The Dalai Lama, good or bad?

[ILikeRevolution]

What do you guys think about the 14th Dalai Lama? He calls himself a Marxist, but pals around with leaders of the most imperialist countries. I'm curious to see how revolutionaries view his influence on the world.

[ellipsis]

well he is both the head of state in exile and the spiritual leader of the tibetan people, i for one oppose theocracies.

[ind_com]

What do you guys think about the 14th Dalai Lama? He calls himself a Marxist, but pals around with leaders of the most imperialist countries. I'm curious to see how revolutionaries view his influence on the world.

He is an overthrown murderous dictator who should be tried and punished for his crimes.

[Clarion]

He's an arch-reactionary. The spoiled living-God-prince in exile who wants to restore Tibet to its "glory days."

[Goblin]

Crazy man who thinks hes God. He also tells his followers to set themselves on fire.

[Comrade #138672]

He's just taking it slowly. He befriends the leaders of imperialist countries, so that he can convince them to become revolutionaries. Together they can reform the whole world into Communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

well he is both the head of state in exile and the spiritual leader of the tibetan people, i for one oppose theocracies.

These reactions are so knee-jerk typical on revleft. It's not relevant anymore as the Dalai Lama stepped down as political leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/asia/11tibet.html?_r=0


Crazy man who thinks hes God. He also tells his followers to set themselves on fire.

No he doesn't, that's Chinese propaganda. His position is far more nuanced.


“Now, the reality is that if I say something positive, then the Chinese immediately blame me,” he said. “If I say something negative, then the family members of those people feel very sad. They sacrificed their… life. It is not easy. So I do not want to create some kind of impression that this is wrong.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3617428.ece


He's an arch-reactionary. The spoiled living-God-prince in exile who wants to restore Tibet to its "glory days."

Arch reactionary really? Advocate of women's right and calls himself a feminist and Marxist:

"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 utilisation 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 also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism."

Such an arch reactionary!

[Lokomotive293]

"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 utilisation 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 also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism."

Such an arch reactionary!

Just because someone calls themselves a Marxist that's not what they are. His actions certainly speak a different language, and also, he doesn't seem to understand what Marxism is.

Plus, what's this stuff about "His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism"? Well, the Catholic church, and especially under soon-to-be-ex-pope Joseph Ratzinger is one of the most reactionary forces on this planet. Have you forgotten about how he let Holocaust deniers back into the Church, and how he blessed Uganda's speaker of parliament, who tried to introduce the death penalty for homosexuals?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

While I doubt he is actually a Marxist, you shouldn't be too dismissive.
For one, one of the most famous people who is adored all over the world is calling himself a Marxist. This is a step forward.
Yes, we should counter his bad politics. But such a dismissive reaction as "NOOOO, HE IS NO MARXIST!!!" is just ridiculous.

[Red Enemy]

While I doubt he is actually a Marxist, you shouldn't be too dismissive.
For one, one of the most famous people who is adored all over the world is calling himself a Marxist. This is a step forward.
Yes, we should counter his bad politics. But such a dismissive reaction as "NOOOO, HE IS NO MARXIST!!!" is just ridiculous.
How is it a step forward?

[vanukar]

Marxism is an economic system? :laugh:

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

How is it a step forward?

From Marxism being seen as the most evil thing ever? Seems quite obvious to me.

Of course his politics are not marxist and should be attacked, and even if it is a step forward I mean a minor step.
However people starting to scream "OH NO HE'S NOT A MARXIST" seams a bit ridiculous to me.

[nihilust]

From Marxism being seen as the most evil thing ever? Seems quite obvious to me.

Of course his politics are not marxist and should be attacked, and even if it is a step forward I mean a minor step.
However people starting to scream "OH NO HE'S NOT A MARXIST" seams a bit ridiculous to me.

i agree with your suggestion that him claiming marxism could be good, however, the fact that he doesn't actually do anything "marxist" will just continue to mislead people on what it actually means.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

i agree with your suggestion that him claiming marxism could be good, however, the fact that he doesn't actually do anything "marxist" will just continue to mislead people on what it actually means.

Yeah, we should be catious of marxism being stripped from its revolutionary spirit. So maybe the Dalai Lama saying he is a Marxist is not too great after all.

[Clarion]

Arch reactionary really? Advocate of women's right and calls himself a feminist and Marxist:

"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 utilisation 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 also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism."

Such an arch reactionary!

Does it matter that what he describe isn't Marxism at all? Well, yes. Reactionaries have piggy-backed on the name of socialism and left sounding ideas for the last two hundred years. The Dalai Lama is just doing the same thing with Marxism.


What he promotes isn't Marxism at all, it's his own brand of politicised Buddhism. Moralistic platitudes and reactionary socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm).


The Dalai Lama is anti-capitalist, yes, he opposes capitalism in the same way that the Pope does, or that the fascists did: they oppose its progressive features.

[Karl Renegade]

I suspect that the strong support for the Dalai lama in the west stems partly from romantic notions of Buddhism and their perception of him. It's a little hypocritical, I think because based on my reading, Tibet was part of China even during the Qing dynasty, so long ago and it's only recently that they're protesting about that issue. I think that Tibetans should ask themselves what is best for them, China or independence. Personally I think there are real benefits to be had by being part of China.

[Turinbaar]

my friend was at the meeting where he formally renounced his political claims. He also has made statements about science forcing religion in general to capitulate. Whatever high horse he was on before, he seems now to have dismounted.

http://greatmiddleway.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/hh-the-dalai-lama-to-renounce-temporal-power/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is a very nuanced issue. People on the more fanatic end of the left forget that he was placed as a child within the place of the Lamahood and was still a young man when Mao's army occupied Tibet, so he is no way, shape or form to blame for somehow creating the theocracy. The feudal theocracy in Tibet was not a humane system at all, but of course any half-serious Marxist (perhaps not a lot of the folks on this forum) would know that this was not due to some kind of moral failings on the part of the theocracy but instead on the very limited material means of production in ancient Tibet. There had been little interaction with the outside world until the 1900s, and the environment was very harsh there, which meant that feudalism was the mode of production appropriate to their circumstance. And on that point, we can establish that feudalism is dead because the means of production have advanced, and there's no reason to believe that anyone seriously wants to return to that stage of society.

He did have outreach with the CIA after getting exiled, but he later condemned them for meddling and just trying to pursue American self interest, which I guess shows a lack of understanding about geopolitics. He also stepped down as a political leader, and the exiled Tibetans do have some legitimate complaints no matter how much the shrill apologists for the PRC like to deny it.

He has called himself Marxist, and incidentally got along with Mao for some time, though I think his understanding of Marxist theory is naive. He does see it as morally superior due to the fact that it distributes goods directly to people without the greedy, self-driven capitalist mentality.

Let's be honest when criticizing him in relation to the modern Chinese government - when he calls himself a Marxist, he's already done something ten times as radical as anything most of the folks in the Chinese government/politburo/state enterprises ever do, who with a handful of exceptions would not want to mention Leftist politics in any serious capacity. Not to mention, the Chinese leadership is at its heart bourgeois. Who lives and works in the more communal institution, the monks with no private property who focus on engaging directly with their community or the multi-billionaire Chinese autocrats living in gated mansions? Its funny how people call him reactionary as if the current Chinese government was really some well meaning Communist order trying its level best to make peace with the Tibetans and not a deeply corrupt Capitalist oligarchy. Many Tibetans didn't trust the CPC with absolute power and that is what caused friction, and it turns out that the CPC was not to be trusted with such power. It was not a Communist party at heart, or it was it was not structured to effectively implement that Communism, and the state monopoly which was won by Mao was just used by later people to make themselves incredibly rich trading with the USA. Why, exactly, would the Dalai Lama want that for their people? Why would the Dalai Lama want that corrupt institution picking the next head of his ancient religious order and managing its affairs?

So basically, the "Leftist" critique of the Dalai Lama comes down to:

(1) He is morally responsible for creating a 1,000 year old political system which he had no power in creating, which he was given as a tiny child and which he lost as a very young adult.

(2) He is morally discredited by his attempt to keep Tibet separate or autonomous from a country which ended up getting ruled by a Militarist/Capitalist/Chinese Nationalist oligarchy devoted to enriching themselves through trade with the USA.


There are some legitimate criticisms however on positions he's taken on particular issues but on the whole he's not the evil reactionary theocrat that some Maoists paint him out to be.

[B5C]

Crazy man who thinks hes God. He also tells his followers to set themselves on fire.

You should learn more about Buddhism. The Dalai Lama doesn't believe he is a god nor Buddhism support the belief in gods. Buddhism is atheistic.

[Turinbaar]

You should learn more about Buddhism. The Dalai Lama doesn't believe he is a god nor Buddhism support the belief in gods. Buddhism is atheistic.

The Dalai Lama has written books on Tibetan buddhism mentioning things like gods and hungry ghosts as being part of the universe, existing at certain karma levels of existence. Buddhism is not atheistic.

[Clarion]

Not to mention the quasi-divine status of the bodhisattva in most schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

You should learn more about Buddhism. The Dalai Lama doesn't believe he is a god nor Buddhism support the belief in gods. Buddhism is atheistic.

This is actually untrue. Most varieties of therava Buddhism believe in deities and ghosts.

The bullshit liberal idea of hippy-buddhism is absolute horsecrap that seems to have manufactured itself in pop-culture during the 50s onward. Go to a country where buddhism is the dominant religion and you'll see what I mean: Most there are worse than the most fundamentalist of Christians or Muslims. Ethnic supremacy and sexism are not just orthodox traditions - they're requirements for fucking worship!

[TheEmancipator]

He's just a bit useless really. I think Tibet should find a real leader if they want independence (which I fully support), not someone who spends his days in India.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is actually untrue. Most varieties of therava Buddhism believe in deities and ghosts.

The bullshit liberal idea of hippy-buddhism is absolute horsecrap that seems to have manufactured itself in pop-culture during the 50s onward. Go to a country where buddhism is the dominant religion and you'll see what I mean: Most there are worse than the most fundamentalist of Christians or Muslims. Ethnic supremacy and sexism are not just orthodox traditions - they're requirements for fucking worship!

It's actually a reflection more of the monastic & philosophical roots of many Buddhist schools. The Gods etc come from mysticism and folk practice. Tibetan Buddhism in particular has a lot of synthesis with Tibetan shamanism and Hinduism. The more austere schools of Buddhism like Chan and Zen, which probably influenced a lot of the "hippy" Buddhism much more than other schools, really does not care much for spirits etc.

The mostly Theravada states like Sri Lanka and Burma have become very fundamentalist lately, which is a worrying sign, but I don't know if religious fundamentalism is *worse* there than it is in parts of the American Midwest/South or Saudi Arabia.

[MarxArchist]

Buddhists OK organized structural religion not OK. Another problem with past attempts at communism was the persecution of people who were religious rather than a focused attack on the 'church' or religious institutions which prop up various leaders who, like capitalists, exploit and take advantage of the population. Hierarchical dogma is the problem, I think it possible for people to believe in god or a certain religion without the shenanigans of hierarchical orginization. I still think religion is absurd but the teeth get taken out of it if the church is abolished but I may be wrong as just the very idea itself has been the foundation of so much death/war/suffering ; perhaps humanity would be better without even the thought of spirituality? Good luck with the whole thought police thing though.