Dalai Lama self-identifies as a Marxist

[christian]

Just found that on Salon (http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/dalai_lama_self_identifies_as_a_marxist/). I find it amazing how such a wise person can have such a naive understanding of politics. Doesn't he remember how he had to flee from Marxism when the Chinese invaded Tibet and imposed their system on his countrymen? I think he should take a look at history and read some Mises, Hayek, Hoppe, etc. and learn some things about liberty. That would be way more in tune with Buddhism, after all. Liberation, not enforced conformity.

[Agape]

I have to agree in this case , H.H. has probably very little idea what is he saying actually and I doubt he read any of those books you quote because his education was conducted mostly in classical Tibetan and no such books were ever translated to Tibetan .
This is how it ends up when monks comment on politics or economy . The rule for Buddhist monks and nuns , strictly taken does not permit to touch money or take active part in politics .
If you enter monastic order of any kind ( in my opinion, as Christian , Buddhist , Hindu etc . ) it's time to leave all 'worldly concerns' behind .

I think , I feel , like many of us , he knows it's possible to live in free society without money and share commodities , natural products . This was possible in old times and before human society grew so large .


How do monastics fit into todays 'modernised version' of society ... from my personal experience .. very badly . If all is to remain legal it still means dealing with various secular offices at all times ,
getting sponsors to pay for your living , getting 'in-debt' to those sponsors or losing any support for basic needs .
Except for few countries in this world that support monks , monasteries and permit regular begging for food ( and consider it honour to feed monks and nuns who in return , teach for free ) , living without money tends to be - legally - very difficult.

It's a clash - crash - of very old world and very new world here . The 'new world' is not mature enough yet to be quite right and nourishing .. and the 'old wise world' is almost disappearing.


There's also big stress on 'equality' in Buddhism as you probably know ... even though, in Tibet the society was far from being equal to everyone .

Yet ... it was a religious minded society whose values were based on tolerance, love and compassion ,
and like many other Kingdoms , never so rigid as some of todays attempts for 'modern society' where giving itself becomes difficult and slave labour is called by other names but it's still , slave labour .


:cry:

[Moz]

Dear Christian,

I do not think that this man has a single naive bone in his body.
What one can read into such a comment is very broad.

Regards,
moz

[christian]

I do not think that this man has a single naive bone in his body.
What one can read into such a comment is very broad.

Dear moz, have you thoroughly examined all of them (the bones)?

What he precisely said is, "We must have a human approach. As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist. […] In capitalist countries, there is an increasing gap between the rich and the poor. In Marxism, there is emphasis on equal distribution."

Marxism is inhumane because it's removed from reality. Marx himself wrote that his theory can be summarized as the abolition of private property. Try going to the Dalai Lama and taking his robe off of him, or any of his possessions or the possessions of his brothers or sisters in faith, for that matter. It's utterly impracticable. He calls the current Western system of economics "capitalist," even though terms like corporatocracy, oligarchy or ochlocracy would be much more fitting.

Capitalism is based on two essential principles; right to private property and a free market. Today, the list of personal belongings that you are required to pay taxes or insurances for has virtually no end, so private property is only yours if you comply with government regulations. The marketplace today is not free but heavily skewed due to government intervention, which in turn is influenced by corporate lobbying, hence the term corporatocracy.

I appreciate that the Dalai Lama wants to promote the general idea that a more just and prosperous world should be aimed for, but he is obviously no expert on political and/or economic issues.

[Airwooz]

He is a complecated character, he is not a vegeterian, he is the ruler of the old system, he is the Pope of the East. He wants to accomplish a goal before he die, that is the return of the Dalai lama. In order to make this happen he has to first set up an atmosphere for the future negotiation with Communsim Party. He has been trying this for years. There is a small chance, he is smart enough to understand this. As the intense political struggle ongoing recently years in China, the chance is increasing. Once they allow him to return or at least willing to talk to him again, he can make his next move..........

No matter he call himself a Marxist or Maoist or whatever else....the most important thing is to accompish his political legacy.

[christian]

He wants to accomplish a goal before he die, that is the return of the Dalai lama.

I saw him in Hamburg almost ten years ago (and was impressed by his energy), where he mentioned that he considers not reincarnating at all. He said if he would reincarnate, then probably not in China and maybe as a woman—a beautiful one, he added.

In any case, I would understand why he would be interested in clearing the lines of communication with the Chinese government, but I don't see the need to espouse Marxism to accomplish that. Good old common sense should suffice.

[Airwooz]

Since Dalai lama left TIbet, Chinese government started a long term campaign to demonize him, well most of the Tibetan people are not buying into the propaganda, but as for mainland Han Chinese, they are so brainwashed to believe whatever the government told them to. They are mostly atheists, Dalai Lama can not go back to Tibet without convince the majority of Han Chinese.

His return will not just complete his personal legacy but as well to help stablize the situation in Tibet， if he fail in this lifetime, he has other options as you mention such as no reincarnation or come back in different countries. But it's just political act.

In my oppinion i don't think he has the ability to contorl his own reincarnation, no doubt he is the respectful religious Leader, also the whole Tibatan lamasim is base on the real enlightenment, but the old Tibatan ruling system it's the typical pyramid structure similar to Roman Catholic. Dalai Lama's reincarnation must approved by the Chinese Emperor in the old time，then came the the Communism Party, they overthrow everything, in the end just different version of the ruling order.

[kemo]

Marx would say

"laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Rather, the "property" or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social--not a personal--power. Changing it into common property does not abolish property as a right, but merely changes its social character, by eliminating its class character. In a Communist society, then, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer, not for the sake of producing bourgeois-controlled property. This goal of communism challenges bourgeois freedom, and this is why the bourgeois condemn the Communist philosophy. Marx writes, "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." Despite what the bourgeois claim, Communism doesn't keep people from appropriating the products of labor. Rather, it keeps them from subjugating others in the process of this appropriation."

Seems about right to me speaking as a wage slave. Capitalism is a busted flush which serves only the elite and appeals only to the basest of human instincts - people on PA been saying it. It's unbridled capitalism that got us into the mess we're in. You want to defend that model - fine. I think the DL is the one who is wise and the detractors who are naive (or selfish). They don't have money in Star Trek - they don't need it. And we could have that utopia if it weren't for capitalism - the capitalism which hides away secrets that could give us free energy, cures for whatever, rather than which the elite prefers to keep selling us oil, drugs etc so that can get more wealth and power. Capitalism is a kind of psychopathy. Cheers for the DL

[dim]

Marxism has as much common with "Chinese invaded Tibet"
as Democracy with United States

Dalai Lama is very well aware of what he is talking about
the rest of us still fear words interwoven in our well washed Kissinger brains

[panopticon]

Since Dalai lama left TIbet, Chinese government started a long term campaign to demonize him, well most of the Tibetan people are not buying into the propaganda, but as for mainland Han Chinese, they are so brainwashed to believe whatever the government told them to. They are mostly atheists, Dalai Lama can not go back to Tibet without convince the majority of Han Chinese.

His return will not just complete his personal legacy but as well to help stablize the situation in Tibet， if he fail in this lifetime, he has other options as you mention such as no reincarnation or come back in different countries. But it's just political act.

In my oppinion i don't think he has the ability to contorl his own reincarnation, no doubt he is the respectful religious Leader, also the whole Tibatan lamasim is base on the real enlightenment, but the old Tibatan ruling system it's the typical pyramid structure similar to Roman Catholic. Dalai Lama's reincarnation must approved by the Chinese Emperor in the old time，then came the the Communism Party, they overthrow everything, in the end just different version of the ruling order.

Slightly off topic but I remember reading about a quaint old Tibetan tradition:

One of the early Dalai Lamas was particularly known for his love of women. It was common practice for households in which a daughter had received the honor of the Dalai Lama’s transmission through sexual union to raise a flag over their home. It is said that a sea of flags floated in the wind over the town.
Source: Falk, G. 2009. Stripping The Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment (http://www.strippingthegurus.com/ebook/Stripping_the_Gurus.pdf) pg 177
Falk's book is a good read and full of info that could potentially cause arguments about many sacred cows...
:behindsofa:

As for the present Dalai Lama saying he's a Marxist.

This is old news. He's been saying it for years.

He was quoted in 2011 as saying:

I consider myself a Marxist . . . but not a Leninist
Source: Romano, C. 2011. The Dalai Lama, Marxlist? WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304186404576389523194617398)
Of course, as we all know, Marxism & Communism (particularly the Totalitarian variety) are different things (as is alluded to by the Dalai Lama in the WSJ article). The Dalai Lama knows this and makes mention of it periodically.

I may disagree with the Dalai Lama on Marxism being a solution (being well aware of Bakunin & others 19th Century warnings in relation as to what would occur) but I equally view Capitalism as a scourge destroying from the top down.

It's the only bit of "trickle down economics" that actually works! :boxing:

My view is that Communism collapsed under its own weight before Capitalism could. In other words Communism won the race with Capitalism to the bottom.

The essence of both systems is based on centralised control via currency.

Striving for a currency that is legitimized by those ruling through the use of "legitimate force" (often violent) perpetrated by the enforcers of the artificially constructed notion of a "Nation State" is a tad ridiculous to me. (Gawn, say that lot with a belly full of Jameson's :eyebrows: )

There again, I'm just an anonymous voice on a forum.
Cheers :tea:

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Marxism has as much common with "Chinese invaded Tibet"
as Democracy with United States

Dalai Lama is very well aware of what he is talking about
the rest of us still fear words interwoven in our well washed Kissinger brains

Thanks Dim.
The Kissinger line gave me a good long belly laugh. :dance:

-- Pan

[Pam]

Since the Dalai Lama represents an organized religion, I guess it should not be a surprise that he would advocate for a specific form of government and I am not surprised he would choose Marxism.

I am not so sure that any forms of government matters so much at this point. As long as we humans maintain this level of consciousness that we are currently experiencing we will corrupt anything that is presented to us. As long as the majority of ego's remains unbalanced with a strong emphasis on self interest, every system of man will eventually implode. Admittedly some may take longer to corrupt and those that exploit man's basest desires, such as capitalism, will break down faster than those that promote equality.

I have also observed that there is tremendous power that radiates from those that have elevated their consciousness. It does influence others and this in my opinion will be the hope of our future.

Having said that, what option do we have but to attempt to find workable systems that allow mankind to live and work together? I suspect a system that promotes equality with as many checks and balances as possible to slow the process of corruption.

[panopticon]

For completion:
DhvlnC-oKEw
lZfd72o0TX0
Y3wHx4NLHzE
-- Pan

[christian]

"Capitalism" is a buzzword that hardly anybody seems to know the actual meaning of.


Marx would say

"laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Rather, the "property" or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social--not a personal--power. Changing it into common property does not abolish property as a right, but merely changes its social character, by eliminating its class character. In a Communist society, then, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer, not for the sake of producing bourgeois-controlled property. This goal of communism challenges bourgeois freedom, and this is why the bourgeois condemn the Communist philosophy. Marx writes, "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." Despite what the bourgeois claim, Communism doesn't keep people from appropriating the products of labor. Rather, it keeps them from subjugating others in the process of this appropriation."

Marx describes not a capitalist, but a corporatocratist society. What keeps anyone from subjugating others is natural law, i.e. the sanctity of private property and individual liberty—core tenets of actual capitalism. Communism is the institutionalized theft of everybody who through the work of his own hands produces more than others, which of course is a massive disincentive to produce at all. This is economics 101.


It's unbridled capitalism that got us into the mess we're in. You want to defend that model - fine.

I must repeat it, because many here seem to have missed it or think that I made it up: There is no capitalism right now. It's a corporatocracy, it's cronyism. Too-big-to-fail, multinationals in bed with governments; these are signs that there is no capitalism.

It's unfortunate that the lack of understanding regarding this fact is so widespread.

This is from The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:




“Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for “economic individualism,” which Adam Smith earlier called “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty” (Wealth of Nations). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. There is no natural limit to the range of their efforts in terms of assets, sales, and profits; or the number of customers, employees, and investors; or whether they operate in local, regional, national, or international markets. [emphasis added]

"There is no natural limit to the range of their efforts in terms of assets, sales, and profits" means there is no arbitrarily just limit that could be enforced by a government. The sky is the limit, you can do whatever works out, whatever people voluntarily agree upon—as long as you don't violate individual rights or property rights in the process!

The Marxist argument that because private property is already under attack today we should do away with it for good is asinine, in my opinion. It's like saying because freedom is under attack we should just get rid of freedom for good.

I find it very obvious that liberty and freedom always have the moral high-ground. Whoever argues against liberty is arguing in favor of tyranny. But the end doesn't justify the means. Did Buddha aspire to be a totalitarian ruler? Did Jesus? But the Dalai Lama says it's what we should aim for. . . .Only over my cold, dead body.


They don't have money in Star Trek - they don't need it. And we could have that utopia if it weren't for capitalism - the capitalism which hides away secrets that could give us free energy, cures for whatever, rather than which the elite prefers to keep selling us oil, drugs etc so that can get more wealth and power. Capitalism is a kind of psychopathy.

Star Trek is fiction. I personally strive for realistic and pragmatic solutions, and I think liberty and freedom are such. The ills you describe are signs not of capitalism but of a corporatocracy. On that note, I suggest to everyone to be aware of who is out there blaming the alleged existing capitalism. It's the very elite that is in charge right now. Their business is to kill true capitalism and to usher in a corporatocratist nightmare. The way to defend against this is to stand up for the protection of personal and economic freedom under natural law, aka true capitalism.

[ghostrider]

the ET's know every little dirty deed he and his lineage have done ... you would be shocked at what his agenda has and still is http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Special_Bulletin_043 ... scroll down to the reader question where Billy refers to a conversation between Ptaah and himself in March of 2008 ...

[jeanpistache]

the ET's know every little dirty deed he and his lineage have done ... you would be shocked at what his agenda has and still is http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Special_Bulletin_043 ... scroll down to the reader question where Billy refers to a conversation between Ptaah and himself in March of 2008 ...

I was worried to be misinterpreted by saying it but he is right.

[ghostrider]

the ET's know every little dirty deed he and his lineage have done ... you would be shocked at what his agenda has and still is http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Special_Bulletin_043 ... scroll down to the reader question where Billy refers to a conversation between Ptaah and himself in March of 2008 ...

I was worried to be misinterpreted by saying it but he is right.

the more we learn about the matrix , the more we learn , nothing works like we think it does ...

[panopticon]

While we are wandering off topic it's worth noting that the basis of the present system does not permit what neoliberals etc refer to as Capitalism (or sometimes "true capitalism", "laissez faire capitalism" you get the drift) to occur.

In this I agree with Christian.

The problem many have is they believe the illusion that there is the potential for equality under the present system.

The American Dream, based on the Protestant work ethic, has been exported around the world and it is more of a nightmare. It's an excellent lesson in achieving inequality.

I was reading a study a while back into power and control in relation to the prevalence of certain surnames in the UK.

Over the last 1000 years the same names (families) have remained in control of that country.

There was no change during the Industrial Revolution or in the decades of the 20th Century.

The same applies in that illusory bastion of free markets the US of A. Revolving door syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29), a blatantly obvious political class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_class) (really, another Bush 4 el Presidente? Against a Clinton? Come on) and the control of not only the means of production (ala Marx) but also most of the assets and the entire monetary system.

Seems more like self-managed slavery to me, but there again I'm not really up on the US system of Governance so who can tell.

There are no simple answers and while Socialism is often equated with property theft by those defending Crony Capitalism/Corporatism etc (which Christian certainly isn't) in reality for the vast majority of people the actual myth is that of private ownership.

Truthfully the theft is of peoples lives.

Work represents hours, minutes & seconds of an individuals life traded for some form of remuneration (usually monetary). There are the lucky ones who do work they enjoy and others who learn to enjoy their work. However the vast majority suffer through their hours of employment until they finish their day. The less power the employee has the more some employers expect them to do for free. "Answer emails on holidays", "get that report done for tomorrow will you", "we've got to get this concrete laid today no matter what", "Marge hasn't come in so you're doing her shift. Organise someone to look after your kids. If you leave now don't come back".

Sounds a lot like slavery to me...

It definitely is a control mechanism to keep people busy/distracted.

It starts in school and by the time most people get to working age any form of independence/individuality or thirst for knowledge has been beaten out of them.

What replaces it is the twin scourges of Patriotism and Nationalism (often times with a religious dogma as the controlling undercurrent).

Talk about an unfair system. Oh, and it's so popular that people want it everywhere. They believe the slick advertising campaign on the silver screen...

It was very quiet out in the scrub... Maybe I should go back...

-- Pan

[Agape]

He is a complecated character, he is not a vegeterian, he is the ruler of the old system, he is the Pope of the East. He wants to accomplish a goal before he die, that is the return of the Dalai lama. In order to make this happen he has to first set up an atmosphere for the future negotiation with Communsim Party. He has been trying this for years. There is a small chance, he is smart enough to understand this. As the intense political struggle ongoing recently years in China, the chance is increasing. Once they allow him to return or at least willing to talk to him again, he can make his next move..........

No matter he call himself a Marxist or Maoist or whatever else....the most important thing is to accompish his political legacy.


H.H. Dalailama is not your 'politician' . He never aspired for any such an office . He was chosen as a 4 year old kid and great hopes of people were placed upon his shoulders together with great responsibility and I think he tried his best not to betray those hopes .
There was a historical legacy to his rulership dating back to many centuries ago when the Gelugpas assumed the governance role in Tibet , challenging the influence of Sakyapas and Karmapas , alternatively .

There was equal number of secular and monastic advisors - ministers - in every government - something unheard of in strictly secular states .

If you follow current events ..the system was abolished in 2010/11 , H.H. Dalailama retired from his secular position as leader of Tibetan exile government and it was him who prompted the decision, in favour of modern 'democratic system' based on vote .
So nowadays , the Tibetan government in exile has a PM - Mr Lobsang Sangye - and number of secular ministers .

The decision was taken with respect to future .. to secure modern democratic state and there won't be any 'religious political leader' sought for as replacement for that role , so also no 'come back of Dalailama' is possible .

This lifts big weight from the monastic order itself ..and its teachers , the lamas who thus remain responsible solely for what they are meant to be responsible for and what they do most of their lives : studying and teaching Buddhist philosophy and practice .

Tibetan people of course wish nothing else than to be able to return to Tibet and there's in fact , no 'virtual obstacle' from the side of China for them to do that , yes they can ..
but it would be sheer madness and very risky decision to return to country that does not exist nowadays , else than as part of communist China who by the nature of their atheist philosophy do not tolerate religious freedom to big deal and who certainly prefer controllable form of society with stress on Chinese culture and education.

People are not land more than they're culture , and Tibetan culture is very specific , based on Buddhist practice and rituals , and what would remain of them if they return would be 'controlled pantomime' .


If you ever follow the schedule and teachings of H.H. Dalailama : http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts you would see what he spends most of his life on is tirelessly teaching Buddhist sutra and tantra . There were times when he refused to answer any 'politically oriented' questions altogether but since most people around world are not quite monks and they consider him 'an authority' on matters of Tibet and continue asking such questions, times to times he has to answer them .

From this very secularly oriented civilisation stand as we know it now in EU , the US and elsewhere ,
people searching for wisdom are sometimes automatically seen as sort of 'anarchists' and gravely misunderstood .

But ask any genuine monk or nun what they want to do in their lives ...

:angel:

[apokalypse]

isn't these advance et's races live in utopia which considered to be Socialism? i played PC game Democracy 3 and tuns out i'm socialist while capitalist had huge red flag...put high taxes on tobacco, gambling and the richest/corporation and have food standards agency which focus on healthy food..doesn't matter what i do ran into deficit and a socialist. before awakening i could say i'm non-socialist but after awakening especially now people labelled me as socialist.

i come to conclusion that current system is anti-spiritual and doesn't matter how these PHD's and mainstream people spin it the current Monetary system need to end...



They don't have money in Star Trek - they don't need it. And we could have that utopia if it weren't for capitalism - the capitalism which hides away secrets that could give us free energy, cures for whatever, rather than which the elite prefers to keep selling us oil, drugs etc so that can get more wealth and power. Capitalism is a kind of psychopathy.


once civilization reach that stage of advancement can't see how they use Value system such as Money...they have everything they need and create an robot for work(you can call it a slave)...we human on earth in beginning stage of getting there but still stuck on old obsolete system.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Not sure if this op is still about the Dalai Lama daring to consider communism as the best model forward or if it is the demonization of communism in general that has become the topic.

Maybe none of these "isms" is gonna work, not if we want true fairness, true justice and equitable treatment of all peoples.

What we need is freedom. The type of freedom we have only dreamed about. What we need is to declare ourselves sovereign, in charge of our own course - then acting, and thinking accordingly.

But as one people, thinking always of the bigger picture, the higher aspirations, the long term goals.

That place is already within us - the means and the knowhow are scattered among the people.

All we need is to get from here to there, with as little fuss as possible. And it just might be possible with the right thought, the right action, the right idea - at just the right time - creating a new meme that sweeps the old world away.

Or we might have to deliver FE to every home to catch their attention, to show them another way, another possibility.

What the DL preaches is all about love, acceptance, surrender - they all have a prominent place in that new world.

[East Sun]

The Dali Lama has had a lot of time to think and talk with world leaders and academics around the world and also to observe the plight of the poor. The world has changed a lot for just about everyone and he knows that religions need to change also.

I believe that a consciousness shift has occurred/is occurring world wide and a struggle is taking place between the 'controllers' of this world and the 'natural thinking people' of this world.
Almost everything will have to make adjustments, religions and politics, to pave a new way of living for all humans and others who wish to be a part of it.

I'm sure the Dali Lama knows this as well as the Pope.

A system has to be devised with checks and balances to bring as much equality to all as much as is possible.

The current corrupt greed has to be annihilated no matter who is at the top or how much power they have whether elite or hybrid or 'whatever.'

This is inevitable!!!!!!!!

I just watched the video with Alfred Webre. Here's hoping this gains momentum and is successful.

I'll be watching this with hawk eyes.

[christian]

isn't these advance et's races live in utopia which considered to be Socialism? i played PC game Democracy 3 and tuns out i'm socialist while capitalist had huge red flag...put high taxes on tobacco, gambling and the richest/corporation and have food standards agency which focus on healthy food..doesn't matter what i do ran into deficit and a socialist. before awakening i could say i'm non-socialist but after awakening especially now people labelled me as socialist.

i come to conclusion that current system is anti-spiritual and doesn't matter how these PHD's and mainstream people spin it the current Monetary system need to end...

I sure hope you base your political ideas on more than your experiences in a computer game. :)

A computer game is oversimplified when it comes to decisions and consequences. On top of that, you are the sole ruler. If you are benevolent in a game of few variables, your people are gonna be fine. In reality, however, Socialism simply is rejecting the idea of individual liberty—is that something you could agree with or something that you would consider spiritual?

In reality, unlike in a computer game, even the smartest people could probably not fathom "what is best" for the people and you would also be confronted with the problem of corruption in government. That's why I think that in the long run the most efficient way to organize society is through liberty and voluntarily agreed upon contracts that can be nullified if a party doesn't provide services as agreed upon—which is unlike what we have in place right now in our electoral systems.

In the short- and mid-term, I figure that people need to get educated and create the momentum to first clean up the current administrative system and then gradually deconstruct it while moving towards a society organized by individually chosen contracts rather than elections that give some people relatively free reign over a period of time. That, I think, would be both spiritual and realistic. The end of the current monetary system would certainly be part of that process.


Not sure if this op is still about the Dalai Lama daring to consider communism as the best model forward or if it is the demonization of communism in general that has become the topic.

Maybe none of these "isms" is gonna work, not if we want true fairness, true justice and equitable treatment of all peoples.

What we need is freedom. The type of freedom we have only dreamed about. What we need is to declare ourselves sovereign, in charge of our own course - then acting, and thinking accordingly.

My issue here has been the spiritual quality of Marxism and how a very wise person openly advocates this totalitarian system for a reason that we can speculate about.

I agree that we need freedom. Some people call applied freedom anarchy, voluntaryism, capitalism or libertarianism. That's semantics, really. Whatever words help us get there are fine with me.


A system has to be devised with checks and balances to bring as much equality to all as much as is possible.

Checks and balances, yes. That's why I'm for a society organized by private law, individual contracts. This has been described in great detail by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. (http://mises.org/library/economics-and-ethics-private-property-0) This also brings equality in terms of equal rights. If you want equality in terms of equal distribution you would need totalitarianism. Marxism would be one flavor of that. However, there are enough studies (e.g. here (ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp08063.pdf), here (http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/001/503053.pdf) and here (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~lezsg1/papers/GHT%28JEBO2009%29.pdf)) that show how people in a society are perfectly happy with unequal distribution of wealth as long as that wealth has been acquired in a fair way without exploitation and within a just framework. So that's where the focus should be, obviously.

[panopticon]

For those who are interested in statistics to do with inequality.

I just came across this and it seemed relevant.

A recent report from Oxfam America says that by 2016 the wealthiest 80 people in the world will have a net worth more than the bottom 50%.

In addition the top 1% will own in excess of 50% of the worlds wealth (ie 99% will own less than half) by 2016 given current trends remain the same.

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Wealth_Having_it_all_and_wanting_more.pdf

Source (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Wealth_Having_it_all_and_wanting_more.pdf)

Hmmm, they reckon trickle down economics works eh?

They just don't say who it works for... :shocked:

-- Pan

[christian]

Hmmm, they reckon trickle down economics works eh?

They just don't say who it works for... :shocked:

Trickle-down economics under the current framework benefit those who have the highest leverage under the current framework. Currently, trickle-down benefits the corporatocratists. However, in a truly capitalist (/anarchist/libertarian/voluntaryist) society there would naturally be a smaller gap between the rich and the poor. Only companies who offer their employees and customers the greatest benefits would survive as employers and competitors.

The problem is not inequality in terms of distribution. This is a natural given and to try to act against this is to act against nature. The current problem is an unfair framework or inequality in terms of rights, which leads to an inequality in distribution which is greater than what would naturally occur.

The root issue thus is to address the procedural framework in which we operate in, not the inequality itself. We gotta work out the flow, not force the seasons, if you will. If we force the seasons, the flow is destroyed. If we get the flow right, the seasons will be harmonious as a result. This is described throughout my personal favorite spiritual book, the Dao De Jing (http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html). This is how spirituality and the politics of freedom go hand in hand, in my opinion.

[jeanpistache]

What is the difference between him and the pope of vatican? just because it's buddhism it's ok? come one! If you are aware how much the vatican is deeply rooted into witchcraft why do you think it would be different with the mediatic representative of the buddhism in the world? You know how much people have a buddhist faith or share a lot of thoughts with this "philosophy"? It's more than enough to get the attention of the new world order. I can't understand how some people that understand such difficulties things to believe in like different species of alien with interdimensional travel technology, 10 000 years life expectancy with supernatural powers and can't see the most obvious things around them.:mmph:

[M0JFK]

Exactly Kemo. And what I would like to know is since when as China been a Marxian state or even a communist one? The equal distribution of wealth created by the workers for the workers is the basic foundation of any communist Marxian state and China does not and as not EVER done this...same with Russia. So if you don't believe in equal distribution in practice then how can you claim to be communist let alone Marxist??? Paying just lip service to Marx and communism is not communism or Marxist. You have to actually practice what you preach in other words before you can lay claim to be anything. I was a member of the Fourth International in France a Marxist Leninist Trotskyite movement and we never recognised either Russia, China or even Cuba as a Marxian communist state simply because they never actually practiced it.

[yuhui]

Honestly, if you understand how buddhist thoughts such as non-duality, a non-discriminative mind talks about, you wouldn't be fuss about this sort of details..My friend in Tibet who is a monk sends me a photo which is picture of jesus and he thought it was Shakyamuni. I don't see the need to correct him. So what, ultimately, there is no difference. It's not what matters most.

[christian]

Honestly, if you understand how buddhist thoughts such as non-duality, a non-discriminative mind talks about, you wouldn't be fuss about this sort of details..My friend in Tibet who is a monk sends me a photo which is picture of jesus and he thought it was Shakyamuni. I don't see the need to correct him. So what, ultimately, there is no difference. It's not what matters most.

I respect what you say. But for me it's all about the details. I also think that there's an important difference between seeing the same spirit in Jesus and Buddha, and genuinely mistaking Jesus for Buddha. No need to correct anybody, but if I feel I have information to offer, I do that. It's up to you to engage with that information. If you are beyond duality, you won't take it personally and make the best out of it, even if that means to do nothing with it at all.

For me personally, the way out of duality is not in turning away from it, but in fully immersing in the experience of it to get through it and understand it fully. I don't believe in cutting corners or easy ways out. I think experiences are there to be understood fully, also the experience of duality and of the kind of world that we live in. Non-discriminative thought can also be applied to duality. Therefore it matters to me, and I think through understanding economics and politics much can be achieved, I think this can be a constituent of a truly spiritual journey to oneness.

After all, the good old Dalai Lama started this whole thing about politics, I just responded to him…

[rgray222]

As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist,” he said in a speech entitled “A Human Approach to World Peace.”

When you stop and think about it who would not want to be a Marxist "in theory." In theory Marxism takes the top and the bottom out of the socioeconomic structure and lumps everyone in the middle. In theory there is no elite class and in theory there is no poverty. Socialism does the same thing and in a practical sense some of the Scandinavian countries have achieved some success with this. There are a whole host of problems with this approach, the least of which are, attempting to make everyone average and removing the incentive for people to excel.

In my mind Salon has taken some literary freedoms with what the Dali Lama said. In theory many things seem like they may work but in practice it is a completely different story. The spirit of his comment was taken way out of context. For instance, in theory I would love to have 20 well trained surgeons performing one operation on me but in practice this would never work.

To my mind capitalism with all its flaws is still the best practical system the world has devised but we have never seen unrestrained capitalism. Everyone feels you must put limits on capitalism because it would run rampant over people. In "theory" that may be true but we will never know that in a practical sense. I think unrestrained capitalism would remove all government monopolies such as utilities, weed out poor products and companies almost overnight and challenge mankind to excel at every level of society. I know this hands off approached may not be popular with many but the alternative is government controls and we know how that has been working out of the past 100 years.

[Agape]

When you stop and think about it who would not want to be a Marxist "in theory." In theory Marxism takes the top and the bottom out of the socioeconomic structure and lumps everyone in the middle. In theory there is no elite class and in theory there is no poverty. Socialism does the same thing and in a practical sense some of the Scandinavian countries have archived some success with this. There are a whole host of problems with this approach, the least of which are, attempting to make everyone average and removing the incentive for people to excel.

There's something that most ancient cosmological systems mentioned .. but most of 'modern science' including sociology is only painstakingly approaching now ..

think 'bigger' .

In past , only few people in each nation happened to see big . Now , slowly , everyone can . My earnest hope would be ( nevertheless ) that people will 'get it right' in my very lifetime , that borders would be dissolved and wars would cease ..

i never imagined how difficult this seems to do , the simplest thing , the simplest logic of life .. the economy and ecology of peace and freedom ..

We seem to live in grip of long human past , full of tragedies , starvation , deaths and rebirths , forgotten heights and lows ,
vivid memories ..

You can organise systems and religions , and regimes but you can't 'organise' evolution , control the process since it's bound to grow over itself , that's what the 'controllers' fear the most after all ,
so keeping peoples heads down , keeping them starved and disabled ..

is a way that prevents growing .


Firstly you need to care for individuals then for society ..


it's like : people , have Hearts :heart:


H.H. Dalailama repeats that to his people and students fairly often , stay true to yourself , follow your heart .
You can deceive everyone else but if you fake your own life , own heart , you suffer .


That's how i interpret it anyway .


There are places where everyone live happily together , Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Christians , and anyone else who merely wish to live in peace and be happy .
Why do we all think it's impossible really .

What survives for thousand years is your culture .. your peacefulness .. not the brute force , not killings ..

[rgray222]

We seem to live in grip of long human past , full of tragedies , starvation , deaths and rebirths , forgotten heights and lows ,
vivid memories ..


Yes, I agree with this statement whole-hardheartedly.

I know this is not a thread about creationism vs evolution but that said my thinking has changed over the years. I do not think that we crawled out from under a rock years ago and evolved into our current form. I believe we were created for a purpose and part of that purpose is to deal with war, poverty, corruption, sickness etc etc. Understanding that all of this human suffering serves a purpose and will never change is (in and odd way) a relief. We can try as much as we want to overcome these obstacles but new ones will always be put in our path.

Our challenge on this planet is to deal with all these horrendous tragedies. It is all about our ability to cope, maintaining a positive attitude, turning physical and emotion pain into our inner strength. Getting caught up in cynicism, anger and hate is absolutely the wrong way to go. Our job is not to run around with a positive attitude but to understand the big picture of why we are here. This does bring a sense of calm and peace (at least to me).

[Lancet]

i would suggest that Bhutan may be used as an example of what can and and is presently being done real time. Human beings are truly special, harmonious and peaceful and wish to be thus. Do not betray your humanity. Governance in whatever form if equitable to all will be a better model than any top down hierarchical structure. I doubt if anyone , including ETs have a created a perfect society.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJwNSkdTH0

Peace
JT

[Mark]

I would suggest that what we see in effect right now, despite the many protestations to the contrary, IS unrestrained capitalism at its worse. The only concessions to some sort of socialist or communist ideals in regards to taking care of the poor and downtrodden in the lower classes are those necessary to keep them, us, from uprising and killing them all while they eat cake. The political power of the capitalist classes is such that they change the rules of the capitalist game whenever they want, in effect melding the economic system to favor them and funnel money upward into the coffers of the Oligarches that exist in every country in the world.

They get all the money. Leave barely enough for some of us to live. Contemplate and carry out genocidal and eugenic programs to kill and stupify us. Revel in their power and exist in a world apart, giving less than two hoots about the welfare of the planetary majority. This is capitalism in practice, not theory.