"i Am A Marxist," Says The Dalai Lama

[Apotheoun]

In other words, the Dalai Lama is a cafeteria Marxist.

[Selah]

Sigh...

[Galloglasses' Alt]

I think the Dalai Llama should drop flirting with marxism and have a read of distributism if he wants a 'fairer' economic idea then Capitalism.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Selah' date='24 May 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1274723837' post='2116594']
Still didn't answer my question, so I am going to assume that's a "no."

I know Marxism in action is tyrannical, hence why I said it is a good idea "in theory" but not in practice.

*snort* a "so-called" man of peace. He calls himself a "half-marxist" which stands to reason that he agrees with some of, but not all of, what marxism has to offer.
[/quote]

The problem is Moral dualism. Ethier the article is lying, or the Dalai Lama is preaching some form of Moral dualism. Which is of course common in Asia. Mr. Lama is trying to serve to masters, or trying to reconcile two polar opposite ideologies.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 May 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1274724072' post='2116598']
In other words, the Dalai Lama is a cafeteria Marxist.
[/quote]
Lawl. Win.

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' date='24 May 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1274724624' post='2116600']
I think the Dalai Llama should drop flirting with marxism and have a read of distributism if he wants a 'fairer' economic idea then Capitalism.
[/quote]
I think this is the inevitability of Buddhism. It comes from their notion that all paths lead to the vague sense of "salvation" that the Buddhist philosophy speaks of. In the end, you see someone making stretches to combine two things that probably don't go together.

[Socrates]

I honestly don't care much what the Dalai Lama says.
This foolishness is one more reason I'm glad I'm Catholic, and not a Tibetan Buddhist (or anything else).

[quote name='Selah' date='24 May 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1274723837' post='2116594']
Still didn't answer my question, so I am going to assume that's a "no."

I know Marxism in action is tyrannical, hence why I said it is a good idea "in theory" but not in practice.[/quote]
Except that it denies the fundamental human right to private property ownership, and opposes religion.

And in practice, as you acknowledge, it has been at best a miserable failure, at worst bloody tyranny.

But, yeah, other than that, Marxism's just jim-dandy.

[quote]*snort* a "so-called" man of peace. He calls himself a "half-marxist" which stands to reason that he agrees with some of, but not all of, what marxism has to offer.
[/quote]
Not sure what good stuff Marxism has to offer, other than empty promises.

[Hilde]

sad

Edited May 24, 2010 by Hilde

[Selah]

[quote]
Except that it denies the fundamental human right to private property ownership, and opposes religion.

And in practice, as you acknowledge, it has been at best a miserable failure, at worst bloody tyranny.

But, yeah, other than that, Marxism's just jim-dandy.[/quote]

I didn't say I agreed with it. Goodness gracious people

I'm done. Fight amoungst yourselves about teh ebil Dalai Lama.

[Jesus_lol]

because Communism in russia, china, etc has been a distorted view of Marxism, taking what it likes from it, then filling the rest in with tyranny.

so far, political systems affecting Marxist policies havent really worked out, but then capitalism hasnt exactly been a bucket full or roses and rainbows either, it just happens to have sucked less.

To which you might say "well thats because it hasnt been pure capitalism, they are doing it wrong etc" at which point you should realize that is what people are saying about marxism, and at least try and figure that out.

the Dalai Lama has fairly clearly said he doesnt agree with all of marxism, objectively saying no current economic system is perfect, which is true. there is nothing wrong with "cafeteria-ism" in politics, its pretty much necessary these days.

[KnightofChrist]

Distorted view of Marxism... seriously? If anything those tyrannies applied pure unadulterated Marxism.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='24 May 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1274726572' post='2116623']
Distorted view of Marxism... seriously? If anything those tyrannies applied pure unadulterated Marxism.
[/quote]
That is incorrect. I can best explain why you were wrong in regards to Russia, but we can do China and Russia both if you wish.

And before claims of my being an apologist come, I find Marxism intellectually vapid. As a whole, the sum total of Marx's work is a confused, at times self-contradicting attempt to understand the world through the lenses of a bastardized Hegelism. Marx himself was obviously a very astute observer, but whatever valuable observations he had must be discovered by sifting through the ideological dung-heap he buried those valuable observations in.

I despise the ideology of Marxism. I detest Sovietism. I have no affection for Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin. The most generous thing you could say about any of the other Bolsheviks is that they were well intentioned but wildly misguided. And most I wouldn't even view in that positive of a light.

That being said, no individual who has even a basic grasp of Marxist theory or Russian history could possibly seriously claim that Marxism in Russia was the application of 'pure, unadulterated Marxism'. To begin with, pure unadulterated Marxism would not have predicted a revolution in Russia, nor would Marx have said that Russia was ready for a revolution. Leninism's theory of a revolutionary vanguard, the five year plans et cetera were all attempts to reconcile Marxism to the situation in Russia. The Bolsheviks themselves stated that Russia was not a fully developed Marxist state. There job as the revolutionary vanguard was to bring Russia to its final Marxist development.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 May 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1274708501' post='2116494']
Someone who calls themselves a Marxist either doesn't understand what Marxism really is, or has zero spiritual wisdom.
[/quote]


Or is trying to find the, arguably, redeemable elements of Marxism, it's more lofty promises, in an attempt to placate the authoritarian Leninist state that is currently dominating his nation.

I don't know much about the situation in Tibet. I've never understood the left-wing obsession with the place. It seems like most of it is an Orientalist projection that constructs a mirage of a 'spiritually-pure' land. It becomes a leftist construction and that is what they are really obsessed with, certainly there are far more brutal occupations taking place. But from what little about the situation I do know, I wouldn't disconnect the Dali-Lama's words from the fact that his nation is currently being dominated by an ostensibly Marxist state.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' date='24 May 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1274738055' post='2116703']
Or is trying to find the, arguably, redeemable elements of Marxism, it's more lofty promises, in an attempt to placate the authoritarian Leninist state that is currently dominating his nation.

[/quote]
I believe the core foundations of Marxism to be irredeemable. That's why I said what I did.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 May 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1274750458' post='2116883']
I believe the core foundations of Marxism to be irredeemable. That's why I said what I did.
[/quote]


If by that you mean that they are wrong, then I agree.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='24 May 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1274726572' post='2116623']
Distorted view of Marxism... seriously? If anything those tyrannies applied pure unadulterated Marxism.
[/quote]

Kinda like how there is a distorted view of Democracy here?