May 21, 2010

"Still I am a Marxist..."

... says the Dalai Lama, conceding that capitalism has done China some good: "Millions of people's living standards improved." Marxism remains dear to him because it has "moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits." Only. Only improving the lives of millions.

(Also posted at Instapundit.)

***

The Dalai Lama also cited the election of Barack Obama as a sign that "human beings being more mature."

101 comments:

Dark Eden said...

So which is better? A plan with the best intentions in the world that leads to madness and millions of deaths?

Or a plan that is neutral on intentions which leads to freedom and prosperity the likes of which the world has never known?

Apparently a lot of people would choose being seen as doing good but doing evil vs being seen as doing evil but doing good. Even the Dalai Lama.

Paul Snively said...

Proving once again that "moral leader" and "economically ignorant" are an oxymoron.

James said...

Hmmmm...yet that other Marxist showed him out through the back door near the trash cans.

Paul Snively said...

What's especially sad is that all you need to do to correct this is read Adam Smith's precursor to "On the Wealth of Nations," The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

dbp said...

With capitalism, you only make a profit when you offer something consumers want to buy.

The capitalist may not care in his heart about his customers, but must understand them well enough to offer something that they will want.

traditionalguy said...

The religion of the Dalai Lama sees a perfect world where everybody sits at home with cross legs and acetically meditates. Capitalism rewards working (a/k/a profits). The profits of capitalism are used for helping others and for pleasures, both of which are hateful to Dalai Lamas. He mentions that Obama also has "matured" to say he hates profits...so much that he declares that he owns control of all profits thus causing everybody to sit at home, learn Yoga, and meditate.

Kohath said...

What good is improving people's living standards if you can't personally feel morally righteous in the process?

Isn't that what being a spiritual leader is about: advancing your own personal moral authority at the expense of millions of people? What did you think it was about? Helping them?

That may be good for the millions of people, but let's be realistic. He has himself to worry about.

mesquito said...

I expect, forthwith, a stirring and vehement denunciation from Bill Maher.

Roger J. said...

The Dalai Lama appears to a twit.

Adam said...

The poor man doesn't seem to know about teachable moments. Must be what happens when you're born with all the answers. Here's the information staring him in the face:

Asked why tickets to his lectures are selling for as much as hundreds of dollars, the Dalai Lama said none of the money went to him personally.

"You should ask the organiser. I have no connection."

He said he was "always asking the organiser: tickets must be cheap. For myself, I've never accepted a single dollar like that."

Some of the money goes to charities, such as hunger relief, he said.


This fellow thinks that it would be more ethical to sell tickets to his show at well-below-market prices, perhaps even giving them away, than to charge what the market will bear. It never occurs to him to ask who would gain admission to his show, and how they would do it, if admission were underpriced. Perhaps he thinks that camping out on 6th Avenue overnight would be good for the soul, I don't know. But what's worse is that he seems to think that greater good would be achieved that way than by generating as much revenue from people who voluntarily give it up, and then distributing the proceeds to the charities he deems most worthy.

Free tix to see Hello, Dalai, or hundreds of thousands of dollars to Haitian relief? Why is that a hard question?

2yellowdogs said...

So, D-Lam, Marxism has lead to the subjucation and murder of tens of millions all over the world, not to mention environmental degradation that would make a Sierra Clubber tear his pony tail off.

The evil capitalism has raised the living standards and resulted in free societies for hundreds of millions world wide.

And yet you still call yourself a Marxist. I think we know all we need to know now. So, why are you always fighting with the Chinese regime again?

Paul Snively said...

Adam: Free tix to see Hello, Dalai, or hundreds of thousands of dollars to Haitian relief? Why is that a hard question?

Adam... er, Smith? Is that you? :-)

Regardless, you win the thread!

Word verification: forcess. Being made to take recess against your will.

As my whimsy leads me.. said...

This is bizarre. Isn't this the same Marxism that is responsible for 200 million deaths in the 20th century? Compared to higher living standards with capitalism? What moral standards?

He did say not too long ago that he loved George W. Bush.

Toy

Hagar said...

But Karl Marx stated that, personally, he was not a "marxist."

Kirby Olson said...

If he didn't just believe in turning the other cheek and being a sweet child his country might have had a military so that he didn't need bailing out.

What a Neanderthal.

Buddhist countries all over Asia are stupid countries: Myanmar is a total mess. They are all a total mess.


None of them function to any degree. They're like a bunch of mindless hippies stoned on their stupid thinking.

jayne_cobb said...

Capitalism's biggest weakness has always been the fact that it doesn't give one warm and fuzzy feelings.

William said...

Controlled lab experiment: In Taiwan, under fascist, capitalist rulers, a small island with no resources save the industry of its people evolves into a prosperous democracy. In China, under idealistic, communist leaders a similar people devolve into famine, madness, and murder....It is depressing beyond words that someoneo as seemingly well intentioned as the Dalai Lama whose person, religion, and people have suffered so much under the communists cannot see the downside of Marxism.

mesquito said...

I always detected a whiff of smug self-congratulation from American Bhuddists. I had no idea it was doctrine.

jayne_cobb said...

Anyway, I think I'll just throw up a C.S. Lewis quote to basically sum up my opinion on the subject of creating govts on the basis of empathy:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Roger J. said...

Kirby Olsen--generally agree with your thinking about countries, but how do you explain Phil Jackson? :)

Oh yeah--Shaq and Kobe :)

bagoh20 said...

Some people are real slow learners. Thing is, there no room for his kind kind in a Marxist world either, unless he expects to be in the ruling class, as I'm sure he does.

I see a glorified unemployed child living in his parents basement, yet preaching to them how to live. There have been a lot more than 14 of these guys.

edutcher said...

It would appear he needs to get out of the mountains more. As a kid (50s), I seem to remember his predecessor trying to get the world to take an interest in the oppression of his people by the Red Chinese. Could it be the boys in the Forbidden City had a hand in selecting this particular Lama?

Adam said...

...

Free tix to see Hello, Dalai, or hundreds of thousands of dollars to Haitian relief?

He is the last of the red hot llamas.

(Well, everybody else is doing it!)

J said...

Because forcibly imposing poverty, misery and death on millions of people is OK if your heart is in the right place. And you value your own personal sanctimony over anything else.

Very depressing. What a scumbag.

GMay said...

Who'da thunk the Dalai Lama was a tool.

J said...

Did anybody mention to the Lama that without his capitalist patrons he'd have been executed a long time ago?

Shanna said...

So as long as motives are pure, we shouldn't worry about results (even if they result in misery for millions). Is that the gist?

Lem said...

Morality & Capitalism

AllenS said...

I ain't buyin', what the Dalai Lama's sellin'. That's how capitalism works, Dolly.

Kirby Olson said...

Roger J: good point. It's Kobe that's winning all the games, and he's not exactly a redistributionist. He does pass, but not in tight moments when they need two or three point. Then he capitalizes with everything he's got.

It's going to be interesting to see Kobe and Paul Pierce duke it oiut again in the finals. They are both no-holds-barred thugs.

Capitalism at its purest.

I doubt if there are any Buddhists in any competitive sport unless you including curling.

Michael in ArchDen said...

Big hitter, the Lama...

dbp said...

In a rational world, claiming you're a Marxist should have the same effect on your social standing as claiming you are a NAZI.

Kirby Olson said...

I can't imagine any Buddhist winning any of the Olympic sports unless they include self-immolation.

(my last verification was reincarnation, and this one is cycle. Sometimes you have to wonder.)

Buddhism is just plain stupid. I assume that with someone like Phil J. it works because the man is so hypertrophied in the competitive sense that it actually keeps him from biting his players' necks, and punching out the refs, which is a good thing overall?

But it turns the people in the countries in which it's dominant into marshmallows of la la land.

PatCA said...

I saw him once in person. I thought he was a doofus--he made jokes about good looking women! That was it.

Daniel said...

dbp, what was that was "produced" and "consumed" to generate profits way beyond GDP growth in the financial sector in the past 30 years?

Also, I hope everyone who's piling on here knows that they're being just as simplistic as the Dalai Lama. Just out of curiosity, did the giant financial crisis we just had, the one that made Alan Greenspan question his assumptions about the fundamental nature of rational economic action, and which seemed to nearly break global capitalism, make anyone BLINK here? Even just a hint of questioning your beliefs? Or is it that easy to fall right into defense mode when a religious leader questions capitalism (not exactly the most surprising or unprecedented move from the religious community)?

Joe said...

He speaks more truth than he realizes. The government he represents and wants to restore is historically among the most vile and oppressive.

The Dalai Lama is a self-righteous moronic twit and it's about time everyone finally see him for what he is.

Lem said...

"Still I am a Marxist," the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said in New York, where he arrived today with an entourage of robed monks and a heavy security detail to give a series of paid public lectures.

Thats marxist with a very small m ;)

Lem said...

The Dalai Lama is a bitter clinger.. to marxism ;)

bagoh20 said...

"In a rational world, claiming you're a Marxist should have the same effect on your social standing as claiming you are a NAZI."

It should be the worst thing you could be. Marxists are the greatest murderers in history by many times, in addition to being abject failures. Despite that, many on the left just see them as overzealous purists. Even those who would never accept an association with Marxism, don't really have a hatred for the ideology that killed tens of millions in a short 50 year period well within memory of living people. I just don't get how you could hate Nazi's and find Marxist just eccentric.

Expat(ish) said...

And yet he charges to make appearances.

Hmmmmm.

-C

traditionalguy said...

The Cambodian killing fields were a result of this mixing of Marxism ( that plans to change the world by destroying life as currently practiced with the replacement rule by steel Commissars) with the Buddhist teachings that say every life has its special karma and that no one else should stop that by aiding them. Ergo, the death of millions of innocent people at the hands of Communists is just karma happening and therefore as meaningless as all life.

ricpic said...

A starving peasant is so much more, um...authentic than a well fed peasant.

BAS said...

Wow, does he not realize that marxism is atheist? Does he not have a religious equivalent in his religion, such as giving charity, helping your neighbor or friend? Or is he just illiterate?

Paul said...

"Because forcibly imposing poverty, misery and death on millions of people is OK if your heart is in the right place. And you value your own personal sanctimony over anything else."

Valuing one's personal sanctimony above all else ensures one's heart is NOT in the right place but allows that fact to remain obscured to oneself.

This is why leftists currently are so hateful and vicious (and historically so murderous and democidal) while remaining convinced of their superior moral rectitude.

It is a truly schizoid state of being.

dbp said...

Daniel,

I don't understand your question:

"...profits way beyond GDP growth in the financial sector in the past 30 years?"

Why would profits in any one company or even sector of the economy be expected to scale with GDP growth?

Big Mike said...

Still he is a Marxist?

Then still he is a fool.

AllenS said...

Lem said...
"The Dalai Lama is a bitter clinger..."

Good one.

roesch-voltaire said...

I think that he is focusing on that part of Marxism which idealistically wants to eliminate exploitation and compassion for people and not the historical realities where the State/party becomes the elite ruling class as in China for example. His goals of inner peace and harmony are not necessarily linked to material wealth; therefore I guess he is a twit with a different kind of wisdom than is usually privileged by free market materialism.
But must say that having traveled to a number of countries where large numbers may consider themselves Buddhist such as Korea, and Japan, I find them no more messy or stupid than the Italians who have a problem of picking up garbage.

Paul Snively said...

Daniel: Also, I hope everyone who's piling on here knows that they're being just as simplistic as the Dalai Lama. Just out of curiosity, did the giant financial crisis we just had, the one that made Alan Greenspan question his assumptions about the fundamental nature of rational economic action, and which seemed to nearly break global capitalism, make anyone BLINK here? Even just a hint of questioning your beliefs? Or is it that easy to fall right into defense mode when a religious leader questions capitalism (not exactly the most surprising or unprecedented move from the religious community)?

That might sting, if what we had here was capitalism.

Scott M said...

My memory is a bit foggy. Can anyone remember two capitalist countries going to war against each other recently? Does Argentina and GB count?

Paul Zrimsek said...

The difference between people who say "Still, I am a Marxist" and "Still, I am a Nazi" isn't how they behave-- it's how they're treated.

Kirby Olson said...

Let's not forget the larger context. The DL is not necessarily being truthful. He's sucking up to the people who own his country so that they will speak to him again at some point.

He's a tricky little fellow, the DL.

He hasn't survived this long as purely a dunce.

jayne_cobb said...

Lyssa,

Be fair now.

It is perfectly fine to compare a recession with the murder of tens of millions of people; they're practically the same thing.

Why just last week I told someone whose father had died that I understood their pain as I had just lost a $20 bill.

Thorley Winston said...

Just out of curiosity, did the giant financial crisis we just had, the one that made Alan Greenspan question his assumptions about the fundamental nature of rational economic action, and which seemed to nearly break global capitalism, make anyone BLINK here? Even just a hint of questioning your beliefs?


Since I’ve never believed that it is the proper role of government to (a) pressure people into making foolish choices or (b) bail them out when the consequences of those choices materialize at (c) the expense of people who make wise choices, I don’t see much about the financial crisis that calls my beliefs into question.

mikeski said...

Big hitter, the Lama. Long.

Blue@9 said...

What are "moral ethics"? Is it like ethical morals? Are there immoral ethics? Or unethical morals? Quick, say it five times in a row really fast, "Moral ethics, ethical morals."

edutcher said...

BAS said...

Wow, does he not realize that marxism is atheist? Does he not have a religious equivalent in his religion, such as giving charity, helping your neighbor or friend? Or is he just illiterate?

IIRC, Buddhism is also, technically. It relies on the teachings of Buddha, but attributes
no divinity to him. It's really more of a philosophy than a religion, similar to Taoism.

PS If anyone knows more on the subject, I will be happily enlightened.

Daniel said...

dbp, if the finance industry is disconnected from the basic production and consumption of the economy, that means its profits are ultimately not real. A good measure of that is that disconnect was its pace of growth, which far exceeded the "real" parts of the economy. Think about the tech bubble -- there were huge profits there, but the market value of tech startups was far beyond their actual income generating potential, and when that was realized, everything popped.

Snively, this gets to Ann's libertarian post last night and the one she linked to from a while ago. This is the capitalism we have (in fact, had before the crisis, aka before Obama turned it into socialism or whatever). You can't hide behind some theoretical capitalism that doesn't exist.

Blue@9 said...

The DL and other Buddhists thrive in the West because Buddhism seems exotic and so untouched by the corruption and doctrinal morass of organized Western religions. But for people born in Asia, it's just another big and corrupt church.

Paul Zrimsek said...

One good question for the deep, soulful thinkers to ponder would be: how many 2008 crises would it take to impoverish this country to the same extent that Marxism would?

Daniel said...

They provided services which allowed millions of people the capital to pursue their interests, start businesses, purchase homes, and create and produce many, many other things.

I'm not questioning the need for or benefit of a financial industry. I'm saying that those activities don't create the kind of profits that the financial industry was generating -- and the popping of the financial bubble CLEARLY proves me correct.

B) Are you really comparing the atrocities that have occurred under virtually every full on socialist regime to what happened in our financial sector? Really?

Lyssa, if I were arguing like you, I would just say that those other regimes weren't practicing true socialism. But I'm not, nor am I talking about political rights under past/existing socialist regimes, or any other kind of regimes for that matter.

Blue@9 said...

Daniel:
"dbp, what was that was "produced" and "consumed" to generate profits way beyond GDP growth in the financial sector in the past 30 years?"

Efficient allocation of capital is nearly as important as getting the right talent and raw materials when operating a business.

Marxists and liberals never seem to understand that, thinking that money will magically go to the right place if you put enough smart people in committees to make such decisions.

Go to Huffpo and you will see that the vast majority of people there really think that bankers and lawyers and other "rich professions" only exist for self-enrichment. In reality, there are large swaths of our economy that are simply devoted to making sure that the other parts run smoothly. It's why we have so many lawyers and bankers about. Lawyers get shot in Marxist countries because in their minds, truth comes from an old book, not from actual facts on the ground. But in capitalist systems we understand that lawyers are needed to smooth over the friction that arises from the daily interactions of human beings. But try explaining the the function of a lawyer or banker to a Marxist, and chances are you'll end up against the wall with them.

Marxism--an anti-intellectual and anti-realist religion that nonetheless pretends to have science on its side.

Alex said...

Daniel is showing complete and total ignorance of why the 2008 meltdown happened. Blame Barney Frank.

Alex said...

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Congressional interference with the mortgage market. Show me unfettered capitalism and you will not see meltdowns.

Daniel said...

Blue@9, you're spouting theory when you have massive evidence of the failure of market allocation sitting right in front of you. What happens when a large swath of our economy dedicated to helping the rest of it run smoothly totally fails and nearly brings the rest of us down with it?

Marxists and liberals, Al Qaeda and Saddam, conservatives and child molesters -- see, you don't have to say they're the same to associate them.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Blue@9, you're spouting theory when you're in the presence of an Oracle who knows, just by looking, how much money bankers ought to be making. Wassamatta you?

Calypso Facto said...

Ahh, the Lama's been reading Althouse again:

"A few years ago, I was at a conference with capitalists, and I was confronted with exactly this point of view. I expressed my concern that they were putting an extreme and abstract idea above things that really matter in the world. I challenged them — in what I thought was a friendly conversation — to explain to me how I could know that their commitment to the extreme abstraction did not, in fact, have an origin in elitism. Which came first, the proud defense of private property or the shameful prejudices that polite people don't admit to anymore?"

GMay said...

"you're spouting theory when you have massive evidence of the failure of market allocation sitting right in front of you."

Alex already succinctly addressed this. The financial industry was not the root cause. The government created artificial markets and the financial industry tried playing around with it.

The sad thing is, all those toxic assets (ultimately created by the government) are still out there, except this time they're in the hands of a government that's flat broke and shows no signs of being profitable for generations.

Daniel said...

This comes down to a faith based discussion. I very much agree that there were state policies that contributed to the meltdown -- but that includes lack of regulation, not just regulation. The free market does not exist without the government. Which means that no matter what happens, you can always blame the government. Which you do. Which is faith based. And that's where real conversation ends, and we get quips from Alex.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Daniel, I agree that Alex is a moron who adds nothing to any discussion. However, this is not a faith based discussion unless you are completely ignoring all of the world's experiences. Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism, while far from perfect, does. It makes life a heck of a lot better for all who live within it. That's not faith, that's reality.

What happened in the market sucks (believe me, I'm living it by trying to find a job right now). But it knocked us down to pretty much European standards, not to anywhere near the devastation that socialistic policies have caused the world over.

Chip Ahoy said...

Qu'est-ce qu'un sac de douche

A friend of mine finds him "enlightened" and hangs on his every word.

Cover your spindly arms goddamnit it's embarrassing.

He also finds Carter the best president of his lifetime. I suppose that place will be taken by Obama. He's resolutely impervious to reason.

Daniel said...

Lyssa writes:

Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism, while far from perfect, does. It makes life a heck of a lot better for all who live within it. That's not faith, that's reality.

I completely agree with this. My problem is uncritical acceptance of everything capitalist, not rejection of socialism.

jgm said...

Peacejam, Denver, 2006.

(Sorry for the lonewacko-like self-linkaging; nobody else covered it with any cynicism whatever.) Marxists and pacifists. True love, until, of course, it's time for the killin'.

Walter said...

I've known he's been a Marxist going on 30 years now the minute I heard that he didn't tip Carl Spackler jack diddly.

GMay said...

"Which means that no matter what happens, you can always blame the government. Which you do."

If I understand the Capitalist response to this, the market is perfectly capable of screwing itself up without government help. Many Libertarians and Conservatives often attribute downturns to the market. So I'm not really sure where you're getting this "you always do" thing.

Actually, basic free market philosophy expects cyclic downturns. Sadly the government got its fingers too far in the mortgage industry and overmanipulated on too many levels. This turned a routine cyclic downturn into the mess we have today. Along with the Treasury selling debt to the Fed. Which is fairly insane when you think about it.

Then to make matters worse, the market wasn't allowed to correct, the government simply rewarded failure by bailing the Financial Industry out. People then got pissed about executive bonuses, which amounted to a couple of cents on a hundred dollar bill, while the real money went who knows where.

And now the Fed owns most, if not all, of those toxic assets - the root cause that Fannie and Freddie helped to create.

So personally, I don't blame government all the time, but in this crash, they were the main ones responsible.

Paul Snively said...

Daniel: This is the capitalism we have (in fact, had before the crisis, aka before Obama turned it into socialism or whatever). You can't hide behind some theoretical capitalism that doesn't exist.

Er, no. The system is called "Mercantilism," has been the dominant economic system throughout much of world in the post-agrarian era, and is in fact the system that capitalism arose to supplant. Adam Smith discusses it extensively in "The Wealth of Nations," and goes so far as to point out--correctly, because human nature hasn't changed--that some of capitalism's biggest proponents become mercantilist just as soon as they acquire something resembling a monopoly position. The modern popular expression of this is "capitalist on the way up; socialist on the way down." It's slightly inaccurate insofar as there are significant differences between socialism and mercantilism, but it does reflect that both feature state control over the means of production, as does fascism, albeit indirectly.

So if you wish to rail about the failures of mercantilism, by all means, please do, and I'll gladly join you. But you don't get to claim that what's being discussed is "theoretical capitalism" when it has both actually existed and is defined in terms of features whose presence or absence are observable in any given political/economic context. "Capitalism," "Socialism," "Mercantilism," and "Fascism" are technical terms in spite of their being bandied about by people who are almost entirely ignorant of them.

cathy said...

Don't see any reason to even try to reason with this statement. I respected him as the leader of a viable religion. Should I just drop him, or the whole religion? This is depressing.

Daniel said...

Paul, I'll agree with this:

"Capitalism," "Socialism," "Mercantilism," and "Fascism" are technical terms in spite of their being bandied about by people who are almost entirely ignorant of them.

Unfortunately, I have to lump you in with the bandiers. We do NOT have a mercantilist system. Not close. Though I am glad that you read 200 year old literature about it (as did everyone else).

holdfast said...

If he's such a happy Marxist, then why doesn't he shut up about the PRC occupation of his country, and why should we give a damn? Let the commies have at each other - hardly my problem.

Paul Snively said...

Daniel: Unfortunately, I have to lump you in with the bandiers. We do NOT have a mercantilist system. Not close. Though I am glad that you read 200 year old literature about it (as did everyone else).

Don't tell me; let me guess: you think that because our system is not attempting to encourage export of material goods that it isn't Mercantilist. Similarly, some argue that our system can't be Fascist absent nationalism supported by militarism. The error in both cases is to reduce the definition of Mercantilism or Fascism to a single property, possibly coupled with a lack of abstraction. For example, our Mercantilist system doesn't emphasize the export of material goods--instead, it emphasizes the export of our reserve currency. The policy choices in either case resemble each other quite closely.

The value in being familiar with the literature from 200 years ago, as well as from other periods of time, is that it helps precisely in identifying what the constants are, as opposed to lapsing into incessant hair-splitting neologisms.

None of this is to say that there aren't other interesting differences between classical Mercantilism and our implementation of Mercantilism. If you have others in mind, I look forward to learning about them.

veni vidi vici said...

Human beings more mature because they recognize the Dalai Lama isn't that special, as expressed through their election of a president who makes DL exit through the back door by the garbage cans.

I understand the meta-ness of his thinking.


wv: "rhuntame" -- for those who can't rhun wild.

Skookum John said...

You know what? Fuck him. After all that the capitalist democracies have done for him? Fuck him, the ignorant ingrate.

I wish he were being tortured in a fucking lao gai right fucking now. With Noam Chomsky, Woody Allen, and my high school history teacher waiting their turn in the hallway outside.

Blue Collar Todd said...

I suggest he read Darkness At Noon. He may find that Marxism is utilitarian and views the individual as a means to an end. That is not exhibiting "moral ethics". No spiritual leader who avows Marxism ought to be called "His Holiness" or looked upon as being spiritual. For Marxism is a materialistic philosophy that despises religion. So from now on I will call him Mr. Lama.

knox said...

With capitalism, you only make a profit when you offer something consumers want to buy.

Yes. How did the willing exchange of goods/services/money get such a bad rap?

knox said...

He better vocally support Leftism, or he will lose all his popularity and support from the media.

Synova said...

Eastern mysticism tends toward the moral purity/physical suffering thing, doesn't it?

Also, there is the difference between a personal economic policy and advocating that policy for everyone else. For example, Christianity is sometimes linked with communal lifestyles... totally different than imposing communism on everyone.

Synova said...

As for tickets to see the Dalai Lama... how irresponsible is it for him not to know where the money goes? Facilities don't come free, his hotel and air travel and veggie meals don't come free... but how does it get moral to manufacture your own ignorance?

Paul Snively said...

Synova: As for tickets to see the Dalai Lama... how irresponsible is it for him not to know where the money goes? Facilities don't come free, his hotel and air travel and veggie meals don't come free... but how does it get moral to manufacture your own ignorance?

Exactly. Claiming moral wisdom while being economically ignorant is literally oxymoronic, since economics deals with the allocation of limited resources, which has an ineluctably moral dimension, something that has been recognized for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

AJ Lynch said...

I bet Dali flies first class.

Juba Doobai! said...

I'm glad for the Dalai Lama. It was that maturity that was responsible for him exiting the WH via the trash route. It would be nice if he would stick to Marxism and not enjoy the benefits that capitalism has given to him. But then, hypocrisy is the strong suit of Marxists and other liberals.

wwinfrey said...

Finally, a good reason to hate the Dalai Lama as much as the Chi-Coms do! After all, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a man who has spent his whole life fighting for the non-violent restoration of an independent Tibet to be an expert on economic theory as well. Now that it's clear he's not, I look forward to adding him to my roster of Straw Men to sneer at during the hour of hate. Besides, even though he's an exiled head of state, he's a massive hypocrite for not flying coach and allowing people to use his talks as charity events.

Why, he's an even bigger hypocrite than a law professor at a public university constantly pushing the market's hidden hand as a cure-all.

The important thing is, this man who is admired by so many liberals said something stupid, thus proving that all liberals are stupid.

el polacko said...

it has long baffled me why anyone pays any attention to what this giggly spouter of greeting-card-quality 'wisdom' has to say about anything.

Dr Zen said...

"it has long baffled me why anyone pays any attention to what this giggly spouter of greeting-card-quality 'wisdom' has to say about anything"

I think it's because she's blonde and the desperate keyboard commandos who frequent this blog hope she'll one day post tit pics.

rogerz said...

To the contention that it was capitalism that caused the financial crisis, I offer: Chapter 12, Code of Federal Regulations.

Joe said...

it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a man who has spent his whole life fighting for the non-violent restoration of an independent Tibet...

Except that's a load of crap at many levels. The Dalai Lama is a hypocrite--he fought a war with the support of the CIA. He supports the extremely violent repression of Buddhist sects of which he doesn't approve. When in charge, his sect was extremely repressive of the Tibetan people. Under the Chinese, life expectancy has nearly doubled. Moreover, Tibet was never truly independent. Finally, what gives the Dalai Lama the right to rule anyway? He wasn't elected--he and his people were vile dictators and oppressors.

wwinfrey said...

@Joe - the Chinese Central Committee of Propaganda couldn't have said it any better! You are a true revolutionary, comrade.

The Crack Emcee said...

Dark Eden,

"A lot of people would choose being seen as doing good but doing evil vs being seen as doing evil but doing good. Even the Dalai Lama."

Welcome to the NewAge.

Methadras said...

Another reason why I detest this overly popular man-baby for the supposed and wondrous piety he seemingly possesses. You're a Marxist Llama because you are a moron. My dog is smarter than you are.

jr565 said...

It's funny how one marxist could find so much in Obama to admire. I dn't think he would have such feelings if Obama were say a free market capitalist. So he, like so many others (Castro, Chavez etc.) must find something in Obama that appeals to their marxist tendencies.
Not calling him a Marxist, just saying that an awful lot of Marxists seem to be finding things in Obama that appeals to their marxist/socialist sensibilities.

By the way, wasn't Obama the guy that decided not to see the Dalai Lama recently? Guess the Dalai Lama doesn't rate.

jr565 said...

For such a marxist he's written an awful lot of books,

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=daila+lama&x=0&y=0

it looks like he's learned the value of marketing himself as an icon/product, which sounds sort of capitalist to me. But I'm sure those books weren't soldfor dollars, but rather given to people based on their need.

jim said...

More evidence that mysticism causes brain-damage. A "Marxist" who's fighting against Marxists in order to return his country to theocratic feudalism? Sounds just about as brilliant as "keep the Government's hands off my Medicare." Actually, given his actual political endgame, the DL should be getting serious buku support from the Moral Majority - & for all I know, he is.

As for the legendary failure of socialism - I think you might want to tell that to people in South America or much of Europe sometime. Yeah, it's such a disaster for those millions of poor starving Danes, Finns & Swedes! How can the world stand idly by & watch their horrific suffering without doing SOMETHING to end their misery?

Anyone else notice how utterly invisible South America has been in the MSM for the last several years, despite the made-for-TeeVee real-life drama of long-suffering masses courageously making a massive historic move away from corporatist death-squad juntas? OOPS, sorry, wrong narrative!

Geopolitics 101: Watch what happens to its US aid if/when Colombia goes hard-socialist & boots out all the drug-cartel cronies in their government. Meanwhile, note how year in & year out, the world's biggest army somehow perpetually fails to so much as slow down the river of opium pouring through of the Khyber Pass, just like all the previous identical "failures" in Iran - or Central America - or Indochina.

CAPITALISM, FUCK YEAH!

Jim said...

Having travelled and worked in the former Stalinist bloc I am somewhat amused by some of your comments. Not only do socialist countries often have higher levels of healthcare, life expectancy and social harmony, in short, a superior quality of life than the US; but even in the Hungary or Poland of 25 years ago I found much more free thinking than I often witness coming from the 'free-press' of the states.

Life expectancy, healthcare and crime have all worsened for many Eastern European states since the fall of the wall.

The sheer variety of government and social forms taken under the loose banner of Marxism has to be remembered also. The experience of the people of Bulgaria differed from the experience of a Romanian or Cuban or Chinese just as much as the experience of a German and an Argentinian.

Have you not ever considered the sheer amount of death and suffering that the British Empire inflicted on her colonies during the same period that the USSR existed? I suppose the wars of aggression that the US has undertaken are moral? Perhaps the dead Iraqis are happy because they were killed by capitalists?