Log in

View Full Version : Dalai Lama


Apoi_Viitor
17th January 2011, 16:23
I haven't seen a thread on him recently.

Anyways, what are your opinions on this man and on previous Tibetan society in general?

hcymyPBzzyA
The American
17th January 2011, 16:30
I think he's a great man, however for all his talk of pacifism and nonviolence he accepted CIA money in the 80s to fund anti-chinese guerrillas. Not that I disagree with that, China does need to gtfo of tibet, but he should at least walk the walk if you get my meaning
Triple A
17th January 2011, 16:31
Im tired of non violence.

If tibetans want independence and freedom they wont get it with non violent protests.
Crimson Commissar
17th January 2011, 16:34
Reactionary theocratic bastard.
Triple A
17th January 2011, 16:37
Reactionary theocratic bastard.

Maoist alert
Crimson Commissar
17th January 2011, 16:38
Maoist alert
Haha, no. I just don't approve of theocratic dictators. I don't approve of China either, but it's not like Tibet really NEEDS to be independent.
Triple A
17th January 2011, 16:42
Haha, no. I just don't approve of theocratic dictators. I don't approve of China either, but it's not like Tibet really NEEDS to be independent.


They would not need to be independent if China was not so dictatorial and represive of the tibetans and culture.
Apoi_Viitor
17th January 2011, 16:45
Maoist alert

I don't know. It doesn't seem like Tibet was all rainbows and unicorns before the Maoists showed up. It actually looks like it sucked a lot more.
Crimson Commissar
17th January 2011, 16:47
They would not need to be independent if China was not so dictatorial and represive of the tibetans and culture.
Yeah, exactly what I think about it. So IMO the solution is to overthrow the government of China, not to overthrow just the Chinese rule in Tibet.
PhoenixAsh
17th January 2011, 16:52
The only Dalai Lama's who had any worldly powers perhaps two...

One from 1617 to late 17th century. And the other to 1933 who infact was opposed so much by the actual rulers that he didn't manage to get any of his reforms through.

The functions and authority of teh dalai Lama were limited to religious and spiritual affairs.

The Desi's ruled and had worldly power....and while most of these did get Buddhist education most of them were highly secular and functioning outside of the Buddhist religion and philosophy.

the Dalai Lama is therefore more of a symbol in whose name attrocieties are committed by the ruling classes than an actual perpetuatopr of these crimes and more often than not opposes them in his teachings.

Calling the Dalai Lama a dictator is therefore somewhat misconstrued.
Triple A
17th January 2011, 16:53
I don't know. It doesn't seem like Tibet was all rainbows and unicorns before the Maoists showed up. It actually looks like it sucked a lot more.

Rather poor and free.


Yeah, exactly what I think about it. So IMO the solution is to overthrow the government of China, not to overthrow just the Chinese rule in Tibet.

I can agree with someone in rev left then.
PhoenixAsh
17th January 2011, 16:57
Rather poor and free.



I can agree with someone in rev left then.

Well...free in the sense that it was an independent state. The population still was oppressed by the Desi-ruling class.
PilesOfDeadNazis
17th January 2011, 16:58
They would not need to be independent if China was not so dictatorial and represive of the tibetans and culture.
Feudalism wasn't oppressive to the Tibetans? Feudalist culture should be upheld?

Maoists aren't the only ones who don't want Feudalism to return to Tibet, by the way. If you are against the Chinese government in general why are you most concerned with Tibetan "liberation"? Because the bourgeios media puts more emphasis on Tibet and the Dalai Lama? Probably.
PilesOfDeadNazis
17th January 2011, 17:02
Rather poor and free.
What? Free for who exactly?
Triple A
17th January 2011, 17:02
Feudalism wasn't oppressive to the Tibetans? Feudalist culture should be upheld?

Maoists aren't the only ones who don't want Feudalism to return to Tibet, by the way. If you are against the Chinese government in general why are you most concerned with Tibetan "liberation"? Because the bourgeios media puts more emphasis on Tibet and the Dalai Lama? Probably.



We all know the chinese government of nowadays is not comunist.
A true comunist state would never allow workers to be treated like chinese people are.



I am pro tibetan people being allowed to have their culture and stop being opressed by a wannabe of maoist government.
ed miliband
17th January 2011, 17:34
Reactionary theocratic bastard.

I'm far from a Maoist but I more or less agree with this.
ed miliband
17th January 2011, 17:44
Rather poor and free.


But can you be "free" when you are poor? If somebody stops working you might argue that they are "free" from the constraints of employment but their poverty means that they are not "free" to do the things that they enjoy, or even the things that they must do out of necessity.

To apply this argument to Tibet suggests you think that peasants and working people in Tibet should favour a free Tibet over and above fighting for a classless society (one where they would not be poor), and that doesn't strike me as the kind of position an anarchist should be taking.