The Dalai Lama

[Verix]

Quote from the Dalai Lama

"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 utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism(though dissaproving of it on the whole). As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
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.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Half-fraud, half-appeaser, more like. Why should we pay attention to anything this professional huckster says, beyond ridiculing it for being the mealy-mouthed nonsense that it is?

[al8]

That guy, Lhamo Thondup, is now doing a PR-visit in Iceland. So there is a lot of hype around him. He said in a press conferance here that he was "a marxist, but not a leninist". He also held yesterday an inter-faith prayer session in a down-town state Cathedral, with represetatives of the organized faiths present. Such as catholicism, liberal christianity, islam, asatru, zen etc. He also said that like buddhism all the other faiths where about the same things; Love, compassion and togetherness.

Also of interest is his name, which is incredibly tacky. He is apparently also named; Holy Lord, Gentle Glory, Compassionate, Defender of the Faith, Ocean of Wisdom. Or in tibetan; Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso. Nobody would get away with that but a figurhead of religious nutbags.


I recomend this article about the man; Dalai Lama: Stern, not Cuddly (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/03/31/dalai-lama-stern-not-cuddly.htm) (<press on link)

[Kronos]

Salvador Dali had a lama?

(kay that was stupid, I know)

[ dodges tomatoes ]

[Verix]

well at least hes alot better then many of the other religious leaders in the world

[Decolonize The Left]

well at least hes alot better then many of the other religious leaders in the world

Better in what sense? In that the religious doctrine he upholds and perpetuates is less repressive than others? Ok.

But think about that situation analogously. We might say that the United States is less repressive in its economic and social systems than other nations, does it deserve praise? If it does, it gets it plenty from the proponents of these very systems.

As revolutionary leftists, we oppose capitalism not on the grounds that it's less worse than feudalism, rather, on the grounds that it's fundamentally oppressive and exploitative. Similarly, if one adopts an anti-theist position, it makes sense to oppose religion on the grounds that it's reactionary and positively harmful to society.

- August

[Chambered Word]

Quote from the Dalai Lama

"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 utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism(though dissaproving of it on the whole). As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
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.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

I didn't read every last word, but it looks like the Dalai Lama might have actually done his homework on Marxism here. Too bad he's a fraud.

[MarxSchmarx]

As revolutionary leftists, we oppose capitalism not on the grounds that it's less worse than feudalism, rather, on the grounds that it's fundamentally oppressive and exploitative.

True, but is this how you read the quote Verix uses? In all fairness, the guy does say:


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.

His broader point is that strictly going after capitalism for its utter shittiness is not enough, and that point is well taken.

I think the broader leftist values ARE human solidarity and "compassion", and that those are what characterize our program, not resentment of capitalism or its oppression. To be sure, we oppose capitalism because we see that it systematically fails these values. But at the same time, we should focus on building a new society rather than destroying the old. In essence, I agree w/ the dalai lama that emphasizing the faults of capitalism at the expense of our values has been counter-productive for large scale leftist projects.

[Trystan]

Check out Christopher Hitchens' critique of this dictatorial fraudster:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/13news.html

Every damn liberal who thinks he's sooo wonderful and wise and peaceful and shit should read that.

[Decolonize The Left]

His broader point is that strictly going after capitalism for its utter shittiness is not enough, and that point is well taken.

I think the broader leftist values ARE human solidarity and "compassion", and that those are what characterize our program, not resentment of capitalism or its oppression. To be sure, we oppose capitalism because we see that it systematically fails these values. But at the same time, we should focus on building a new society rather than destroying the old. In essence, I agree w/ the dalai lama that emphasizing the faults of capitalism at the expense of our values has been counter-productive for large scale leftist projects.

Arguing according to broad values descends rapidly into idealism. As materialists, we are forced to confront and address reality. It is here, in reality, that our argument and cause has most power. It is also in materialism that we find the most persuasive argument against capitalism - it's systematic and foundational exploitation and oppression of the working class.

Arguing according to ideals is fine at times (when one is discussing leftism with a progressive democrat perhaps; we are speaking their language at this time). But without material grounding, without the analysis and theory which roots our perspective in existence (as opposed to 'essence'), we are weak and another card in the house which is our society.

- August

[trivas7]

Arguing according to broad values descends rapidly into idealism. As materialists, we are forced to confront and address reality. It is here, in reality, that our argument and cause has most power. It is also in materialism that we find the most persuasive argument against capitalism - it's systematic and foundational exploitation and oppression of the working class.

Your materialism is no more than the wish to enlist certainty on your side. Rosa Lichtenstein, e.g., would argue that it is no more than a variant of idealism. But as John Holloway has written:


Our struggle is inherently and profoundly uncertain. This is so because certainty is conceivable only on the basis of the reification of social relations. It is possible to speak of the ‘laws of motion’ of society only to the extent that social relations take the form of relations between things. Non-fetishised, self-determining social relations would not be law-bound. The understanding of capitalist society as being bound by laws is valid to the extent, but only to the extent, that relations between people really are thing-ified. If we argue that capitalism can be understood completely through the analysis of its laws of motion, then we say at the same time that social relations are completely fetishised. But if social relations are completely fetishised, how can we conceive of revolution? Revolutionary change cannot possibly be conceived as following a path of certainty, because certainty is the very negation of revolutionary change. Our struggle is a struggle against reification and therefore against certainty.

[MarxSchmarx]

Arguing according to broad values descends rapidly into idealism. As materialists, we are forced to confront and address reality. It is here, in reality, that our argument and cause has most power. It is also in materialism that we find the most persuasive argument against capitalism - it's systematic and foundational exploitation and oppression of the working class.

Sure.

But why is oppression of the working class bad? In fact, some would argue that what we consider to be oppression (e.g., that all you have is your labor to sell) in fact is extremely liberating.

I think only by appealing to broader values can we translate the conditions of capitalism into a moral imperative. You know, is-ought. However well grounded our critique and interpretation of the materialist basis of capitalism, there is the question of why this needs changing. And only by addressing "broader values" can we advocate change.

[Agrippa]

That Lhamo Döndrub pays lip-service to Marxism is unremarkable. He basically gets paid to suck the PRC's cock and try to mediate and pacify every violent conflict the Tibetans have with their colonial oppressors. His idea of Tibetan "autonomy" involves absolutely no decrease in PRC police or military presence. He's basically the Tibetan equivalent of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton - a neo-colonial parasite. There are other Tibetan spiritual leaders who have taken more couragous stands against Chinese imperialism and have suffered greater sacrifices than sitting it back taking it easy in the bed of the Western power-structure. The Tibetan resistance no longer gives a shit about Dondrub and neither should we.

Here is another quote from "his holiness":


Hana Gartner: But this is extraordinary. The Dalai Lama said violence under certain circumstances you could see as justified?

Dalai Lama: Possible. Look, First World War, Second World War. I think Second World War, at least, although millions of people killed, suffer, immense, but really I was against war because war is some kind of legalized maximum violence. I'm always against. However, and like Second World War and Korean War, at least to protect the rest of the democratic civilization, and Korea, South Korea protected. As a result, more prosperity and democracy, freedom, these things.Apparently Dondrub's "Marxism" leaves room for the capitalist mass-murder of his fellow Buddhists. :rolleyes:

[Kassad]

The Dalai Lama is a supporter of feudalistic theocracy. Why "progressives" and peaceful people in the world fetishize him is beyond me. He is a servant of American imperialism; working closely in correlation with the Central Intelligence Agency in their demonization campaign of China. Pre-revolution in China, Tibet was totally impoverished. The Dalai Lama and his Buddhist cronies maintained a strangehold of Tibet's resources and they exploited the peasant laborers for their own ends. Luckily, the Chinese Revolution in 1949 brought sweeping change to the area; improving literacy dramatically and making social services available to all, as opposed to just the bourgeois elite.

Now, decades later, the Dalai Lama is still struggling for political and social control of Tibet. Through a propaganda campaign to paint China as tyrants and oppressors in the area, students and "progressives" in the United States have been pulled into the 'Free Tibet' campaign, which is nothing more than a call for feudalistic exploitation of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama's 'government in exile' is nothing more than religious tyranny attempting to regain control. Buddhist control of Tibet would lead to the shackles of feudalism being reinstated, as well as a total destruction of socialist reforms in the area.

Revolutionaries and socialists have nothing in common with the Dalai Lama and his 'government in exile.'

[trivas7]

The Dalai Lama is a supporter of feudalistic theocracy.
Nonsense. The Dalai Lama understands that the Tibetan government of the past is over and done with.

[Kassad]

Nonsense. The Dalai Lama understands that the Tibetan government of the past is over and done with.

And what rationalization do you have to support this? He and his other bourgeois allies were given ample opportunities to change the state of Tibet. They, instead, chose to leave it in the shambles of poverty and oppression. Now, they want power again. What evidence is there to suggest that things will be any different, just because he is claiming support for Marxism and progressivism? If he was such a supporter of Marxism, would he not have been in favor of the Chinese Revolution? Of course, you seem to submit pretty quickly to what the media claims about the Dalai Lama, as in all honesty, there is nothing to suggest that he has made any ideological change since the destruction of the oppressive feudalistic state that he commanded.

[trivas7]

Now, they want power again.
This is also incorrect. The Dalai Lama has not demanded political power and has publicly acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.

[Kassad]

This is also incorrect. The Dalai Lama has not demanded political power and has publicly acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.

Except that the government in exile, the Central Tibetan Administration, claims that Tibet is an independent state. (Source: http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/sovereignty/independent/d/index.html)

The Dalai Lama is the leader of the Central Tibetan Administration, but he claims that Tibet should be an autonomous region inside of China. However, his 'government in exile' does not totally share this notion, so it isn't like it's an official policy. Regardless, the Dalai Lama does not say to what extent this autonomy will persist, therefore his exploitation may be permitted to remain unchecked if he is able to implement his rule.

[trivas7]

The Dalai Lama is the leader of the Central Tibetan Administration, but he claims that Tibet should be an autonomous region inside of China. However, his 'government in exile' does not totally share this notion, so it isn't like it's an official policy. Regardless, the Dalai Lama does not say to what extent this autonomy will persist, therefore his exploitation may be permitted to remain unchecked if he is able to implement his rule.
Who is the Dalai Lama currently exploiting, sir?

[Agrippa]

The Dalai Lama is a supporter of feudalistic theocracy.

Accusations of "theocracy", aside, do you have any evidence of Döndrub's support for "fuedalism". Do you have any words spoken by Döndrub on the subject that in any way support your claim? Döndrub loves to rant how the "modernization" of Tibet brought by the Chinese invasion is allegedly such a wonderful thing, if only the Chinese would respect Tibetan culture. The exact opposite of advocating "fuedalism".


He is a servant of American imperialism; working closely in correlation with the Central Intelligence Agency in their demonization campaign of China.Boo-hoo. The US likes to "demonize" rival imperialist powers. Cry me a river.


Pre-revolution in ChinaOK, first off, Tibet was never considered part of China, historically or culturally, pre-revolution. Tibetans consider themselves as Chinese as Basques consider themselves Spanish or Irish, Scots, and Welsh consider themselves English. Pre-revolution Tibet was Tibet, not China. After the revolution, the Communist party invaded and annexed Tibet. The fact that you either willfully ignore or are genuinely unaware ofthis shows you have no authority on the subject.


Tibet was totally impoverished.Untrue. Perhaps you should read something about Tibetan culture that isn't the product of racist Maoist apologism


The Dalai Lama and his Buddhist cronies maintained a strangehold of Tibet's resources and they exploited the peasant laborers for their own ends.I don't know if you've ever looked at a map, but Tibet is a massive geographic reigon aproximately the size of Western Europe. There is no way the Lamaist regime could have "maintained a stranglehold" on the whole reigon. They had neither the technological nor the infastructural means to do so. Vast swathes of Tibet were autonomous territories in which the fuedal regime had absolutely no control, in which "primitive communist" societies flourished in freedom until they were ruthlessly conquered by the socialist technocrats of the PRC.


Luckily, the Chinese Revolution in 1949 brought sweeping change to the areaLuckily for the capital-accumulating bureaucrats of the Chinese Communist Party. The same sort of "luck" that was with Columbus when he stumbled upon Hispanola.


improving literacy dramaticallyHow is forcing Tibetans to learn Chinese "improving literacy"? We can't be talking about Tibetan literature. After all, the Tibetan language was initially outlawed.


and making social services available to all, as opposed to just the bourgeois elite.There was no bourgeoisie in fuedal Tibet. No one needs a centralized, state-capitalist bureaucracy to provide them "social services", that's a capitalist delusion.


Now, decades later, the Dalai Lama is still struggling for political and social control of Tibet.Someone needs to stop reading state-run Chinese mass-media.


Through a propaganda campaign to paint China as tyrants and oppressors in the areaThe capitalist Chinese state is tyrannical and oppressive, to all people, as much so as the US or Russia.


students and "progressives" in the United States have been pulled into the 'Free Tibet' campaign, which is nothing more than a call for feudalistic exploitation of the Tibetan people.I honestly doubt, if Dalai Lama #14 is, as you say, a CIA pawn, (which he is) that he is fighting for "fuedalistic exploitation". Western imperialists, far from desiring any sort of fuedal regression, would jump at the oppertunity to develop Tibet in the exact same way their Chinese rivals are doing. The point is moot, Western intelligence is no longer interested in fighting with China over Tibet, or propping up the Dalai Lama. That fight has long been conceded, except in the paranoid fantasies of Maoists such as yourself.


The Dalai Lama's 'government in exile' is nothing more than religious tyranny attempting to regain control.Again, no more capitalist Chinese press for you! Do you have any actual idea how the government-in-exile is run? It's no more of a "religious tyranny" than, say, the governments of India or Nepal. It's a garden-variety capitalist bureaucracy.


Buddhist control of Tibet would lead to the shackles of feudalism being reinstatedThat's crap. The vast majority of the members of the Tibetan Government in Exile are only sincere, practiticing Buddhist so-far as members of the U.S. Congress and House of Representatives are sincere, practicing Christians.


as well as a total destruction of socialist reforms in the area.The PRC has been happy to commit "total destruction of socialist reforms" on it's own without the help of Buddhists or anyone else. Regardless, we don't need "socialist reforms", we only need communism.


Revolutionaries and socialists have nothing in common with the Dalai Lama and his 'government in exile.'And genuine communists, genuine libertarians, have nothing in common with either.

[Kassad]

Who is the Dalai Lama currently exploiting, sir?

His feudalistic rule exploited a significant amount of the peasant population in Tibet during its rule. I don't think that should be so quickly overlooked, as you would choose to do.

[Agrippa]

His feudalistic rule exploited a significant amount of the peasant population in Tibet during its rule. I don't think that should be so quickly overlooked, as you would choose to do.

Not to nearly the profound extent to which the Chinese capitalists exploit the Tibetans since the invasion of Tibet up until today.

[Kassad]

Not to nearly the profound extent to which the Chinese capitalists exploit the Tibetans since the invasion of Tibet up until today.

Granted, with the market reforms in China, capitalistic elements have returned to a significant amount of the state and that doesn't exclude Tibet. However, the Chinese Revolution provided basic social services to the Tibetan people, along with a sweeping educational campaign. Tibet is still growing and it is attempting to heal the scars of feudalistic exploitation, but the notion that pre-revolution slavery was preferrable to modern Tibet is totally unscientific and absurd.

[trivas7]

His feudalistic rule exploited a significant amount of the peasant population in Tibet during its rule. I don't think that should be so quickly overlooked, as you would choose to do.
His "rule" lasted around two year until the the time of his exile at fifteen or so. Hardly the time to make him into an exploiting tyrant IMO.

[Kassad]

His "rule" lasted around two year until the the time of his exile at fifteen or so. Hardly the time to make him into an exploiting tyrant IMO.

He was a part of a system that was exploiting the peasant class of Tibet. Peasants had no access to basic necessities like education and healthcare, thus living conditions were poor and literacy was absolutely atrocious. Until the revolutionary liberation of Tibet, social services were unheard of. Now they are widespread. The system that the Dalai Lama was a part of, supported and has yet to criticize is the same system that he and the Buddhist elitists of Tibet wish to implement once again.

[trivas7]

The system that the Dalai Lama was a part of, supported and has yet to criticize is the same system that he and the Buddhist elitists of Tibet wish to implement once again.
What makes you think so? Reference some source for this, please.

[Kassad]

What makes you think so? Reference some source for this, please.

See, here's where you completely lose all relevance. The Dalai Lama was a part of feudalistic Tibet leadership that enslaved the peasant class in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is now 'in exile' and is gathering support for an independent Tibet through his alliance with American imperialism. The Dalai Lama is being promoted as a leader of the 'Free Tibet' movement and he is an ideal leader to them. If Chinese rule were overthrown, what would suggest that things would change? What suggests that social reforms would be sustained? The feudalistic theocracy oppressed the citizens of Tibet before. Now, the same group wants power decades later, yet they still subscribe to the same religious philosophies and they have yet to repudidate the system they created. There's nothing to suggest that anything would change.

[trivas7]

The Dalai Lama was a part of feudalistic Tibet leadership that enslaved the peasant class in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is now 'in exile' and is gathering support for an independent Tibet through his alliance with American imperialism. The Dalai Lama is being promoted as a leader of the 'Free Tibet' movement and he is an ideal leader to them. If Chinese rule were overthrown, what would suggest that things would change? What suggests that social reforms would be sustained? The feudalistic theocracy oppressed the citizens of Tibet before. Now, the same group wants power decades later, yet they still subscribe to the same religious philosophies and they have yet to repudidate the system they created. There's nothing to suggest that anything would change.
I merely asked you to source your baseless statements, my friend.

There is absolutely no way that Tibet any time soon will throw off Chinese rule; you are tilting at windmills.

[Agrippa]

Kassad, you have shown to be thoroughly miseducated on the subject, and unfit to comment on it. Speak no further.

Given the link to the ANSWER website in your signature, it should come as no surprise that you cannot muster any more words beyond parroting of meaningless catch-phrases and party lines.

Step back and actually listen to what you're saying. The Chinese brought "education"? How is that even possible. All societies have education. Tibet has one of the most sophisticated, well-preserved oral medical traditions in the world. What you mean to say when you say that the Chinese brought "education" is that the Chinese imposed the capitalist mode of education - centralized, totalitarian, institutionalized education. The same "basic necessity" brought to the indigenous people of North America by the genocidal reservation and boarding school system of the Canadian colonists.

Similarly, what do you mean by "healthcare" and "social services"? Tibetans knew better than anyone else how to procure food in the Tibetan clime. And, as I have said, it has one of the oldest, most sophisticated schools of medicine in the world. So again, what you mean to say is that capitalist biopolitical control was imposed

When you say "Tibet is growing", what you mean to say is that Tibet is being destroyed, culturally and environmentally, by the growth of the Chinese state. In your mind, is European settlement, and the subsequent construction of Las Vegas, the resource-draining casino tourist paradise, in anyway indicitive of the "growth" of the North American southwest? Asphalt roads, concrete high-rises, vinyl-sided tourist condos, security cameras, cop cars - this is the very "growth" communists oppose with every fiber of their being.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that the actual fuedal reactionaries of the Tibetan Buddhist milieu, the Gelugs, are financed by the PRC.

[Kassad]

I merely asked you to source your baseless statements, my friend.

There is absolutely no way that Tibet any time soon will throw off Chinese rule; you are tilting at windmills.

What about it is baseless? You claim a lot about my assertions without providing sources for your own. My statements don't really require sources, as it's just a general comprehension of history that would prove the notion that Tibetan monks enslaved Tibetan peasants until the peasants were liberated from the feudalistic class.


Kassad, you have shown to be thoroughly miseducated on the subject, and unfit to comment on it. Speak no further.

Congratulations. You're an elitist. Do you want a party?


Given the link to the ANSWER website in your signature, it should come as no surprise that you cannot muster any more words beyond parroting of meaningless catch-phrases and party lines.

Oh, wow! Quite the generalization! Sorry, but there were no 'catch-phrases' or 'party lines' in my statement. Your complete ignorance toward ANSWER is startling, but your elitism has already been presented, thus I'm not surprised.


Step back and actually listen to what you're saying. The Chinese brought "education"? How is that even possible. All societies have education. Tibet has one of the most sophisticated, well-preserved oral medical traditions in the world. What you mean to say when you say that the Chinese brought "education" is that the Chinese imposed the capitalist mode of education - centralized, totalitarian, institutionalized education. The same "basic necessity" brought to the indigenous people of North America by the genocidal reservation and boarding school system of the Canadian colonists.

Um, no. I meant what I said and I don't need you to attempt to branch off from my statements. In the pre-revolutionary period in Tibet, education for the masses was non-existent. With the Chinese Revolution came socialist reforms that made education comprehensive. I can't fathom how the educational system in Tibet was capitalistic, but that's your prerogative. The Chinese Revolution destroyed the feudalistic exploitation of the peasant classes and toppled the bourgeois theocracy that was in place. Thanks to this, social services became comprehensive and sweeping education campaigns educated the once malinformed and maleducated Tibetans.


Similarly, what do you mean by "healthcare" and "social services"? Tibetans knew better than anyone else how to procure food in the Tibetan clime. And, as I have said, it has one of the oldest, most sophisticated schools of medicine in the world. So again, what you mean to say is that capitalist biopolitical control was imposed

No, it wasn't. Culture is great, but if that culture is at the hands of elitist theocrats, it doesn't serve much purpose. That's like saying the American employer knows what is best for his business, therefore there should be no interference in his line of work. Of course, this subjects workers to exploitation and manipulation, just like it did in Tibet. With the destruction of feudalism in Tibet came progressive reforms that benefitted the Tibetan people.


When you say "Tibet is growing", what you mean to say is that Tibet is being destroyed, culturally and environmentally, by the growth of the Chinese state. In your mind, is European settlement, and the subsequent construction of Las Vegas, the resource-draining casino tourist paradise, in anyway indicitive of the "growth" of the North American southwest? Asphalt roads, concrete high-rises, vinyl-sided tourist condos, security cameras, cop cars - this is the very "growth" communists oppose with every fiber of their being.

We find some common ground here. Tibet is still prospering more than it was during feudal slavery, but the market reforms, along with the contradictory 'socialism with Chinese characteristics,' are currently harming the Tibetan environment and opening the entire Chinese state back up to capitalist exploitation.

Regardless, inferring that industrial development should be opposed is pretty absurd. As communists, we acknowledge that capitalism is necessary up and until the point in which society can provide basic needs for the people; led by the proletariat. Stating that we should oppose technological development is ridiculous and almost seems like it's coming from a Third-Worldist perspective. Resources need to be centrally planned by a workers state. Unless the proletarian community owns the means of production, this kind of exploitation will always exist. However, I will not defend theocrats in their crusade for exploitative control.

[Agrippa]

Congratulations. You're an elitist. Do you want a party?

"Elitist"? Coming from someone who is gloating about how the civilized Chinese socialists brought "education" to the illiterate Tibetan barbarians. :laugh:




Your complete ignorance toward ANSWER is startling

I am not ignorant of the fact that it is controlled by the Stalinist Worker's World Party.


In the pre-revolutionary period in Tibet, education for the masses was non-existent.

But "the masses" had their own system of education. They didn't need the "education" of the aristocrats and would have probably resented any attempt to impose it.


With the Chinese Revolution came socialist reforms that made education comprehensive.

Again, you say "comprehensive education", I say a coercive, centralized, institutionalized, bureaucratized academic apparatus, the kind that only exists in capitalist societies. Why aren't you praising the European settlers who brought this same brand of "education" to the African and American Indian "masses"?


The Chinese Revolution destroyed the feudalistic exploitation of the peasant classes and toppled the bourgeois theocracy that was in place.

Again, more sloganeering and parroting of the Party Line. Did you even consider those words when you typed them?


Thanks to this, social services became comprehensive and sweeping education campaigns educated the once malinformed and maleducated Tibetans.

"malinformed"? "maleducated"? Why not just go out and say "barberic"?


if that culture is at the hands of elitist theocrats, it doesn't serve much purpose.

But the Chinese capitalists suppressed the culture of the masses, not just the Tibetan elites.


With the destruction of feudalism in Tibet came progressive reforms that benefitted the Tibetan people.

If by "progressive reforms" you mean eco-cidal colonialism, further conquest of the wage system, and the further development of the capitalist security infastructure.


We find some common ground here. Tibet is still prospering more than it was during feudal slavery, but the market reforms, along with the contradictory 'socialism with Chinese characteristics,' are currently harming the Tibetan environment and opening the entire Chinese state back up to capitalist exploitation.

Again, another generic party line. Anything bad happening in Tibet is all because of the revisionists. Because the Tibetans weren't brutally and violently subjected to colonialism before the revisionists took power in China....:rolleyes:


Regardless, inferring that industrial development should be opposed is pretty absurd. As communists, we acknowledge that capitalism is necessary up and until the point in which society can provide basic needs for the people

The Tibetan peoples needs were met for thousands of years. They met their own needs before the Lamaist aristocracy emerged. They don't need industrial capitalism to meet their needs and neither does anyone else.

Who do you mean by "we"? I am certainly no "communist" in any sense you use the word, for the word has totally different meanings for the two of us.


Stating that we should oppose technological development is ridiculous and almost seems like it's coming from a Third-Worldist perspective.

"Third-Worldist"? What are you talking about. It's "Third-Worldism" that leads to support for the PRC.


Resources need to be centrally planned by a workers state.

More party lines. "Central planning by a workers state" a.k.a. capitalism.


Unless the proletarian community owns the means of production

Communism is about self-abolition of the "proletarian community".


However, I will not defend theocrats in their crusade for exploitative control.

The Tibetan Government in Exile are not "theocrats", they are bourgeois socialist technocrats like the PRC. Their goals are essentially the same at this point.

[Kassad]

I am not ignorant of the fact that it is controlled by the Stalinist Worker's World Party.

I read this and I already know you have no idea what you're talking about. ANSWER Coalition left Workers World in 2004 in the split that formed the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Obviously, you have some research to do.

[Agrippa]

I read this and I already know you have no idea what you're talking about. ANSWER Coalition left Workers World in 2004 in the split that formed the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Obviously, you have some research to do.

If I took a heap of dung and split it in half I would still be left with dung.

I see you're choosing to ignore all of my other points of argument.

[Comrade in arms]

Hey, my school was awarded $10000 or something by the dali lama. To tell you the truth I believe in tolerance, but i have a couple of chinese friends and bhuddist friends who i went over the topic with and i'm convinced that the dali lama's rule did oppresed the peasents through the form of his heirachical government in the past, but given the chance he might prove to be a better leader. and if he doesn't china could do the same thing it did last time again.....

[Wanted Man]

But "the masses" had their own system of education. They didn't need the "education" of the aristocrats and would have probably resented any attempt to impose it.
LOL, wut? It must be nice to live with illusions like this. Ahh, if only we could go back to 1400, when Asia was still genuinely oriental, with deeply spiritual peasants living under the benign religious leadership... :rolleyes:

In reality, 90-95% of the people were little more than serfs. Under theocratic rule, they were unable to make "their own system of education". It looked more like this:


Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. 14 The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.
The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.Some witnesses to this:


Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.”24 As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.There were no stereotypical starry-eyed orientals who lived in peaceful harmony with their overlords, resenting any form of "education" because they were already happy. On the contrary, many of them resisted. But if they were caught, their eyes would be gouged out, they'd be mutilated beyond belief by the benevolent clerical rulers. The women would be raped.


The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.”21 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. 22

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away.23Emphasis mine. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

But whatever, go back to having a wank over the good old times in Shangri-la, back when the damn peasants knew their place.