politician I can recall quoting was Gerald Kaufman, who had said a week earlier “No government can tolerate the breakdown of order in its capital city. I don’t have much time here, but I think the logic of Kevin Ovenden and co would lead us to saying that the fight against Russian imperialism in Afghanistan should have been opposed because the Soviet Union wasn’t quite the superpower the US was. “Neither Washington nor… er that’s it.
Apologies to Charlie Hore if the couple of times I saw him looking slightly lost at the entrance to my estate was because I’d put slightly ninaccurate details on a Marxism registration form as I didn’t wish to be contact visited.
Comment by skidmarx — 20 March, 2008 @ 10:49 am
skidmarx
Moscow does not exist in the way it did in the 1950s to the 1980s. US imperialism and its allies are overwhelmingly dominant, though China is a potential global rival (at some point in the future).
Instead of adducing supposed logics and proceeding by anachronistic analogy it would be better to examine the concrete political reality.
I wasn’t at the meeting you gave in Oxford. I was at a spinoff from the Chesterfield conference held in that city at exactly the moment the tanks went in to the square. Mandel was at it, Hobsbawm (iirc), various others and Harman. Chris Harman’s five minute contribution was a model of clarity.
He started by slating the crocodile tears and hypocrisy of Thatcher and Reagan, whose picture of “liberty” was painted in the blood of the Chilean and Nicaraguan movements. He then went on, in plain English, to draw the compelling revolutionary conclusions from Tiananmen.
It was all crafted with a grasp, fairly good at the time, of the balance of politics in Britain.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Kevin #61 and #66 - at the time of Tiananmen Square we certainly spoke of Western hypocrisy, but it was far from being our first reaction. I’ve just checked the ISJ article I wrote, and there’s one or two paragraphs about Western hypocrisy, in some 52 pages. I went over the first draft in some detail with Chris Harman, and made anumber of changes that he suggested -that paragraph wasn’t one of them. The central target was the Chinese ruling class. That was equally true of the Socialist Worker coverage. The point was that this was a rising of the oppressed and exploited against a vicious ruling class, and we recognised which side we were on. My comment was harsh because I was genuinely shocked that you couldn’t see the same about Tibet.
Andy #51 - I’m not sure why you think that comparisons are unMarxist. What I said was that Tibet was more of a nation. I’ll rephrase it if you like - you can make a stronger case for Tibet being a coherent cultural/lingustic entity 500 years ago that you could for most Western European nations. And part of what cohered that together was opposition to being conquered by China - Tibet may have been part of China by imperial decree, but the dynamic was for Tibet’s local rulers to oppose this and weaken the links. Far from assimilation, the tendency was in the opposite direction.
There’s a telling phrase in the middle of your argument …with the origin of modern Chinese nationalism, and the independence war aganst the Japanese, neither the Chinese Communist party nor the Kuomintang saw Tibet as any different from any other part of China under foreign occupation. Of course, Tibet wasn’t under foreign occupation. Modern Chinese nationalism, being the nationalism of a former empire, saw ‘China’ as automatically encompassing the empire’s conquests, irrespective of the views of the peoples concerned.
And the point about Austria-Hungary wasn’t who benefitted, but who lost out. Why was the phrase ‘prison-house of nations’ so commonly used about that empire? Because national oppression was the everyday reality for the majority of the ‘peoples’ inside the empire, whatever the opportunities offered to a minority of them. For the (linguistically and culturally) non-Chinese peoples of western China, the same is true today.
skidmarx #77 - I have no memory of that at all - care to elaborate?
Comment by chjh — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
The CWI has a section in China! Looked around the website, couldn’t out - is it basically a Hong Kong section?
Comment by Sacha Ismail — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
I would also go back to the point that most states in the world are multi-ethnic. this is certainly true of all the South American and Central American states created by the Bolivarian process of creole nationalism, it is true of malaysia and indonesia, and India and every state in sub-saharan Africa.
So the vast majority of the world’s national states have either coped with cultural and national diversity by either consenual assimilation or some sort of cultural autonomy.
Eric Hobsbawm estimated that even within Europe there were some 700 potential nation-states if every national minority exercised a right to self determination, (and I believe the only European nation state with no regional or minority question is portugal).
In South American states the creoles ran the countries and excluded indigenous peoples, yet now we see both venezuela and Bolivia with presidents from indiginous backgrounds. Assimilation has worked.
So it is unjustified to simply leap to the conclusion that the only way to preserve Tibetan cultural heritage and overcome Han chauvinism is independence for a region that has been part of China for 700 years. Also do not underestimate the mischief of the US here. At the time of Tiannanmen square protests there was speculation in US govt that the Chinese republic could be fragmented on linguistic lines based upon seperating the affluent privinces of the Eastern seaboard away.
It is correct to criticise the wealth inequalities in Chinese Tibet, the repressive anti-democratic practices and Han chauvinism. But these problems can be resolved within the framework of cultural and regional autonomy and democracy without breaking the unity of the Chinese state. Any Tibetan independence movement in the real world will just be a patsy of American imperialism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
skidmarx
‘that the fight against Russian imperialism’
reply:
obviously, you’re referring here to tsarist russia, because there was never any imperialism under the soviet union. try coming up with an analysis which takes property relations as its starting point.
as for afghanistan, it is a matter of historical record that the then afghan leftist govt had to request soviet assistance 11 times before the soviet union came to its aid in order to resist a US-backed and funded mujahadeen insurgency intent on taking the country back to the 7th century.
and you support that inusrgency?
please let me know the next time you’re speaking, so that i can be sure to avoid attending.
Comment by John W — 20 March, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Charlie #79 “prison-house of nations” - Well that was not the position of any socialist organisation within the Hapsburg Empire, who all supported national federation. The alternative which actually happened brought on by external events of a mosiaic of micro-states on the Wilsonian principle has led to a century of strife.
With regard to Tibet. The independence prior to 1951 was part and parcel of the imperialist carve up of China, as the Tibetan state would ever have been independent without British intervention and protection.
And was that Tibetan state an national Tibetan state? No it wasn’t. It was a feudal state that excluded 90% of the population from participation in national life. The reason I said your position is un-Marxist is that you discuss the question as if Tibet was a modern nation before the 1951 Chinese military involvement. The mode of production was feudal, the state was dependent on British imperial protection, the Tibetan culture was only accessible to the landlords and lamas.
If you turn to Lenin, you will see that the Bolshevik position was based upon promoting the interests of the working class, and national independcne was supported where it was a progressive bourgeois nationalist movement. In Tibet - the independence state was not progressive but reactionary, seeking to protect the rule of the landlords and lamas from social and economic progress.
If you support national self determination unconditionally in such circumstances, in the terms you seem to do, you are not following Lenin, but Woodrow Wilson.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 March, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Supporting the right to self-determination does not necesarily mean you are in favour of it. Take the example of Scotland. Most socialists in Britain, would accept the right of the Scottish people to break with the UK, if they so choose, but that does not mean that you are in favour of such a course.
I do not know enough about Tibet to adopt a definitive position on the question of independence. But the argument that there is no ‘national-democratic’ movement capable of bringing it about is absurd. How can we know in advance? Of course, the level of repression is China is such that any independent movement which challenge4s the ruling of the CCP is crushed.
What I do know is that you cannot force any people to be part of a particular nation state against their will; not without guaranteeing that periodically, rebellions will break out.
I still haven’t read anything, by the way, to show that imperialism wants to break up China. Where’s the evidence?
Comment by Martin Wicks — 20 March, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
The Chinese ruling class are a bit of a problem for the US. And I think it’s illuminating that the most vociferously pro-independence voices are maverick Hollywood film stars and NuLabour’s front bench.
It could have something to do with the dollar.
According to the ‘Economist’s’ “Big Mac” index the Yuan is around 40-50 percent undervalued. And that’s a rather large sword to dangle over imperial heads. China’s central bank are in a position to make the recent finance industry turmoil look like a picnic (but they won’t pull the plug). It goes a long way to explaining why the Bush administration is essentially following a path developed by Clinton vis-a-vis China. Especially on the other, much nastier, touchpaper issue: Taiwan.
The American media is far quieter on the issue than the BBC… strange!
But it still looks like we’re in for “interesting times,” because if (and it’s a big and long-range if) US capitalism is able to bed down in Iraq it will run hard into China’s (and Russia’s) and India’s energy resource pool. We then have the world’s best equipped army staring directly at the world’s largest army. “Sovereignty” claims are set to grow in volume…
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 20 March, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
obviously, you’re referring here to tsarist russia, because there was never any imperialism under the soviet union
tell that to the hungarian workers councils that kruschev smashed so violently
honestly, it’s been 19 years now. let it go. stalinism is like smoking - you’ll feel better if you give it up in one go, no matter how hard it is
Comment by Dave Festive — 20 March, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
# 76 John W: “ Not all insurrections are in the interests of the international working class, and the two examples you cite were certainly not given what happened thereafter with the eventual collapse of the SU.”
I wouldn’t categorise the events in Czechoslovakia in ‘68, or even Poland in the 80’s as insurrections.
Dubcek was a popular CP leader, who wanted “socialism with a human face”, not rampant privatisation. As such, he was subject to the influence of workers.
Deposing him by sending in tanks from the USSR didn’t exactly win them friends amongst the population.
Similarly, in Poland, what happened in the 1980’s was a result of the mass organisation of industrial workers, using the general strike weapon to press their democratic and economic demands.
It was unlike the events in Russia in 1991, where the working class generally stood on the sidelines, as the bureaucrats and their respective military allies fought for control of the political system.
The demobilisation of Solidarity under martial law actually made the situation in Poland more similar to Russia in the 90’s.
i.e. the lack of mass meetings, strikes and political debate strengthened the hand of the bureaucracy and the right wing leadership of Solidarity to act behind their backs.
There is no certainty that events would have worked out differently had repressive measures not been taken. All that can be said with certainty is they were and we see the results today, not only in Eastern Europe, but in Afghanistan too.
The lesson for the Chinese in Tibet should be clear - when a whole population is repressed, the authorities are onto a loser. Developing democratic freedoms within a socialist system is the only guarantee of its long-term success.
Comment by prianikoff — 20 March, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Magnificent piece, Mr Newman. This is one of the best articles I have ever read on Tibet, and a welcome antidote to the shite talked by the SWP. I wonder how many of these ‘Chinese troops out of Tibet’ types would bother to show up at a demonstration when the US troops moved into Tibet, and what difference it would make anyway.
I wonder too why your considerable faculties desert you when it comes to questions like Israel, American jewish power, and Tony Greenstein.
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 21 March, 2008 @ 2:25 am
Dave
‘tell that to the hungarian workers councils that kruschev smashed so violently’
Reply:
That isn’t how you define imperialism. It is an economic relationship. Never in its history did the SU extract surplus value from any of its satellite states. On the contrary, it provided those states with material aid throughout.
At the time of the Hungarian revolt the Cold War was at its height. In that context, though entirely wrong and a mistake, the Soviet bureacracy was bound to be paranoid about the possibility that any insurrection or rebellion against the centre was backed by and even involved at some level the imperialist bloc.
Comment by John W — 21 March, 2008 @ 7:01 am
‘I wouldn’t categorise the events in Czechoslovakia in ‘68, or even Poland in the 80’s as insurrections.
Dubcek was a popular CP leader, who wanted “socialism with a human face”, not rampant privatisation. As such, he was subject to the influence of workers.’
Reply:
Yes, but inevitably Czechoslovakia would have been penetrated by the imperialist bloc, just as Yugoslavia was when it turned to the West for loans to help develop and sustain its economy.
The answer, as history illustrates, was not rebellion against the centre; the answer lay in the defeat of the imperialist bloc. The failure of the SU was ultimately a failure of the international working class to make the Russian Revolution a world revolution.
Comment by John W — 21 March, 2008 @ 7:17 am
# 90 John W: “Czechoslovakia would have been penetrated by the imperialist bloc, just as Yugoslavia was when it turned to the West for loans to help develop and sustain its economy.
The answer, as history illustrates, was not rebellion against the centre; the answer lay in the defeat of the imperialist bloc. The failure of the SU was ultimately a failure of the international working class to make the Russian Revolution a world revolution.”
For which the bureaucracy which arose in the USSR bears a major share of the blame. In fact, Yugoslavia held out for longer than Russia because its history of independence from Moscow. Poland, which was much more heavily dependent on Western loans experienced Martial Law in an attempt to prevent a direct intervention by Moscow. It was also under the influence of the Soviet Communist Party that various stalinist leaders were deposed from East Germany to Romania. So to that extent, the rot spread from the “centre” outwards.
But this was not due to the USSR’s indebtedness to the West, but the impasse of the bureaucratically dominated planned economy and failure to develop mass workers’ democracy.
Neither is it true that this was counterposed to opposition to Imperialism. In 1968 demonstrators against the Vietnam War, also took to the streets to oppose the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Students in Prague and Zagreb regarded Che Guevara as a hero.
The idea that workers democracy has to wait for the defeat of imperialism is fundamentally flawed because its accomodating international policies went hand in hand with its privileges and its inability to develop the living standards of the working class.
It’s impossible to insulate workers within a hermetically sealed “socialist bloc”. Even in Cuba there are glaring contradictions between how Tourists are treated and the conditions of ordinary people there - the fact that tourists can go to a hotel, eat lavishly, get free drinks at the bar and be driven around when ordinary Cubans experience food shortages, rely on bikes or are packed like sardines into trucks for public transport.
People there can’t help but drawing comparisons, despite the free health care and education.
Similarly in Tibet. The rightist, pro-Capitalist policies of the Chinese government have made many ordinary Tibetans the poor relations of Chinese entrepreneurs and shopkeepers in their own country. This provides a material basis for resentment and discontent which can erupt into nationalist xenophobia.
Politically, this is not the solution. But it won’t be dealt with by blaming it all on foreign subversion and more repression, which was the failed method of the Stalinists whenever confronted by these problems.
As I said before, the political involvement of the masses in everyday political decisions, better and more representative democratic structures and a policy of genuine socialism are the answer. Since you share elements of the Trotskyist analysis of stalinism, I’d expect you to agree with this. But you can join hands with the semi-nazi scumbag “McTrousers” instead, if you like. Please yourself.
Happy Easter Rising.
Comment by prianikoff — 21 March, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Prickanoff - semi-nazi? That’s what makes Trots a laughing stock, and you give a perfect example of his permanent defeatism.
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 21 March, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Stalinist parrakeets with nazi markings are fair game for ranking, ’specially ones who diss Russian-sounding names.
Comment by prianikoff — 21 March, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Prianikoff:
‘In fact, Yugoslavia held out for longer than Russia because its history of independence from Moscow.’
Reply:
Absolutely wrong. The imperialist bloc set about the task of dismantling Yugoslavia after the collapse of the SU because it was left isolated. Despite its independence from Moscow, Moscow provided a shield protecting it from attacks from the West. Ironically, whilst independent from Moscow, by accepting loans from the West Yugoslavia left itself vulenrable and exposed.
Prianikoff:
But this was not due to the USSR’s indebtedness to the West, but the impasse of the bureaucratically dominated planned economy and failure to develop mass workers’ democracy.
Reply:
The crucial error here is an analysis of the superstructure rather than the economic base. As Marx wrote: ‘Law can never be higher than the economic structure and the cultural development of society conditioned by that structure.’
This critique of the SU for its lack of workers’ democracy is petty bourgeois moralism masquerading as marxism. The Soviets were abolished by Lenin when it became obvious that the workers of the nascent Soviet state did not possess the requisite political or cultural development to organise industry and/or perform the administrative functions required by a state just emerged from revolution and a brutal and bloody civil war. As Trotsky wrote: ‘Lenin created the apparatus, the apparatus created Stalin.’
The lowest form of socialism, in terms of the development of productive forces, begins at the starting point of the most advanced stage of capitalism. The SU began from a starting point of deep poverty and semi-feudalism. Therefore, it could only ever act as a catalyst for international revolution, as per Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, or be forced to indsutrialise in order to meet the threat of capitalist encirclement.
Again, I maintain, the deficiencies within the SU (and there were many) were the deficiencies of the international working class in failing to alleviate the pressure exerted against the SU by settling accounts with their respective bourgeoisies.
Comment by John W — 21 March, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Kevin, I’m not upset you referencing Lenin. I’m just bemused why socialists continue to quote one of the great enemies of socialism. If you look at Lenin’s writings and then look at his actions, it’s as if you’re encountering two different beings. One talks and writes about liberation and solidarity and socialism. And how could he not? The other massacres people, with Trotsky putting the theory into practice, leads purges of socialists, smashes workers’ councils, etc, etc. And as I alway point out, this was *before* the imperial intervention, so the excuse of reacting to imperial war is a redundant one.
I’m sure Saddam Hussein, even Stalin, wrote about freedom, liberation and all the rest of it. Lenin and Trotsky (and every psychopath always seems to have a more loony and goofy sidekick yelping like mad) may have written interesting things, and nothing is more interesting than Trotsky’s admission that the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with the Russian Revolution and hijacked it once the people made all the gains themselves, but so what? Others have written far more interesting stuff. Why must Lenin and Trotsky always be brought into things, especially when they’re not at all enlightening on so much? For instance, Rob Hoveman, on another thread, said something about how SWP thinking on economics had not gotten much further than regurgitating what Trotsky had said. Not only was Trotsky wrong then, but how could he be right in an economic and financial world so completely different?
The logical conclusion of Bolshevism was someone like Stalin. No other outcome was possible. Trotsky would probably have been as bad as Stalin - look at what he did without having to “defend” [sic: strangle at birth] the revolution. The only difference would have been Trotsky “intellectualising” the purges and the massacres and writing aesthetically pleasing essays. And lots of gullible socialists in the West would have gone all weak at the knees at hearing or reading the clever monster.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 21 March, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Lenin supported the introduction of one man management and the employment of bourgeois specialists because it was a measure borne of necessity, in a situation where the Soviets had become a shell of what existed in 1917-18. The necessary technical skills to run industries that had been created by Western specialists simply didn’t yet exist in the USSR at the time.
But he also supported independent trade unions as part of a system of checks and balances on the managers and specialists and opposed the nascent bureaucracy, both in respect of its attempts to acquire material privileges and its tendency towards Russian national chauvinism. I take it that you don’t think Lenin was a “petty bourgeois moralist”?
The USSR could have achieved industrialisation without the methods that Stalin used, if it had imported the necessary technology and allowed a limited market and taxed the Kulaks rather than crushing them.
Which created a fertile base for nationalism in areas like the Ukraine, where many rich peasants cheered on the Nazi invasion in 1941, until they realised that they were destined to be the industrial serfs of Hitler’s war machine.
Yugoslavia was never reliant on Soviet military protection and was quite capable of defending itself indefinitely. The fact it was resistant to Soviet pressure meant that it was less vulnerable to Gorbachev’s move against the senile Stalinist regimes in the rest of Eastern Europe. Therefore it survived the fall of Honneker and Ceausescu and no foreign troops were able to enter the country.
It was only when inflation and regional inequalities became acute that the situation for intervention was created. But it’s difficult to see how things would have been different had the pro-Moscow elements in the Yugoslav CP gained the ascendancy in the 50’s. If anything, the country would have gone the same way as the others. As I said, the rot spread from the centre outwards.
You ignore a central feature of Trotsky’s analysis - the role of the bureaucracy and the fact that he predicted it would restore capitalism in the absence of revolution in one or more advanced countries. His timescale may have been out a bit, but we’re not discussing horoscopes, but a political analysis.
The objective basis for socialism was created by the development of the world economy, of which Russia was an integral part in 1917. Taking Russia out of the war meant not just the overthrow of feudalism, but a challenge to Anglo-French capitalism, which owned most of the big factories and which controlled the banks to which most of the big landowners were indebted. Hence, it was not just a question of a democratic revolution anymore.
This was a superstructural question and a matter of political leadership.
Blaming the whole international working class for the break up of the USSR is tantamount to saying that it was a mistake.
There’s a chain of logic in that view which clearly opens the door to “left” nationalism of the most reactionary form.
Comment by prianikoff — 21 March, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
A good place to start for anyone thinking about scenarios for China and Tibet would do well to start here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm
Comment by David Ellis — 21 March, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Yugoslavia:
Despite Tito’s refusal to be subsumed into the Soviet Bloc, Yugoslavia remained safe from capitalist penetration whilst the Soviet Union existed as a countervailing force to US-led imperialism. As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, however, this protective cloak was removed and the die was cast.
Fuelling the impressive economic growth enjoyed by Yugoslavia during the sixties and seventies was its decision to borrow heavily from the West in order to invest in industry and the production of both export and consumer goods. This proved a disastrous course, as it rendered Yugoslavia’s economy vulnerable to the fluctuations of global markets. Indeed, as a result of the world recession of the 1970s, export markets contracted with the result that Yugoslavia’s export-production dried up along with its ability to service its debts.
As a result of this debt crisis, the IMF demanded a restructuring of Yugoslavia’s economy to prioritise debt repayment. Stuck between the hammer of indebtedness and the anvil of continued borrowing in order to subsidise its commitment to the provision of education, healthcare, and housing, etc., for its citizens, by the late 1980s the Yugoslav economy was in freefall.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, central banks moved in at the behest of policy makers in Washington DC, London, and Bonn. Determined to break-up the last socialist country in Europe, they threatened to institute an economic blockade unless the Yugoslav government agreed to hold separate elections in each of its six republics. In the US this threat was enshrined into law in 1991 with the passing of the US ‘Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513’ into legislation, concerning the disbursement of aid and loans to nations overseas.
A section of this law related specifically to Yugoslavia in the form of a commitment to the cutting off of all loans, aid, and credits within six months unless the aforementioned elections were held. Given the extent of US control over the IMF and the World Bank, this legislation was a de facto death sentence for the Yugoslav federal republic. The most devastating provision of this legislation stipulated that only those forces within Yugoslavia deemed democratic by Washington would now receive funding. Various right wing factions in each of the six republics benefited directly from this provision and were thereafter the recipients of US largesse. It was a measure designed to bring to the fore and exacerbate differences along ethnic lines throughout the six republics that made up Yugoslavia and, in a climate of economic hardship, it was a measure which proved eminently successful.
Soviet Union:
The Soviet Union was set up inspired by Marx’s conception that the necessary first stage on the way to a Communist and therefore classless society would be the dictatorship of the proletariat. This would entail a state apparatus formulated in the immediate aftermath of the revolution with the express aim of dismantling completely the former, bourgeois state and its institutions, and suppressing an anticipated attempt at counterrevolution by the newly displaced bourgeoisie.
Enshrined in the first Soviet constitution in 1918 were equal rights for women, homosexuals, the disabled, national minorities (which it was originally intended were to enjoy the unassailable right to self determination and secession from the Soviet Union if desired), and an economy run by workers councils (soviets), which would liaise with the Central Committee, upon which they would have their own representative. In addition they would vote for their own factory managers and supervisors, over whom they would enjoy the power of recall at any time, as long as this was the will of the majority. The role of trade unions was also intended to play a prominent role in the running of the country, namely that of representing the wishes of the workers as a mass to the government on anything from domestic to foreign policy.
However, between the idea and its implementation came a civil war, an attempt at foreign intervention, and an embargo, necessitating a monumental effort to save the revolution from the very real possibility of its overthrow in its early stages.
War Communism was introduced, whereby workers rights were suspended and every aspect of the economy, from production to distribution, was geared towards fighting the civil war. By the end of the Civil War in 1921 the nation was in tatters. The nation’s national income amounted to one-third of what it had been in 1913 under autocracy; industry produced less than one-fifth of the goods it produced before the war; the coal mines turned out less than a tenth and the iron foundries a fortieth of normal output. In addition, the railway network was largely destroyed, the exchange of goods between country and town was at a standstill, and the nation’s major towns and cities were left depopulated due to mobilization for the various fronts and wastage due to hunger and disease.
The impact this had on the nation and is governance was immense. In order to develop the country’s economy and productive forces NEP (New Economic Policy) was introduced, which restored private ownership of farms, private trade and a limited return to the profit motive in both. This amounted to a retreat from Lenin’s original intention of the immediate installation of socialist production and exchange.
The system of workers councils proved inadequate to the task of running the economy, when it became apparent that the workers at this point did not possess the requisite level of expertise, education and training in order to do so efficiently. Instead, former managers and factory owners, as well as ‘experts’ from abroad were brought in to help develop industry, supervised by political commissars appointed by the government. The role of the unions also changed. Now, rather than a body for transmitting the workers’ wishes to the government, they were charged with transmitting the government’s wishes to the workers, their leaders now also appointed by the government rather than elected by the workers, as previous.
After Lenin’s death in 1924 came a struggle for power within the Politburo between Trotsky and Stalin. Stalin proved victorious and there followed two and a half decades of dictatorship, during which Stalin arrogated more and more power to himself. He subsequently used this power to purge any and all rivals, perceived rivals, and thus destroyed in the process a huge chunk of the country’s military, industrial, agricultural and intellectual talent. He and he alone dictated policy, with formal institutions such as the trade unions, Central Committee, Comintern and Politburo reduced to playing merely a symbolic role.
Stalin’s rule was not without its gains, however, despite the horrors of forced collectivization, purges and famine. His five-year plans, admittedly implemented at huge sacrifice to the workers, did succeed in developing major industry, enabling the Soviet Union the resources to overcome a Nazi onslaught and check US imperialism around the world in the postwar years.
After Stalin’s death in 1953 the country enjoyed a period of stability, peace and sustained prosperity. In 1956, during the Communist Party’s Twentieth Congress, Khrushchev delivered his now infamous ‘secret speech’, in which he excoriated and denounced Stalin and the years of his reign. The speech marked an end to the years of terror and purges, and in the immediate aftermath a measure of dissent was tolerated in the Soviet Union for the first time since the Left Opposition, comprising Trotsky and his supporters, was finally destroyed by Stalin in 1927. Regardless, a ruling bureaucracy remained the sole governing power, with the unions and Central Committee continuing to play a pro-forma role; their overriding purpose to help implement and enforce policies decided upon by a seven-man politburo.
No socialist democracy ever existed, largely due initially to a combination of the backward state of the country in 1917 with a small proletariat unequipped for the task. Moreover the Civil War took a huge toll on the proletariat, reducing its number still further, and in the aftermath Stalin and his terror allowed for the development of a bureaucracy, which, concerned with holding on to power and privilege, proved unwilling to countenance reform. Socialism in one country, certainly in the case of the SU, with the threat to its existence posed by capitalist encirclement, also militated against anything except a garrison-type state, set up with its main priority that of defending the status quo presided over by the bureacracy.
Nonetheless, in terms of its economic foundations, the SU was a socialist country, albeit one whose transition towards socialist democracy was petrified by a lack of favourable material conditions at birth, and whose continuing development was largely determined by external pressures placed on it by the West. Some socialists have labeled it state capitalism (an analysis authored by the likes of CLR James and the founder of the British SWP, Tony Cliff), while others, prime among them Trotsky, disagree. In his definitive work on the development of the Soviet Union - The Revolution Betrayed - Trotsky promulgates the analysis that whilst a bureaucracy did maintain an iron grip over the country, it remained irretrievably rooted to the proletariat; and that without the fundamentals of any capitalist economy - namely private ownership of the means of production, a stock market and money exchange, inherited wealth, etc. - there can be no capitalism.
Ultimately, the failure of the Soviet Union to become the socialist utopia to which many ascribe could be said to have been down to two crucial factors: 1) the failure of the European proletariat to make revolutions in their own countries and thus allow the Soviet Union to develop unmolested, and 2) the mistaking of such a utopia for the historical advance of the working class in the initial stages of any socialist revolution.
Despite its many deficiencies, there is no doubt that with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world entered a period of barbarism the effects of which are self evident today.
Comment by John W — 22 March, 2008 @ 6:12 am
Another excellent post by John W. There is only one question which is really about semantics if you can call a country socialist if it is governed by a bureacratic dictatorship and the economy abiet a transitional one has not yet become a socialist economy. Readers should try and read the debates bwteeen the SWP and Ernest Mandel on the nature of the USSR who I think has developed the fullest analysis of the former Soviet economy and bureacracy.
Comment by Trotsky's Witness In Scotland — 22 March, 2008 @ 9:01 am
#99 Except that it evades the central point raised by Trotsky’s article mentioned in #97.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm
Namely, that the violent supression of a population in which the majority of people have expressed a desire for independence, harms the development of socialism.
Trotsky’s slogan was for “an Independent *Soviet* Ukraine. Using his analysis therefore, it would have been totally inadmissable to argue that it was correct to “send the tanks in”, as the USSR did in Hungary ‘56, Czechoslovakia ‘68 and was threatening to do in Poland in the early 80’s. It would also have been totally inadmissable not to take the side of the Yugoslavs in their split with Moscow.
Furthermore, it would have been inadmissable to blur over the differences with those nationalists who supported an “Independent *Democratic* Ukraine, because as he points out, this would quickly have fallen prey to imperialism.
So, I don’t accept that John W’s position is an accurate reflection of Trotsky’s politics. On the contrary, it contains a large element of Stalinist left nationalism and justifies the supression of national rights on the basis of socialised relations of production and planning, which is a position which Trotsky categorically rejects.
I suggest people read the article carefully, because it’s a brilliant analysis.
Trotsky was way ahead of his time as a political thinker.
Comment by prianikoff — 22 March, 2008 @ 9:40 am
`Trotsky’s slogan was for “an Independent *Soviet* Ukraine. Using his analysis therefore, it would have been totally inadmissable to argue that it was correct to “send the tanks in”, as the USSR did in Hungary ‘56, Czechoslovakia ‘68 and was threatening to do in Poland in the early 80’s. It would also have been totally inadmissable not to take the side of the Yugoslavs in their split with Moscow.’
Carrying that through, it would also have been totally inadmissable to argue it was correct for Serbia to send the Yugoslave Army into Croatia to get at Slovenia sparking a generalised war. Hey, if the Serbs had given even Kosovo its independence when it asked for it they wouldn’t now have a dirty great NATO base in their backyard.
Arguing for passivity in China until something happens in the west is sectarian. The biggest immediate danger to the property relations in China is the growing Chinese bourgeoisie and the ruling Maoist bureaucracy. Isn’t that the lesson of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes there are danngers of course.
There is everychance that the Tibetan uprising could spark something more widespread throughout China, let’s hope and let’s be ready to help give it programmatic expression, but as Trotsky says in the article:
`Our critic takes as his point of departure the following position “If the workers in the Soviet Ukraine overthrow Stalinism and re-establish a genuine workers’ state, shall they separate from the rest of the Soviet Union? No.” And so forth and so on. “If the workers overthrow Stalinism” … then we shall be able to see more clearly what to do. But Stalinism must first be overthrown. And in order to achieve this, one must not shut one’s eyes to the growth of separatist tendencies in the Ukraine, but rather give them a correct political expression.’
Comment by Owen Davies — 22 March, 2008 @ 9:59 am
#101 A good piece, illustrating the enduring social gains of the Yugoslav revolution, is here:
http://www.marxist.com/a-kiwi-in-slovenia.htm
The author notes: -
“Workers in Slovenia have also been enjoying rights unheard of in most countries. Firing workers is virtually impossible. It costs bosses 43 weeks worth of a worker’s salary to dismiss them - almost an entire year! This compares to New Zealand, which is one of many countries where there is little to no cost at all for firing a worker.
The IMF ranks Slovenia as the “worst” on a scale of working hour rigidity, scoring 80/100 (lower is “better”), basically meaning that employers cannot coerce workers into doing long hours or working over time, which the IMF finds intolerable, claiming that this makes it difficult for firms to respond to demand. Thus they clearly use “better” in the sense of more exploitable, and according to this same scale, New Zealand comes in with the United States with a top ranking score of 0, ahead of the U.K. at 20.”
Of course the IMF and the privatisers would like to alter that situation, but they are encountering significant resistance from the Slovenian unions.
So it’s also clear that strong independent unions are the best guarantee against the type of shock therapy that was successfully used against the working class in Russia.
Note that a Slovene interviewed argues that they were much better off when they were part of Yugoslavia. I stayed in Ljubljana in the 70’s and visited Slovenia a couple of times afterwards and can well believe that.
Comment by prianikoff — 22 March, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Sorry I’ve come late to this thread (just returned from having fun - yes, I have a life. Grrr! Yowza!. Just let me catch my breath …)
A powerful post, Andy. Thanks for kicking off a proper debate in a worrying climate of knee-jerking.
BPS at 85: A thoughtful comment as to be expected. As the Chinese are the US’s biggest creditors, yes, I guess US fury is understandable. And a useful diversion from their own criminal actions.
While I disgree with Adamski (36), thanks for the NLR links - some interesting stuff.
Like Martin W at 84, I don’t have a deep knowledge of Tibet, either. He asks, “I still haven’t read anything, by the way, to show that imperialism wants to break up China. Where’s the evidence?”
I know that the Brits have been sniffing around Tibet since 1903 and killed a load of locals when they invaded. There’s been a lot of destabilising going on behind the scenes, especially in the cold-war lead-up to the events of 1950. A few years ago I was asked to attend a parliamentary meeting set up by some of the political elite in support of the Dolly Llama. My first utterance was, “Baby, have you got the wrong vampire!” [Ref: Jewish vampire played by Alfie Bass when confronted with a crucifix in Polanski’s Dance of the Vampires] I had to explain why I was not enamoured of Dolly and his Shangrila nostalgia for feudalism.
While I’m on the subject, is everyone aware of Dolly’s background? That his mother owned more serfs than anyone else? How convenient that the new DL was located in the ruling class! That the DL had the power of life and death over the population and that his predecessors used it? Including maiming and flaying? Had Dolly come out and condemned the practices of the clergy, relinquished his privileges, and worked towards a fair society, I might have been sympathetic. As it is, I’m not impressed with this Trojan Horse for imperialism.
Of the others who place First Contact as the “invasion” of 1950, when there was a whole section of Tibetans who welcomed the PLA as liberators, I ask what happened in the 7th century when it was Tibet which invaded China, and even now Tibetan nationalists make noises about “historic Tibet”, referring to territories lying outside its borders.
There have been alliances and even a royal marriage in the 17th C, so I reckon China has a better claim than the UK has over some of its regions.
BTW, I’ve had Cornish nationalist crawling all over my YouTube vids of my holiday, so perhaps I should take to lobbying for their independence. And the Welsh. And the Scots. And the Irish. (Actually, done that last one.)
Finally, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s not China who’s the biggest threat to world peace. I think the US and UK are at the head of that queue. Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Palestine, Syria, China - these are all within its sites (sorry if I missed any). Fans of Dolly should think about boycotting themselves over the chaos wreaked by the US and the UK and their friends in giving us World War, the sequel. “This time it’s personal.”
Comment by Madam Miaow — 22 March, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Historic Tibet in fact refers to those areas where the population was (and often still is) majority Tibetan, many of which were part of the Tibetan state until the Chinese state redrew the boundaries. About half the Tibetan population of China live outside the province of Tibet. This is one of the reasons why it’s such a sensitive problem for China’s rulers - the nationalist movements in Tibet and Xinjiang have claims on huge areas of western China.
The Irish parallel is a useful one, albeit from a different angle. Who was it who said a nation which oppresses another can never itself be free? The last time the PLA deployed on this scale in Tibet was in March 1989 - only a few months before the massacre in Beijing. it’s hard to see how one could have supported the first but opposed the second.
Comment by chjh — 22 March, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
chjh 104. The last time the PLA deployed on this scale in Tibet was in March 1989 - only a few months before the massacre in Beijing.
If there was another Tien An Men Square in Tibet, then that would change my position. They have grievances and should be allowed to protest.
But at the same time, they can’t be allowed to hospitalise Han Chinese and Hui Muslims with impunity.
A genuine question: who are the protesters? I know they don’t represent all Tibetans - even Dolly Lama has called for calm and an end to racist attacks.
Comment by Madam Miaow — 22 March, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
I’ve written a post taking a completely opposite view to Andy whose position has a lot in common with Engels’ wrong idea, nicked from Hegel, of the “non-historical” people.
Madam Miaow - a major reason we can only guess at who the protestors are and what they are doing is because there are no longer any independently verifiable reports coming out of the country. The indiscriminate attacks on Han Chinese and Muslims are to be criticised but these things are often a feature of uprisings which do not have a coherent leadership. I did try to leave a comment on your site but you seem to need a Google account.
Comment by Liam — 23 March, 2008 @ 9:27 am
This is an article worth reading in Saturday’s Guardian Comment and Debate by Pankaj Mishra:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/22/tibet.china1
Pankaj describes the issue as modernisation being antagonistic towards the Tibetans.
Comment by Alex Naysmith — 23 March, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Excellent article, Andy, I do not see how we can regard Tibet as a nation. We do not have to be believe that China is still a workers state to oppose imperialism’s plans in the region. True they want to keep the CCP leadership on board and there is no official recognition internationally of Tibet as a nation but certainly whatever the Whitehouse says the CIA operates the real policy and we can be certain they are in there. If China is capitalist is it imperialist? Not even approaching what Russia was in 1917 in my view . The current financial crisis will reveal the essence of world imperialism as the three financial capitals of Wall Street, the City of London and Tokyo. Of course if there is a genuine leftist Marxist tradition in Tibet as one post has very interestingly proposed then that is where we should look for developing a revolutionary strategy. But lastly I really do oppose the line of the Workers Power article on this; It says “We must be quite clear that the real enemy of the Tibetan people, and of the Chinese immigrants, is the Chinese Communist Party” (and not US and world imperialism, their friends or at least a lesser enemy, it seems - Gerry). these are their demands:
• Down with the Chinese occupation of Tibet
• Unconditional support for all those fighting to end the occupation (ALL ALL, every reactionary, feudal lama and fascist??? Gerry)
• No to the restoration of the Dali Lama’s theocracy (but a united front against China with him, it seems - Gerry)
• For a sovereign constituent assembly to decide the future of the country
• For a workers’ and peasants’ government in Tibet
• Imperialists – hands off Tibet
• For global protests in solidarity with the Tibetan people (I will not join with these reactionary protest, I once joined with Polish fascist in support of Solidarity outside the Polish Embassy in the early 80s at the behest of the WRP - never again - Gerry)
It is the class consciousness of the international working class that should determine our policy on this - capitulation to the lamas will never advance this. Self determination for the Balkan states by Gorbachev opened the door for capitalist restoration in the USSR it can never be conceded unconditionally and only ever to a nation not to colonial settlers or their descendants in the Malvinas, the North of Ireland, Gibraltar or Hongkong, who do not even claim themselves to be a nation but who must be accommodated by Sean Margamna (who of course headlines this issue with Free Tibet devoid of any analyses) and others because that is what imperialism requires.
Gerry Downing
Comment by Gerry Downing — 23 March, 2008 @ 10:26 am
“I do not see how we can regard Tibet as a nation”
if the Tibet was occupied by Japan, the USA or Britain, every single **oh-so-orthodox_Marxist** who uses that argument, would do a double somersault and sing the praises of the Tibetan national liberation struggle. It’s pure theoretical opportunism of the most transparent kind.
“Self determination for the Balkan states by Gorbachev opened the door for capitalist restoration in the USSR”
…..Whereas this is just complete bullshit. Which “Balkan states” exactly didn’t have “self-determination”. Or perhaps you’re arguing that they shouldn’t have had it?
Comment by prianikoff — 23 March, 2008 @ 11:20 am
I think Gerry probably meant ‘Baltic’.
Comment by Phil — 23 March, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Baltic, yes I did mean that and “Japan, the USA or Britain” are imperialist nations moreover the prime centers of global finance capital so as the prime enemy of progressive humanity yes unconditionally for their defeat by any force (fascist Brazil, Abyssinia, etc) other than another imperialist power or alliance in which case ‘orthodox Marxists’ would be dual defeatists. Did not the failure of the majority of the British Left to call for the defeat of their ‘own’ Malvinas task force result in the spectacular revival of a discredited Thatcher government leading to the defeat of the miners, the victory of Regan/Tharcher economic neo-liberalism etc. Had the Ark Royal gone down we might at least have made a better fight of it
Gerry Downing
Gerry Downing
Comment by Gerry Downing — 24 March, 2008 @ 1:38 am
Yes but whilst we should be for say the victory of Abyssinai against fascist Italy that does not mean at all suspending criticism of the Negus, the feudal dictator who toured the homes of European aristocracy- whilst his fellow country people fought the facists the lords fled.
And it does not mean siding with a government slaughtering people in the streets to smash their demands for democracy, autonomy or independence.
Comment by Jason — 24 March, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Gerry, I think it’s too simplistic to put Thatcher’s 1983 victory down to the Falklands, as a comparison of the Tory, Labour and SDP votes for 1979 and 1983 suggests. For all the flag waving Thatcher’s support dropped by over half a million votes, but because of Britain’s ludicrous first past the post voting, the Tories still managed to scoop up an extra 37 seats. Labour’s vote, on account of the SDP split, lost 3,500,000 votes whereas the Alliance received roughly that same number. Had the split not taken place Labour’s vote may well have remained stable around the 12 million mark. Certainly not enough to defeat Thatcher, but it would have squeezed her majority and just perhaps have prevented the titanic confrontations that took place.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 24 March, 2008 @ 8:36 am
Back to Tibet.
I argee with much of Andy’s post here in the sense that the issue needs to be adressed concretely. I disagre with him he argues there is no class capable of creating a progressive state in Tibet.
Tibet has a significant working class, which is growing as Chinese investment in the province increases. You have to put the interests of this class at the centre of any analysis of the struggle in Tibet.
The issue of context is still important, but the important question is “Is it possible for Tibetan independance to be won through a struggle of Tibetans against the chinese state?” In this sense the answer must be a negative. This is different from, say Vietnam, where it was entirely possible for the Vietnamese to force the US from their soil through a military struggle against the US.
For the Tibetan working class to be free the Chinese working class must have freed itself, as the Chinese state is too strong to be defeated externally.
This dictates the sort of tactics you need to raise in Tibet to win advances for the Tibetan people, namely those that Chinese workers sympathise with and can advance in their own way- such as demands for better and safer jobs, better housing, greater democracy, increased access to health care etc. Any increase in democratic rights for Tibetans creates a precedent that Chinese workers can fight for too.
The level of integration of Tibet can also make a struggle of Tibetans against “Chinese occupiers” (depending on what this means) possibly reactionary. There are tens of thousands of Chinese workers in Tibet that cannot be equated to Ulster loyalists of Israeli settlers and unlike these groups are not a legitimate target of attack, they are there out of force of economic necessity, many work alongside Tibetans so there is much ground for practical solidarity.
Comment by Kieran — 24 March, 2008 @ 11:12 am
On the defeat of Labour in 1983 the point I am making was that it was down to ideological confusion on the left. Michael Foot supported the task force, the Millies supported Michael foot, Matgamna supported him and Gerry Healy initially supported him only to be defeated in the WRP (his first reverse as guru) by an alliance of Bill Hunter in Liverpool and Banda and then a more correct position was adopted (as far as it went - it did not elaborate a position for Argentina and so the split WRP/Workers Press was later able to accommodate to Moreno who accommodated to Galteri’s bogus anti-imperialism). My point is that the forces who were for the defeat of the task force and proclaimed the islands as Argentinian were small and marginalized even on the far left; the vast majority capitulated to the chauvinist onslaught, the Alliance split was in that context; a pro-imperialist right split from a labour movement that was exposed as unable to fight the capitalist system in crises, even its ‘conscience’ the majority of far left was exposed as useless.
Again as global chaos threatens the crucial issue of Tibet poses the question of the relationship of self-proclaimed revolutionaries to their own ruling class sees and major sections lining up either to support self-determination for Tibet uncritically (Solidarity, SWP) of shamefacedly (Workers Power who thing the CCP are the main enemy). Andy’s post was excellent because it put the conflict in its world context AND it examined in detail the class relations in Tibet as they have historically evolved and combined the two. I would emphasis that what is in debate is not just Tibet but how we view our own ruling class and seek to overthrow it. This is also what is involved in the HOPI - Stop the War struggle as George Galloway so openly showed on TV when he questioned the right to oppose the Iranian regime over Mehdi Kazami’s deportation whilst at the same time opposing imperialist intervention in Iran. Must we lie about Armadinajad so the Iranian masses will be fooled by his bogus anti-imperialism?
Comment by Gerry Downing — 24 March, 2008 @ 11:58 am
Some eighteen months ago I was in Aba, scene of recent rioting by Tibetan protesters. Westerners are still so rare there that my presence was a constant source of curiosity, even to the event of people coming across to look in my shopping basket to see what I was buying to eat.
Unfortunately I can’t claim any political expertise here, because the language barrier prevented me getting much insight into people’s thinking. What was obvious was a certain level of discrimination. The police, major businesses and many minor ones were run by Han-Chinese.
Moreover, this looked certain to become more pronounced as the enormous rail projects from China into Tibet were nearing completion. Some posts here have said that this economic ‘progress’ is why Tibetan protests are reactionary. But if the railway, infrastructure and businesses were improving the lot of Tibetans, then why would they complain? The Chinese ruling class are investing in the region for one reason alone: to increase the exploitation of Tibet. Something which, naturally, is resented by the indigenous population.
That the Tibetans have tried to do something about their situation is amazing and heartbreaking; even more so than Palestinians throwing stones against Israeli armoured cars. I was glad to read that the targets of the rioters were not ordinary Han Chinese people but those in uniform, the representatives of the Chinese state.
Aba is a tiny town. It has five Buddhist monasteries, which provide a very important social role. Perhaps twenty percent of the men you see on the streets are in robes. Buddhism will inevitably play an important part in these struggles. But not a leading role. The one resident of Aba that I had a long conversation with was a monk. He was angry at the exploitation of Tibet, but when I pressed him on a strategy for change, his answer was to wear down the Chinese authorities through ‘love’. You have to admire this great appreciation of the value of human life, even if it is never going to be reciprocated by the other side.
I’m an atheist, revolutionary, etc., but I would not be disrespectful of the Dalai Lama like some of the posts (even of the pro-Tibet side) have been. For a start, politically, you are going to get nowhere with cries about feudalism. The parallels are with Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mandela, etc. To win their admirers to socialism, you have to stand with them against injustice and oppression, as well as listen carefully to what they are saying and appreciate the positive within it.
But irrespective of the political line, if the human race consisted entirely of followers of the Dalai Lama, planet earth would be a fantastic place. A little lacking in good punk bands perhaps, but essentially loving and socialist.
Comment by Conor Kostick — 25 March, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Just listened to a BBC report on the lighting of the Olympic torch which was extremely sympathetic to the pro-Tibetan protesters who disrupted the ceremony. Talk of the Freek police assaulting demonstrators. As a Marxist in Britain I see this, in the first instance, as a way in to describing the ideological role of the BBC rather than the starting point for a discussion about the repression of the Chinese state.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 25 March, 2008 @ 12:15 am
CPI ML (Liberation) on Tibet
China would do well to address the aspirations for autonomy through political dialogue rather than by repression and martial law. The spectacle of protesting Buddhist monks being brutalised by armed forces
can hardly evade comparisons with similar scenes in military-ruled Burma and the tragic stigma of Tiananmen.
One hopes that China will take proper lessons from the Soviet experience, where bruised national sentiments played no small part in the great shipwreck. Democratic and peace-loving people of the world are
deeply concerned over the situation in Tibet, and expect China to handle the agitations and the ethnic tensions with greater sensitivity and maturity. China’s stance on economic questions has been one of pragmatic
flexibility: in the case of Hong Kong, China has shown its willingness to experiment with a policy of “one country, two systems”, where the Central People’s Government is responsible for the territory’s defence
and foreign affairs, while the Government of Hong Kong is responsible for its own legal system, police force, monetary system, customs policy,
immigration policy and so on. Can’t we, then, expect greater
accommodation on China’s part of Tibetan aspirations for autonomy?
While resolutely resisting every attempt to fan an anti-communist and anti-China frenzy over Tibet, we do hold that state repression can only be counterproductive, providing grist to the imperialist mill and
allowing greater room for US interference in the region. A lasting solution can be reached only through political dialogue in a democratic atmosphere.
Full: http://links.org.au/node/321
Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373
Comment by Terry Townsend — 25 March, 2008 @ 2:36 am
“I’m an atheist, revolutionary, etc., but I would not be disrespectful of the Dalai Lama like some of the posts (even of the pro-Tibet side) have been. For a start, politically, you are going to get nowhere with cries about feudalism. The parallels are with Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mandela, etc. To win their admirers to socialism, you have to stand with them against injustice and oppression, as well as listen carefully to what they are saying and appreciate the positive within it.”
“But irrespective of the political line, if the human race consisted entirely of followers of the Dalai Lama, planet earth would be a fantastic place. A little lacking in good punk bands perhaps, but essentially loving and socialist.”
Good God Almighty Conor Kostic (if I was not a atheist) is this what passes for revolutionary socialism in Ireland today? You might as well be attempting to win the perpetrators of the Magdalene Laundries outrages to social
and economic equality as attempting to win the ‘Dolly’ Lama to socialism. Take a look at Madam Miaow’s blog and wonder if you should not call yourself a liberal reactionary rather than a revolutionary socialist.
ps I am Irish too
Comment by Gerry Downing — 25 March, 2008 @ 2:40 am
#116 “…if the human race consisted entirely of followers of the Dalai Lama, planet earth would be a fantastic place”
Are you levitating while writing that? Send in Tin Tin and Snowy. They’ll sort it out.
#118 CPI(ML)
I’ve always thought that this organisation is one of the best and least dogmatic to have emerged from the former Maoist movement in India. The British left should be working more closely with people like this. Their own website makes very interesting reading too.
http://www.cpiml.org/
Comment by prianikoff — 25 March, 2008 @ 7:58 am
Useful material by (or about) Tibetan and Chinese Marxists on Tibet at
http://links.org.au/node/321#comment-226
Comment by Terry Townsend — 26 March, 2008 @ 2:06 am
The chinese have no moral or legal right to continue occupying Tibet.The act of Chinese occupation of Tibet is of same nature as Iraqui occupation of Kuwait. So, it is high tiome the world community must rise to the occasion in the interest of human rights,democracy and civilisation to teach a similar lesson as has been taught to Iraque.Enough genocide has been tolerated.Let the UNO take a moral decision on the call of Conscience to help the liberation of Tibet.
Comment by Nishitendu — 2 April, 2008 @ 4:57 pm