Dalai Lama on Marxism

[Unicorn]

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: 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 also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

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 nor 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.

http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html#marxism

I support the Free Tibet movement. Dalai Lama is more leftist than the Dengists in Peking.

[nvm]

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.

Trotsky!



The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism.


TROTSKY

[Dros]

Trotsky!


TROTSKY

lol @ mtlyouth


Anyhow, the Dalai Lama = uber-reactionary, feudal, religious oligarchy. But of course I'd expect a liberal/cappie like Unicorn to declare his support for a CIA employed, reactionary goof.

[Raúl Duke]

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.


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.

Ummm....

He basically says he wants us to show compassion to our class enemies...
How ridiculous, it defeats the whole purpose Marxism aims for since the ideology itself is against the goals/etc of the ruling class that we are left with no other choice but to face them as enemies.
After all, the other option of the evolutionary (parliamentary) route to communism has failed utterly in that regard (it created social programs which at this moment are most likely being dismantled).

[BIG BROTHER]

I'll admit it though, as contradicting as the Dalai Lama sounds, I would like to see that if he somehow got leadership of the Tibet, if he would actually live to his word; it would be...interesting.

[RedStarOverChina]

I'll admit it though, as contradicting as the Dalai Lama sounds, I would like to see that if he somehow got leadership of the Tibet, if he would actually live to his word; it would be...interesting.
Well, he is already ruling Dharamsala...

And the scene ain't pretty. Corruption and religious persecution is wide-spread.


People ought to stop taking Dalai's words for it.

[ckaihatsu]

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=2590.msg21089


> Dalai Lama-"half-Marxist, half-Buddhist"‏

> From: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html#marxism

> Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

> A: 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 also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

> 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.


So at this point he sounds just fine, but curiously, after correctly distancing himself from the corrupt bureaucracies of the former USSR, China, and Vietnam -- *and* noting that they were not really Marxist, he then does a 180 (in the next paragraph) and terms them to be Marxist, *and* puts down the need for class struggle! (!!!)


> 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 nor 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.


Why not argue for the need to push the class struggle further, to unite the potentially victorious working classes of their respective countries, so that they can at least enjoy a regional liberated bloc across Russia, China, and Southeast Asia, as a vanguard for the rest of the world?

We know that the revolution was never fully successful in the USSR, or in China, or even in Vietnam, for the very reasons that the Dalai Lama states -- those countries were more interested in their own national interests, against those of their neighbors. The working class was never empowered to lead revolutions to their conclusions, to destroy the ruling class.

By pretending that the working class in those countries were successful he is then able to blame them for the impoverished conditions that were not their fault at all -- as if they were "slacking" after pulling it off! The impoverished conditions came from fighting off the imperialists, and from nothing else. It's downright disgusting how the Dalai Lama blames the brave and dedicated anti-imperialists for the nationalist focus of their own respective ruling classes. He obviously is confusing the foreign imperialists with the countries' own nationalistic rulers -- why not encourage a regional revolutionary surge to deal the final blow, once the foreign invaders have been fought off?

By missing out on the true picture he unfortunately turns inward and chides the anti-imperialists in a patronizing way, leaving all political analysis behind. "Spirituality" is no substitute for having a correct take on where things are and where they are headed.


> 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.

> http://therevolutionarytimes.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html


So, finally, here, too, we see another contradiction, or about-face. The Dalai Lama had noted that the former USSR was not really Marxist -- why term it as a 'failure' of Marxism when it was never a valid attempt in the first place? (under Stalin) He winds up in a convoluted phrasing -- it was the "failure of totalitarianism"??? What the *&^#! does that mean??? Should totalitarianism be *successful*?

His convoluted phrasing then serves as the basis for his turn to "spirituality" -- or non-materialism, to be more precise. It's too bad to see *anyone* stop short -- I hope it's merely an honest mistake, and not intentional.


Chris



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[YKTMX]

I'm not sure I buy all this really, but he certainly should be leading a democratic, Chinese free (in the State rather than "ethnic" sense) Tibet if that's how they want it - and most evidence shows that they do.

[Keyser]

Quote:
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.
Trotsky!


Quote:
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism.

TROTSKY


How on earth could Trotsky make such a statement since he has been dead since 1940 and the Chinese-Soviet split occured in 1960 and what was North Vietnam (the socialist state) did not come into esitence until 1954 after the French left Indochina?

Can you stop making rubbish posts trying to shove your rather annoying Trotskyist sectarianism at every opportunity you get (I am not just refering to this post, you seem to do this in many, many threads).

[nvm]

How on earth could Trotsky make such a statement since he has been dead since 1940 and the Chinese-Soviet split occured in 1960 and what was North Vietnam (the socialist state) did not come into esitence until 1954 after the French left Indochina?


No shit he didn t talk about vietnam and the sino soviet split bu t all these are concequences of "socialism in one country" nd the rejection of internationalism by the stalinists

[Keyser]

I'll admit it though, as contradicting as the Dalai Lama sounds, I would like to see that if he somehow got leadership of the Tibet, if he would actually live to his word; it would be...interesting.


I am sure this little hypothesis of yours would also be very interesting to the Tibetan people who prior to 1950 lived either as slaves or serfs to the monastries of those 'humble' and 'peaceful' monks and nuns.

Before 1950 there was not one single hospital in the whole of Tibet and the only people who were allowed to recieve an education were those who studied to become monks or nuns, which never exceeded more than 10% of the population. The Lamas, along with the Taliban and the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia have presided over the most backward, reactionary and medievalist societies of the 20th century.

What counts is what will change in relation to the position of the Tibetan people should these CIA, imperialist backed elements of Tibets former class of parasitic clerics were to ever get back into power.

The result would be a nightmare of imperialist oppression and fuedal misery for the people of Tibet.


and most evidence shows that they do.

Wrong.

The unrest in Tibet has been nothing but small bands of violent monks inside Tibet targeting innocent Chinese civilians and Muslims (Tibets racist monks want a ethnically pure Tibet purged of all non-Tibetans, don't try and excuse it or ignore it) and the vast mass of the Tibetan people, the working class and rural dwellers of Tibet have not given their support for the reactionary monks and their imperialist backers in the CIA and the Western capitalist countries.

[Keyser]

No shit he didn t talk about vietnam and the sino soviet split
Then don't put his name to quotes that he did not make!


but all these are concequences of "socialism in one country" nd the rejection of internationalism by the stalinists.
This thread is about Tibet, not for you to make your sectarian rants about the Trotsky-Stalin debate, there are plenty of existing threads for you to do this in.

[Bluetongue]

Wrong.

The unrest in Tibet has been nothing but small bands of violent monks inside Tibet targeting innocent Chinese civilians and Muslims (Tibets racist monks want a ethnically pure Tibet purged of all non-Tibetans, don't try and excuse it or ignore it) and the vast mass of the Tibetan people, the working class and rural dwellers of Tibet have not given their support for the reactionary monks and their imperialist backers in the CIA and the Western capitalist countries.

In case you haven't noticed, the VAST majority of Tibetans love the DL. Get over it. Yes, it's hard to get facts out of Tibet, because the PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship that utterly oppresses freedom of speech. I seriously doubt the Tibetans would particularly hate the Han if the Han in Beijing didn't RULE THEM WITH AN IRON FIST. If they had freedom and democracy, and the DL said "play nice", they would most likely do it.

Frankly, the PRC won't let the DL back into Tibet because they are utterly terrified that he might set up a SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY, which is the LAST thing they want. Thinking that the DL wants to restore feudalism is batty. Do you also suspect the Queen of England of plotting to recreate the middle ages? In case you haven't noticed, the DL renounced all political power - its actually the "DL clique" AKA the Tibetan Government in Exile that is plotting socialism and freedom.

Authoritarian dictatorships, especially state capitalist ones, are UNSUPPORTABLE. Why is that difficult?

[BIG BROTHER]

I am sure this little hypothesis of yours would also be very interesting to the Tibetan people who prior to 1950 lived either as slaves or serfs to the monastries of those 'humble' and 'peaceful' monks and nuns.

Before 1950 there was not one single hospital in the whole of Tibet and the only people who were allowed to recieve an education were those who studied to become monks or nuns, which never exceeded more than 10% of the population. The Lamas, along with the Taliban and the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia have presided over the most backward, reactionary and medievalist societies of the 20th century.

What counts is what will change in relation to the position of the Tibetan people should these CIA, imperialist backed elements of Tibets former class of parasitic clerics were to ever get back into power.

The result would be a nightmare of imperialist oppression and fuedal misery for the people of Tibet.

.

Well I'm sure indeed, that if the tibet were to be "free" it would most likely pass from being occupied by China to be a neo-colony of the U.S. or some Europian country(most likely U.S.) But I really don't think they would stay in a feudal stage. Capitalist most likely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by josefrancisco http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1124644#post1124644)
I'll admit it though, as contradicting as the Dalai Lama sounds, I would like to see that if he somehow got leadership of the Tibet, if he would actually live to his word; it would be...interesting.

Well, he is already ruling Dharamsala...

And the scene ain't pretty. Corruption and religious persecution is wide-spread.


People ought to stop taking Dalai's words for it.


Oh really? wow I didn't know that man. I can't belive I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

[Keyser]

In case you haven't noticed, the VAST majority of Tibetans love the DL.


Wrong.

And on what basis do you base this 'fact'. How do you even know anything concerning the Dalai Lama's popularity levels (or lack thereof) in Tibet?

Apart from a small exile community in India which is made up mostly of Tibetan monks, nuns and former landlords (parasites in other words), all of whom are headed by the Dalai Lama and part from a few counter-revolutionary monks and nuns inside Tibet who carry out violent sabotage and racist attacks under the Dalai Lama's orders, there is not much support for the Dalai Lama unless you rely solely on the bourgeois media for your information, which you have clearly demonstrated.

The Tibetan working class and peasants are the only two classes in Tibet that concern me, I only care for their plight and their condition alone. The plight and condition of the former ruling elite of Tibet, it's monks, nuns and former landlords are of no concern to me at all because I am a communist and a Marxist-Leninist, not some floppy bourgeois or petty boirgeois liberal that has a white mans guilt complex (take note Richard Gere and George Clooney).



Get over it.


Get over what?

Your entire post is so piss poor it is actually comical. I find it so funny that you think that yoor poor attempt at a post on Tibet is going to fool anyone.



Yes, it's hard to get facts out of Tibet, because the PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship that utterly oppresses freedom of speech.


Well then, how do you explain the fact that the entire news coverage and media coverage in the Western countries has been outright anti-Chinese and the likes of CNN, the BBC, Sky News, FOX NEWS and others have simply been converted into mouthpieces for the reactionary propaganda of the Dalai Lama lie machine?

What we have seen is not a case of not getting news out due to internal restrictions, but a massive disinformation campaign against China by the entire Western and bourgeois media to distort the truth and the situation on the ground to serve the interests of the Dalai Lama and his reactionary fuedal regime in exile and to fool people into supporting the racist 'Free Tibet' movement.

As for China not giving the Dalai Lama and reactionary monks and nuns in the pay of the Dalai Lama or US imperialism, then good on China.

Reactionaries do not deserve the right to free media or free speech.

To uphold universal rights for all people, be they bourgeois, reactionary, fascist or other is a liberal bourgeois political line and not a communist or Marxist one.



I seriously doubt the Tibetans would particularly hate the Han if the Han in Beijing didn't RULE THEM WITH AN IRON FIST.


Most Tibetan do not hate the Han Chinese and vice versa. The racist pogroms that took place in March and April in Tibet were not carried out by the majority of the Tibetan population and it's working class and peasant masses, but by small bands of violent monks who armed themselves and have killed in excess of 100 innocent people both of Chinese and Muslim origin.

Yes, it's not just Han Chinese that have suffered from these monks racist pogroms but Muslims too. What pathetic excuse for the Dalai Lama and his racist murder gangs are you going to offer up on that?



If they had freedom and democracy, and the DL said "play nice", they would most likely do it


China has given the Tibetan working class and peasants more freedom than they could have ever dreamed of under the theocratic and fuedal rule of the Lamas before 1950.

Tibetan people now have the following human rights due to the PRC liberating Tibet in 1950:

The right to a universal education from kindergarten to higher education.

The right to a health system and to be treated for illness and injury. Under the Lamas healthcare did not exist and Tibet did not even have one single hospital.

Slavery and sefrdom have been abolished and criminalised. Under the Lamas the economy was a feudal structured rural slave economy were the slaves and serfs produced crops and livestock only to have their produced taken from them by the class of parasites in the temples.

The Tibetans now live in a modern, industrialised society with economic growth, a health system, a education system, a social security/pension system and working class and peasant Tibetans no longer have to fear a live of slavery to monks and nuns.



Frankly, the PRC won't let the DL back into Tibet because they are utterly terrified that he might set up a SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY, which is the LAST thing they want.


Either your very stupid or your a liar.

Either way all evidence on the Dalai Lama and his regime in exile and the former system the Lamas had in place in Tibet, a religious feudal slavocracy, demolish your delusional rants.

If the Dalai Lama and his regime in exile had any plans for socialism, then why does he get the support of every major capitalist and imperialist state and every right-wing and anti-communist organisation?


Thinking that the DL wants to restore feudalism is batty.

Thinking that the Dalai Lama wants to bring about socialism or democracy is batty.

Knowing that the Dalai Lama represents the interests of the feudal parasitic layer of Tibetan society and wishes to erase all the progress that has taken place in Tibet since 1950 and restore his rotten feudal theocracy are facts backed by history.



Do you also suspect the Queen of England of plotting to recreate the middle ages?


The most stupid and infantile comparison I have ever seen on RevLeft.

It's not even worthy of a response.



In case you haven't noticed, the DL renounced all political power - its actually the "DL clique" AKA the Tibetan Government in Exile


Yes, he has renounced his own power over a government that controls nothing but a few offices in India, no actual country.

The Tibetan exile regime is just a facade for the consumption of the bourgeois media and foolish pro-imperialists and anti-communists, such as yourself, to swallow.



that is plotting socialism and freedom.


Actually it is plotting slavery, serfdom, imperialist domination and oppression, theocratic rule, racism and a whole host of other vile a reactionary measures.



Authoritarian dictatorships, especially state capitalist ones, are UNSUPPORTABLE.


There is no such thing as 'state capitalistism' unless your a Cliffite or whatnot, but I am a Marxist-Leninist and a communist, so I am not going to waste my time with nonsense theories such as 'state capitalism'.



Why is that difficult?


I don't find anything difficult.

You however seem to find it very difficult to get to grips with history and the reality in Tibet.

[Awful Reality]

There was a thread about this a few months back.

He's trying to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Bullshit, because the Dalai Lamas have always supported feudal regimes.

[Awful Reality]

Trotsky!


TROTSKY

Yawn. Read Trotsky's "Terrorism and Communism" and then see if your view holds. Trotsky placed a ton of emphasis on destroying the bourgeoise and allowing the Proletariat to take complete control. In fact, he often claimed that a semi-bourgeoise class had emerged itself in the USSR.

[Bear MacMillan]

I'll admit it though, as contradicting as the Dalai Lama sounds, I would like to see that if he somehow got leadership of the Tibet, if he would actually live to his word; it would be...interesting.

It would probably look alot like North Korea, only without the uber militarism and subservient to Western powers.

[RedHal]

http://www.pslweb.org/images/content/pagebuilder/44487.jpg

Bush and the neo cons love these half Marxists and man of peace!:laugh: The CIA/NED are great at what they do, they certainly know how to push the buttons of liberals, progressives and even revolutionary marxists to follow their Imperialist agenda. You can denounce China all you want, but if Tibet gains independence and the Dalai Lama is its leader, you can be assured that the US Imperialist presence will be strong. US imperialism gets stronger and stronger and continues to go unchallenged, while "revolutionary" marxists follow like sheep.

[Unicorn]

Bush and the neo cons love these half Marxists and man of peace!:laugh: The CIA/NED are great at what they do, they certainly know how to push the buttons of liberals, progressives and even revolutionary marxists to follow their Imperialist agenda. You can denounce China all you want, but if Tibet gains independence and the Dalai Lama is its leader, you can be assured that the US Imperialist presence will be strong. US imperialism gets stronger and stronger and continues to go unchallenged, while "revolutionary" marxists follow like sheep.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/martin_rowson/2005/11/21/rowson512.jpg

Modern China is a capitalist state which wants to keep Tibet because of Tibet's strategic importance in a possible imperialist war against India. Tibetans are an oppressed nation and I support their struggle for national liberation.

[RedHal]

Modern China is a capitalist state which wants to keep Tibet because of Tibet's strategic importance in a possible imperialist war against India. Tibetans are an oppressed nation and I support their struggle for national liberation.

Not many are claiming China to be socialist, and I'm not one of them. But to back a reactionary US imperialist puppet like the Dalai Lama for Tibet independence, is just going along with the US imperialist agenda. When Tibet gains independence backed by US imperialism, you'll still be wondering why the US goes unchallenged as it invades country after country.:rolleyes: China is still week, India and China will balance each other out. US imperialism is still the sole superpower.

[Unicorn]

Not many are claiming China to be socialist, and I'm not one of them. But to back a reactionary US imperialist puppet like the Dalai Lama for Tibet independence, is just going along with the US imperialist agenda. When Tibet gains independence backed by US imperialism, you'll still be wondering why the US goes unchallenged as it invades country after country.:rolleyes: China is still week, India and China will balance each other out. US imperialism is still the sole superpower.
The claim that Dalai Lama is a US puppet is just PRC propaganda. Dalai Lama was warmly received in the late 1970s in Moscow. I am sure that if the Soviet Union still existed it would back Tibet in this national liberation struggle. China wants to keep Tibet because of Tibet's strategic importance in a possible imperialist war against India. The chauvinist leadership of China definitely has expansionist aims.



Tsering Shakya says that in the late 1970s the relationship between the Tibetan leader and Moscow appeared to improve in a dramatic fashion (Shakya1999: 376-77). Regardless of the actual substance of this development, Chinese records from this period generally show a high level of anxiety about such a possibility. They also show the manner in which the Dalai Lama/Soviet Union relationship was viewed in Beijing—through the lens of the contemporary memory of Russian “aggression” in the region. This frame lent greater significance to the warm reception the Dalai Lama was given in Moscow than its substance alone merited. Thus when the Panchen Lama reiterated the Chinese request for the Dalai Lama to return to China in the summer of 1979, he did so with direct reference to the Tibetan leader’s recently concluded trip to the Soviet Union and Mongolia. Indeed, the Panchen Lama warned the Dalai Lama not to fall “into the trap of Soviet social-imperialism and much less do anything detrimental to the interests of the Tibetan people and the people of China as a whole.” Such sensitivity was even more emphatically underscored by the Chinese response to subsequent Soviet commentary on Tibet.
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS004.pdf

[Red Heretic]

I thought comrades might find this Maoist, revolutionary communist perspective on Tibet helpful:

http://www.revcom.us/a/125/tibet-protests-en.html