Let's have a look at what type of society Tibet was before the PRC helped liberate the masses:
But what society is this one which the Dalai Lama was called upon to govern? Albeit reluctantly, the author of the book finally acknowledges that “The supremacy of the monastic order in Tibet is absolute, and can be compared only with a strict dictatorship. The monks are wary of any influence that could endanger their domination.” Those who are punished include not just those who act against the “power” but “anyone who calls it into into question” (p. 76). Let’s take a look at the social relations. It seems that the cheapest goods in Tibet are servants (more accurately — slaves). Harrer cheerfully describes a meeting with a senior official: even though he is not particularly important, he still has “more than thirty male and female servants.” (p. 56) They are subjected to hardships that are not only bestial but even unnecessary: “About twenty men were tied by their belts to a rope and dragged a huge trunk, singing in chorus their slow dirges and advancing hand in hand. Panting and drenched in sweat they could not linger to seize breath, because the leader did not allow it. This backbreaking work represents a portion of their taxes, a tribute to the feudal system.” It would have been easy to make use of the wheel, but “the government did not want the wheel,” and, as we know, to oppose or even just to question the power of the ruling class could be very dangerous.
Domenico Losurdo: “China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama”
Many Buddhists maintain that, before the Chinese crackdown in 1959, old Tibet was a spiritually oriented kingdom free from the egotistical lifestyles, empty materialism, and corrupting vices that beset modern industrialized society. Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La. The Dalai Lama himself stated that “the pervasive influence of Buddhism” in Tibet, “amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.”
Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas...Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace.”
Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. [13] Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” [14] In fact it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth (2003) by Michael Parenti
