This text is full of blatant lies, just check serious academic books I recommended earlier. Especially this paragraph is outrageous.

I freely admit to knowing very little about Tibet, so I would be glad to have errors in Parentis text pointed out.

I will try to pick up Goldsteins book at the library after easter. I have not found it online.

Why, I can explain - in pre-Chinese invasion Tibet there was staggering amount of monks. Of course monks did not produce food or cloth or whatever they need for life. Monasteries were biggest feudals (according to Marxist and European point of view) having lots of so-called serfs. Yet these serfs had to provide food, tea, cloth and other items for special religious ceremonies mainly.

Monasteries paid their monks meagre sums which were not sufficient for their survival but monks could participate in as many as possible religious ceremonies where they could eat and drink tea. Thus monasteries managed to oblige monks to perform their duties otherwise there were no ways to do this and to get rid of useless or lazy monks (monks could be expelled from monasteries only if they committed murder or had sex).

Of course there were rich bureaucratic or aristocratic families but their holdings were much smaller than monasteries and in stead they had to work for state for free (without salary). If aristocratic family failed to produce clerks their holdings were forfeited and confiscated.

This description would suit many parts of medieval Europe (except the details of how food is distributed to monks within the temples). I do not see it contradicting Parentis description, rather complementing it by adding the functions of the feudalism. Yet it is obvious that you find Parentis text wrong, so was it (according to you) that tax rates were pretty low or was the peasants not bound to the soil? (Or both?)

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se