Is "_______" friendly towards workers?

[R_P_A_S]

I would like for people to add a name of a person or organization to that "__blank__" spot of the question. A few of us will answer the question with some facts, links and NO extended debate. I would like for this thread to serve as a "source" for quick relative answers regarding people and organizations who appear to be "good" or progressive, but in reality are not friendly towards workers regardless of "ism" or "ist".

I'll kick it off with the Dali Lama...

Is the Dali Lama someone that's for the workers struggle and liberation?

[Invincible Summer]

The Dalai Lama used to get funding from the CIA to undermine Communism in that part of Asia: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/world-news-briefs-dalai-lama-group-says-it-got-money-from-cia.html

I'm not sure if he still does though.

The Dalai Lama will preach all sorts of shit that hippies and yuppies will cream their spiritual pants over, but he's said:


I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

It's from Wiki, but I've read it somewhere else too.

He has said that he's "half Marxist" or something ridiculous, but that means nothing IMO.

[R_P_A_S]

Thank you! this is exactly the kind of stuff Im looking for. I appreciate this read!

[rednordman]

Though I do not like the Dali Lama, I do not see anything wrong with that quote that you used, infact it has made me see him in a different light. I still do not trust him through.

[Invincible Summer]

Though I do not like the Dali Lama, I do not see anything wrong with that quote that you used, infact it has made me see him in a different light. I still do not trust him through.

Yeh the quote has been somewhat "controversial" when I've posted it on other threads, because I evidently misinterpret it.

When the Dalai Lama says "too much emphasis on class struggle," and talks about "compassion," it basically says to me "Don't fight for Communism, just have compassion for each other and everything will be good."

[LOLseph Stalin]

The Dalai Lama should be encouraging Tibetans to oppose Chinese imperialism. They did afterall, invade and exile him.

[Decolonize The Left]

We must remember that the Dali Lama is the supposed incarnation of Buddha within Tibetan buddhism. Think about that for a second: this individual, born of human beings, is believed to be the reincarnation of someone who died thousands of years ago.

What this means is that the Dali Lama occupies a position of religious authority. Hence, reason ought to inform us that this individual is not to be trusted. Whether or not he still accepts CIA funds is secondary to the fact that this individual is purporting a system of belief in supernatural phenomena which ultimately serve to distract the working class from material reality and hence to keep them oppressed.

- August

[Vincent P.]

I'll kick it off with the Dali Lama...

Is the Dali Lama someone that's for the workers struggle and liberation?

Well although he called himself Marxist, some of his quotes are contradictory:



"In 1996, the Dalai Lama issued a statement that must have had an unsettling effect on the exile community. It read in part: “Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability.” Marxism fosters “the equitable utilization of the means of production” and cares about “the fate of the working classes” and “the victims of . . . exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and . . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

(http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html#notes)But he also sent a reassuring message to “those who live in abundance”: “It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And to the poor he offers this admonition: “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.”
Source: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5170/

So I'm afraid he said the marxist thing only to gain support from some China supporter.

This said I thoroughly hate Chinese policy in Tibet and elsewhere and I don't consider it communist by any means.

[ZeroNowhere]

What's the context of those quotes?

[redSHARP]

i would like to add a name....

Ghandi

[R_P_A_S]

i would like to add a name....

Ghandi

Thanks! This is a great example. These are all people who are praised left and right and the real question is... if shit hits the fan are they on our side?

[Vincent P.]

Gandhi sometime described himself as a "philosophical anarchist", advocating for self-governance and organisation in small communes without a centralized government or institutions. Thus we could say he was a socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaraj
or his own paper:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hind_Swaraj

I gotta read them, looks interesting.

[Invincible Summer]

From what I have read of him, Mahatma Gandhi was never purely friendly towards workers, but viewed businessmen as so-called "caretakers" (I'm not sure if this is the term he used) of wealth and it was their "duty" to distribute it justly. This was of course utopian and was probably done to curry favor with the British imperialists who may not have like an out and out opponent of capital.

Was that intentional? :lol:



Anyway, I think that viewpoint is basically reformist - "I hope that my masters will take care of me! Maybe if I bug them enough they'll reduce my work from 20 hours a day to 18, and I'll earn .20 more cents to the hour! Our masters are so benevolent!"

[Vincent P.]

From what I have read of him, Mahatma Gandhi was never purely friendly towards workers, but viewed businessmen as so-called "caretakers" (I'm not sure if this is the term he used) of wealth and it was their "duty" to distribute it justly. This was of course utopian and was probably done to curry favor with the British imperialists who may not have like an out and out opponent of capital.

You should give a source to those sayings, and the exact way he said this, so we will avoid misinterpretation.

[R_P_A_S]

In regards to Gandhi this is a great read someone posted a year or two ago that I kept. It's long! But you can skim towards the last section, couple of paragraphs to get to a good summary.

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1167&Itemid=123

[The Intransigent Faction]

Galloway.
He's more of a reformist, really, but whatever one feels about his positions on the Middle East, I like that he's supported strikes by postal workers, criticized the "Thatcherite" system, and despite his religiosity seems like a genuine social progressive on quite a few issues.
Also, yes, I do agree with his support for Palestinians' self-determination.

As for the Dalai Lama, I've ranted enough about him on here before, but if I were to sum it up: hell no. The Dalai Lama can't be trusted. There's much I don't like about modern China (apparent arrests of union leaders, exploitation of workers as a cheap labour source for the West), and going a bit further back, obviously the Tianamen atrocity.
However, in no way does this mean a CIA backed "leader in exile" should be made leader, or that we shouldn't recognize. That should be enough about that.

[pastradamus]

Sorry, But Gandhi was a complete dick. He even refused to let his son marry a girl and so the son became a homeless alcoholic whom Gandhi disowned. Thats not someone who cares for workers. I always hated people who looked at Gandhi like the sun shone from his arsehole. The real Gandhi was a person who hated black people (He often made reference to their supposed lack of intelligence and laziness).

This im an going to try and say as clearly as possible because I feel this is the biggest argument against Gandhi. . . . . Said in a working class tongue:

Gandhi was a dick. An amazing dick that led India to freedom, but a dick nonetheless.
Once upon a time, when his wife was suffering from pneumonia, he prevented her from taking medicine for it (which would have cured it) and told her to rely on God.
She died.
Fast forward a few years and this time, it's Gandhi who's down with pneumonia. Does he rely on God? No. He takes the fucking medicine and lives.



Bloody hypocrite. Nothing more nothing less. I've always reserved a special hatred for the man and I dont know why but this goes a way to explaining it.

[MarxSchmarx]

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich

[pastradamus]

Now, I shall go on a rant about the "loveable" and "squeeky clean" Dalai Lama. His full time job is now the chief propagandist for the Tibetan government-in-exile, and by all accounts, he is really good at it. He is a poster-boy for the right — any victim of the evil Chinese communist bully gets a free pass in any political discourse with this crowd. He is easily the darling of the "neo-political new labor left" — his plea for a non-violent resolution of his homeland dispute with the Chinese government (not that it should ever be supported) brought out the Gandhi-complex among Hollywood elites weened on the anti-war movement which in turn helped command the attention of the celebrity obsessed press.

His recent publication titled "the universe is one atom" has got to be the biggest load of pseudo-scientific crap I have ever had the displeasure of flicking through and for the price of €19.99 its this years must-read for the budding idiot. In modern times it is widely considered taboo to even criticize such a lovely grandfatherly figure. I understand that a lot of his supporters who go flag-waving in city thorough fares are doing it rightly, for the sake of being anti-Chinese government but when you hear them say "free Tibet" I always feel like asking them "free Tibet, for what?" so they can return to their feudalist and draconian existence under the Pseudo-scientific Monarchist that is the Dalai Lama? This alone is a Primary leftist reason to have a dislike for the Dalai Lama XIV.

I could go on and on and on but for my own sanity I wont.

[Vincent P.]

Sorry, But Gandhi was a complete dick. He even refused to let his son marry a girl and so the son became a homeless alcoholic whom Gandhi disowned. Thats not someone who cares for workers. I always hated people who looked at Gandhi like the sun shone from his arsehole. The real Gandhi was a person who hated black people (He often made reference to their supposed lack of intelligence and laziness).

This im an going to try and say as clearly as possible because I feel this is the biggest argument against Gandhi. . . . . Said in a working class tongue:

Gandhi was a dick. An amazing dick that led India to freedom, but a dick nonetheless.
Once upon a time, when his wife was suffering from pneumonia, he prevented her from taking medicine for it (which would have cured it) and told her to rely on God.
She died.
Fast forward a few years and this time, it's Gandhi who's down with pneumonia. Does he rely on God? No. He takes the fucking medicine and lives.



Bloody hypocrite. Nothing more nothing less. I've always reserved a special hatred for the man and I dont know why but this goes a way to explaining it.
What about his political ideologies?

[Vincent P.]

Now, I shall go on a rant about the "loveable" and "squeeky clean" Dalai Lama. His full time job is now the chief propagandist for the Tibetan government-in-exile, and by all accounts, he is really good at it. He is a poster-boy for the right — any victim of the evil Chinese communist bully gets a free pass in any political discourse with this crowd. He is easily the darling of the "neo-political new labor left" — his plea for a non-violent resolution of his homeland dispute with the Chinese government (not that it should ever be supported) brought out the Gandhi-complex among Hollywood elites weened on the anti-war movement which in turn helped command the attention of the celebrity obsessed press.

His recent publication titled "the universe is one atom" has got to be the biggest load of pseudo-scientific crap I have ever had the displeasure of flicking through and for the price of €19.99 its this years must-read for the budding idiot. In modern times it is widely considered taboo to even criticize such a lovely grandfatherly figure. I understand that a lot of his supporters who go flag-waving in city thorough fares are doing it rightly, for the sake of being anti-Chinese government but when you hear them say "free Tibet" I always feel like asking them "free Tibet, for what?" so they can return to their feudalist and draconian existence under the Pseudo-scientific Monarchist that is the Dalai Lama? This alone is a Primary leftist reason to have a dislike for the Dalai Lama XIV.

I could go on and on and on but for my own sanity I wont.

I would say that the Dalai-Lama isn't really friendly toward workers, as some of his quote shown, yet I fail to see what you're trying to show with this post. You dislike dalai-lama and you think he's a superstitious idiots? Good for you, and it may very well be true, yet it doesn't have anything to do with him being friendly or not towards workers.

[ZeroNowhere]

Gandhi was a dick. An amazing dick that led India to freedom, but a dick nonetheless.
Well, not necessarily, I'd actually give Nehru more credit for that.

[pastradamus]

I would say that the Dalai-Lama isn't really friendly toward workers, as some of his quote shown, yet I fail to see what you're trying to show with this post. You dislike dalai-lama and you think he's a superstitious idiots? Good for you, and it may very well be true, yet it doesn't have anything to do with him being friendly or not towards workers.

He's a monarchist. Monarchs are never friendly towards the working class.

[rednordman]

Yeh the quote has been somewhat "controversial" when I've posted it on other threads, because I evidently misinterpret it.

When the Dalai Lama says "too much emphasis on class struggle," and talks about "compassion," it basically says to me "Don't fight for Communism, just have compassion for each other and everything will be good."lol. If people actually did that worldwide, capitalism would have died ages ago.

[R_P_A_S]

Hey guys what about the environmentalist agenda? is that friendly towards the common interest of the working people?

[pastradamus]

Hey guys what about the environmentalist agenda? is that friendly towards the common interest of the working people?

Yes and NO

Good leftist environmentalism generally benefits everyone.

However, Liberal and right-wing "Environmentalism" is just an excuse to raise fee's on electricity, gas, fuel and home heating. Something all too evident here in Ireland. There's sweet fuck all being done for the environment and every aspect is being looked at with relation to getting the last few penny's of working-class wallet by using this "green initiative" bullshit as an excuse.

[R_P_A_S]

Yes and NO

Good leftist environmentalism generally benefits everyone.

However, Liberal and right-wing "Environmentalism" is just an excuse to raise fee's on electricity, gas, fuel and home heating. Something all too evident here in Ireland. There's sweet fuck all being done for the environment and every aspect is being looked at with relation to getting the last few penny's of working-class wallet by using this "green initiative" bullshit as an excuse.

I agree, but I have to be honest It's something that Im studying cautiously. People automatically assume that because I'm pretty progressive, outspoken about injustice and a vegan that I'm automatically a tree hugger or for all the green this and green that ploys.

I'm reading "Green Capitalism" and I must say it reads like shit.

[DesertShark]

This is a really interesting thread. When you say "someone that's for the workers struggle and liberation?" Do you mean verbally or actually taken (physical) action towards helping workers in their struggle?


We must remember that the Dali Lama is the supposed incarnation of Buddha within Tibetan buddhism.
Technically, he's the reincarnation of Chenrezig, the boddhisattva of compassion; hence all the continued talk of compassion for all, even those oppressing others. Anyways...

I think both the Dalai Lama and Gandhi fall into the same category of a person working to free all people, not just workers. Both are/were (respectively) fighting for the freedom of their people from imperialist rule. This fight is not the exact fight of the working class, but one that needs to occur alongside the workers' fight in order for it to be successful. So maybe verbally neither are/were 100% for the workers' struggle, but the action they take/took is/was necessary for the workers in those countries to begin their fight for liberation. I don't think there can be a successful workers liberation without all the people in that nation being free as well, they are not mutually exculsive ends.

Now for the environmentalist agenda, its hard to say. Ending the 1st world's rape of the earth is a good thing, but is that really happening under this agenda? I don't trust any group/government because they're looking out for their own best interests, not those of the people they are supposed to be looking out for. A government will only promote what's best for the groups giving them the most money or providing the biggest threat to their place in power (hence why the oil companies have such a huge say in what goes on). The only way for environmentalism to work is to convince most (if not everyone) that what we are doing now won't work forever, for some reason this a hard thing to do. The other problem with environmentalism is figuring out exactly what to do, what works, etc. because its not always agreed upon. Its possible (and highly likely) that some things that are good for the environment probably won't be good for workers (maybe just in the short term, but possibly in the long term as well), so then what do we do?

What about the replacement of workers with machines (just saw the threat of this to the shipping industry in season 2 of the wire)?
There would be less work-related injuries and deaths, but there would also be less jobs...