[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Sony Thang [@nxt888](/creator/twitter/nxt888) on x 75.8K followers Created: 2025-07-17 19:28:59 UTC You asked whether China "allowed" Tibetan feudalism to exist for too long, and whether the Great Leap was the moment it ended. But that question misunderstands the nature of revolution. Feudalism didn’t exist in Tibet alone. It existed throughout China: in the warlord-run villages, in the Confucian landlord estates, in the dynastic legacy of tribute and hierarchy that kept hundreds of millions of peasants illiterate, poor, and voiceless. And when the Chinese revolution succeeded in 1949, it didn’t just claim Tibet. It tore out feudalism by the root. In Shanghai. In Henan. In Yunnan. In the farmlands of the Han heartland and the remote edges of empire. The Communist Party didn't just topple Tibetan aristocrats. It toppled Chinese ones, too. The Great Leap was not the start of that process. It was an attempt. Flawed, painful, and often tragic. But it aimed to accelerate a transformation already underway. What the West calls "annexation," the Chinese call unification through transformation. Not because Tibet was special. But because it was part of the same national struggle. To break centuries of inherited inequality. To rebuild a shattered country after civil war. And to ensure no peasant would ever again be born into chains. That is why the West fixated on Tibet. Not because Tibet was more brutal than the rest of China. But because Tibet was the most useful distortion. A theocratic slave system that became a Western symbol of innocence only after it fell. You never saw Hollywood weep for Chinese peasants. You never saw Richard Gere or Brad Pitt narrate the story of barefoot girls in Anhui learning to read for the first time. You never saw the sons of American billionaires fleeing to defend Chinese landlords after 1949. But you did see the CIA arm Tibetan nobles. You did see the Dalai Lama on magazine covers. You did see the myth of Shangri-La rebuilt atop the ashes of a system that branded human beings with hot irons and called it harmony. So to answer your question: Yes, feudalism lasted too long. But not because China allowed it. Because the world ignored it. Until the day it was destroyed. And when China finally ended it — for itself and for Tibet — the problem was no longer feudalism. The problem was that the wrong empire had collapsed. And the wrong peasants had won. XXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [legacy of](/topic/legacy-of) [china](/topic/china) [$6758t](/topic/$6758t) [sony](/topic/sony) [Post Link](https://x.com/nxt888/status/1945928738069451258)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Sony Thang @nxt888 on x 75.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-17 19:28:59 UTC
You asked whether China "allowed" Tibetan feudalism to exist for too long, and whether the Great Leap was the moment it ended.
But that question misunderstands the nature of revolution.
Feudalism didn’t exist in Tibet alone.
It existed throughout China: in the warlord-run villages, in the Confucian landlord estates, in the dynastic legacy of tribute and hierarchy that kept hundreds of millions of peasants illiterate, poor, and voiceless.
And when the Chinese revolution succeeded in 1949, it didn’t just claim Tibet.
It tore out feudalism by the root.
In Shanghai. In Henan. In Yunnan. In the farmlands of the Han heartland and the remote edges of empire.
The Communist Party didn't just topple Tibetan aristocrats. It toppled Chinese ones, too.
The Great Leap was not the start of that process. It was an attempt.
Flawed, painful, and often tragic.
But it aimed to accelerate a transformation already underway.
What the West calls "annexation," the Chinese call unification through transformation.
Not because Tibet was special. But because it was part of the same national struggle.
To break centuries of inherited inequality. To rebuild a shattered country after civil war. And to ensure no peasant would ever again be born into chains.
That is why the West fixated on Tibet.
Not because Tibet was more brutal than the rest of China.
But because Tibet was the most useful distortion.
A theocratic slave system that became a Western symbol of innocence only after it fell.
You never saw Hollywood weep for Chinese peasants.
You never saw Richard Gere or Brad Pitt narrate the story of barefoot girls in Anhui learning to read for the first time.
You never saw the sons of American billionaires fleeing to defend Chinese landlords after 1949.
But you did see the CIA arm Tibetan nobles.
You did see the Dalai Lama on magazine covers.
You did see the myth of Shangri-La rebuilt atop the ashes of a system that branded human beings with hot irons and called it harmony.
So to answer your question:
Yes, feudalism lasted too long.
But not because China allowed it.
Because the world ignored it. Until the day it was destroyed.
And when China finally ended it — for itself and for Tibet — the problem was no longer feudalism.
The problem was that the wrong empire had collapsed.
And the wrong peasants had won.
XXXXXX engagements
