‘I am Marxist’ says Dalai Lama

[sioned]

‘I am Marxist’ says Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama identified himself as a Marxist on Tuesday while addressing capitalism, discrimination and violence at a lecture on world peace in Kolkata, India. This is not the first time that the 14th Dalai Lama has spoken about his political leaning - in 2011 he said: “I consider myself a Marxist...but not a Leninist” when speaking at a conference in Minneapolis.

"We must have a human approach. As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist," he said to the audience on Tuesday, at the lecture entitled ‘A Human Approach to World Peace’ which was organized by Presidency University.

The Tibetan spiritual leader partly blamed capitalism for inequality and said he regarded Marxism as the answer: "In capitalist countries, there is an increasing gap between the rich and the poor. In Marxism, there is emphasis on equal distribution,” he said, adding that “many Marxist leaders are now capitalists in their thinking”.

He said that he regarded economic and social inequality in India as the reason for ongoing discrimination against women and low social castes, calling on the world’s youth to take the 21st century from a century of violence to a “century of peace”.

“I will not see this in my lifetime but we must start working on it. Those below thirty are the generation of the 21st century. You have to stop violence with your will, vision and wisdom," adding that nuclear weapons should be banned.

The Dalai Lama’s sentiments are not shared by the Pope Francis, however, who has repeatedly dismissed suggestions that he is a communist. Earlier this week, the Pope again defended his economic and social ideologies by saying they are rooted in the Christian faith, not Marxism.

"As we can see, this concern for the poor is in the gospel, it is within the tradition of the church, it is not an invention of communism and it must not be turned into some ideology, as has sometimes happened before in the course of history," he said in an interview taken from This Economy Kills, a book of his teachings set for release in Italian this week.

One critic, American radio host Rush Lambaugh, has referred to the Pope’s views on poverty and growing inequality as “pure Marxism”.

There are currently rumours circulating that the Dalai Lama will be making an appearance at the UK's Glastonbury Festival in June 2015. Despite an announcement being made on his official site in early January 2015 announcing his attendance, the post was quickly deleted and the organisers have refused to comment.

Source:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/i-am-marxist-says-dalai-lama-as-he-laments-growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor/comments/#disqus

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fuZKF05cZls/0.jpg

[Fortis in Arduis]

The Dalai Lama is saying that he is a theoretical Marxist, and not a follower of Lenin. That is a perfectly respectable position.

As for the Pope and Rush Limbaugh; it is so typical of so many Americans to wrongly label concern about inequality and the poor as "Marxist". As the Pope says, it is not an invention of communism, and Roman Catholicism's best expression on political economy has been Distributism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).


Distributism is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno.

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership. Co-operative economist Race Mathews, argues such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.

Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative. Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".

Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism. Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, the Chesterbelloc, two of distributism's earliest and strongest proponents.

More recently Pope Francis has brought distributism back into discussion, denouncing unfettered capitalism as tyranny in his 84-page apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium:

Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills... A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which has taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits.

I certainly do not see "pure Marxism" in Distributist ideology, but I do see a lot of good, and Rush Limbaugh and those like him ought not to deliberately mislead and misinform with that type of sensationalism.

[Ibericus]

He also once said that too much immigration in Europe was not good.

[zhaoyun]

Many religious tenets from a wide variety of religions are in line with Marxism, the emphasis on selflessness, devotion to the community and group, spreading the wealth, caring for the poor and underclass, etc.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

He also once said that too much immigration in Europe was not good.

Smart man.

[oh-nahhh]

Groucho Marxist.

[Shah-Jehan]

Even though, today the Dalai Lama claims to be freedom loving and all that, the historical Dalai Lama position has always been autocratic.

[Leto]

He also once said that too much immigration in Europe was not good.
The Archbishop of York John Sentamu has also criticized multiculturalism in Britain. He is originally from Uganda.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/22/britishidentity.religion

[Tooting Carmen]

Many religious tenets from a wide variety of religions are in line with Marxism, the emphasis on selflessness, devotion to the community and group, spreading the wealth, caring for the poor and underclass, etc.

They are not bad things in and of themselves, but only in moderation. They must not become the be all and end all of life, and must be tempered by a strong emphasis and protection of individual rights and freedoms. Anyway, regarding the OP, while the Dalai Lama does have some good points, at the same time what he is saying is ridiculously over-simplistic, hippyish and almost puerile. For example, discrimination against women occurs among the rich as well as among the poor, and would not disappear were socioeconomic inequalities to be remedied. Indeed, in India's case, there is evidence that middle-class parents are even more culpable of sex-selective abortions than are working-class parents, because they generally want smaller families and would still prefer to have a son rather than a daughter, and they usually use private rather than public clinics, where doctors are more willing to flout the law regarding gender screening.

[SupaThug]

I pitty him.Marxists have a sad life.

[Grenzland]

The only problem is: Marxism is worthless without Leninism or something that adds more substance to the theories. Also and and again:

Not all the predictions of Marx came true, sometimes even the completely opposite happened.


You don't need Marx to be anti-capitalistic, there always were other movements.

[SupaThug]

The only problem is: Marxism is worthless without Leninism or something that adds more substance to the theories. Also and and again:

Not all the predictions of Marx came true, sometimes even the completely opposite happened.


You don't need Marx to be anti-capitalistic, there always were other movements.

Being anti-capitalistic is one of the most worthless things you can do.

[zhaoyun]

They are not bad things in and of themselves, but only in moderation. They must not become the be all and end all of life, and must be tempered by a strong emphasis and protection of individual rights and freedoms. Anyway, regarding the OP, while the Dalai Lama does have some good points, at the same time what he is saying is ridiculously over-simplistic, hippyish and almost puerile. For example, discrimination against women occurs among the rich as well as among the poor, and would not disappear were socioeconomic inequalities to be remedied. Indeed, in India's case, there is evidence that middle-class parents are even more culpable of sex-selective abortions than are working-class parents, because they generally want smaller families and would still prefer to have a son rather than a daughter, and they usually use private rather than public clinics, where doctors are more willing to flout the law regarding gender screening.

A lot of the image of the Dalai Lama in the Western media is more of a pop media sensation. He's very different in regards to his own people, far more conservative and more of a reactionary figure like the pope than some hippie progressive.

[Tooting Carmen]

A lot of the image of the Dalai Lama in the Western media is more of a pop media sensation. He's very different in regards to his own people, far more conservative and more of a reactionary figure like the pope than some hippie progressive.

He's one of those people who human rights activists treat as absolutely sacrosanct, alongside people such as Aung San Suu Kyi, Rigoberta Menchu, the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, Ken Sarowiwa and Andrei Sakharov.

[Grenzland]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange_Española_y_de_las_JONS

Those guys for example.

They are anti-capitalists and still anti-communists. No need for Marx.

[zhaoyun]

He's one of those people who human rights activists treat as absolutely sacrosanct, alongside people such as Aung San Suu Kyi, Rigoberta Menchu, the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, Ken Sarowiwa and Andrei Sakharov.

Treating any human being as sacrosanct or unquestionable is the first step towards despotism. Never a good idea by any measure. Human beings have flaws.

[Tooting Carmen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange_Española_y_de_las_JONS

Those guys for example.

They are anti-capitalists and still anti-communists. No need for Marx.

Not such a pleasant example, to say the least. What about Greens?

[Grenzland]

Not such a pleasant example, to say the least. What about Greens?

Why not?

Greens aren't really anticapitalists. Like the Social Democrats.

[Anthropos]

Pope makes sense in the original post. Limbaugh and Lama don't, in my opinion.

[Tooting Carmen]

Why not?

Greens aren't really anticapitalists. Like the Social Democrats.

They are anti-capitalist by contemporary standards at least. Anyway, Falangists were a bunch of theocratic and misogynistic Catholic reactionaries, so I have no time for them.

[Pongi]

It's quite interesting, because I consider myself as a Buddhist, as religion and philosophy of life, but also communist, as political and social system and theory.

[Herr Abubu]

Marx was never anti-capitalist. Marx was as pro-capitalism as one could get.

[Dick]

Marx was never anti-capitalist. Marx was as pro-capitalism as one could get.

Indeed. Capitalism was the step to an official communist state in his manifesto. Probably why communism failed in Russia and elsewhere. They went from monarchism to communism without the capitalist wealth to maintain the state.

[Óttar]

Even though, today the Dalai Lama claims to be freedom loving and all that, the historical Dalai Lama position has always been autocratic.
I read a book about the history of the Dalai Lamas. The Dalai Lama was the Tibetans' supreme war-chief, and I was amazed at how many times in history the Tibetans absolutely PWNED the Chinese in battle. It is really too bad that modern China is going to wipe out Tibet.

[Herr Abubu]

Indeed. Capitalism was the step to an official communist state in his manifesto. Probably why communism failed in Russia and elsewhere. They went from monarchism to communism without the capitalist wealth to maintain the state.

Yup. People don't realize that his views were pretty much what we would call libertarian. You even just has to look at the people who inspired his economic work the most, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, to understand that Marx is just another bourgeois intellectual. But, more importantly, he usurped and subverted the socialist movement, which had many good elements. During the First International, someone mentioned having the workers lead the communist movement. Marx was fuming and hyperventilating about it. He was pacing around like a madman at the very thought of it, he went apeshit at the thought. Bakhunin accused Marx of being in the pockets of the Rothschilds, and for a very good reason (http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-BakuninonMarxRothschild.htm). Marxism has, from Marx, been a capitalist ideology, because Capital is behind it. Capital financed the Bolsheviks. Trotsky was an enormously wealthy man, although he never held a job in his life and was the son of a railroad worker. The same is true for Marx, who somehow married into nobility and lived a materially comfortable life with servants and everything although he had no job.

[Shah-Jehan]

I read a book about the history of the Dalai Lamas. The Dalai Lama was the Tibetans' supreme war-chief, and I was amazed at how many times in history the Tibetans absolutely PWNED the Chinese in battle. It is really too bad that modern China is going to wipe out Tibet.

It's probably because of Tibet's location. Due to being a very mountainous region (the highest place in the world), they would always have an advantage against invading armies. The CCP actually has been detrimental to a lot of authentic Chinese culture as well, and has instead instilled communism as a tenet of being Chinese. But, Tibet as an autonomous region will stay culturally secure. Also, Tibet doesn't have as much natural resources, so there's no large scale forms of settlement like there has been in Xinjiang, besides some Hui from the north, even though minor has led to contentions among Tibetans. Also, Tibetan culture would de facto, survive in Southern Asia, with the Tibetan refugees in India/Nepal, as well as Tibetan-origin cultures such as Bhutan, Ladakh, Baltistan, parts of Nepal, Sikkim etc.

[Ziveth]

Oh, he is marxist? I didn't know that
Anyway he lives in China and it's a country much influenced by communism indeed