"I am a marxist"-the Dalai Lama

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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”.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

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.

http://www.newsweek.com/i-am-marxist-says-dalai-lama-299598

 

[ORDER_66]

What's a marxist, again??? I havent heard that term used since high school...

 

[DEAD7]

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

 

[Mowgli]

What is Marxism under white supremacy

 

[EndDomination]

What is Marxism under white supremacy

Marxism under White supremacy is still Marxism, especially since it employs what would be a vast majority Indian support.
Most Tibetan Monks would be considered Marxists, their belief system just doesn't share the name.
Just like Malala Yousafzai, who also announced she was a Marxist before, they are quietly doing as much as they can to change this miserable condition.
Plus, I'm a Marxist myself so

 

[Mowgli]

Marxism under White supremacy is still Marxism, especially since it employs what would be a vast majority Indian support.
Most Tibetan Monks would be considered Marxists, their belief system just doesn't share the name.
Just like Malala Yousafzai, who also announced she was a Marxist before, they are quietly doing as much as they can to change this miserable condition.
Plus, I'm a Marxist myself so

So how can marxism combat white supremacy

 

[unit321]

So how can marxism combat white supremacy

It doesn't.
Marxism would be a way to even out socioeconomic divides, the rich, middle class and the poor. You would still have racism. If everyone was the same economic status, i.e. low income,. you would have poor white people still hating black, Asian and Hispanic poor people.

 

[Mowgli]

It doesn't.
Marxism would be a way to even out socioeconomic divides, the rich, middle class and the poor. You would still have racism. If everyone was the same economic status, i.e. low income,. you would have poor white people still hating black, Asian and Hispanic poor people.

And at the top you still have a small group of wealthy people who live by their own rules

 

[unit321]

And at the top you still have a small group of wealthy white people who live by their own rules

Fixed it for you, breh.

 

[Mowgli]

Fixed it for you, breh.

If anything marxism is the end game for the wealthy to finalize the consolidation of power. Not only do they have most the wealth and capital but they want the crumbs too and from that they'll divide the crumbs as they see fit.

This is a trash way to live unless you have some truly righteous people at the top

But we dont

 

[unit321]

If anything marxism is the end game for the wealthy to finalize the consolidation of power. Not only do they have most the wealth and capital but they want the crumbs too and from that they'll divide the crumbs as they see fit.

This is a trash way to live unless you have some truly righteous people at the top

But we dont

North Korea kind of played this out to a T.
All citizens are poor except for Kim Jong Il who lives in luxury and has all power.
There are no overweight people in the general population. Food and money is tightly allocated out so evenly, a North Korean citizen doesn't have enough extra money to buy more food to be a fat dude even if he wanted to be one.

 

[88m3]

I always knew there was something I disliked there more than religion...

 

[Jhoon]

No shock from me.

 

[JahFocus CS]

He is not a Marxist -- at best, he is a social democrat. He leads a movement which wants to restore feudalism in Tibet for fukk's sake. Whatever he wants to say about rich and poor, okay, whatever, that's nice - but it isn't Marxism.

Marxism under White supremacy is still Marxism, especially since it employs what would be a vast majority Indian support.
Most Tibetan Monks would be considered Marxists, their belief system just doesn't share the name.
Just like Malala Yousafzai, who also announced she was a Marxist before, they are quietly doing as much as they can to change this miserable condition.
Plus, I'm a Marxist myself so

Marxist principles stand in stark opposition to White supremacy, as racism is oppressive and is an ideological and material tool of the ruling class to keep the working-class divided. What are you talking about when you speak about "vast majority Indian support?"

It doesn't.
Marxism would be a way to even out socioeconomic divides, the rich, middle class and the poor. You would still have racism. If everyone was the same economic status, i.e. low income,. you would have poor white people still hating black, Asian and Hispanic poor people.

That isn't what Marxism is. This is about what class controls the means of production and how production is organized. Anything that talks about "evening out" socioeconomic divides is not Marxism - it is some type of social democracy or welfare capitalism which wants to do away with the most egregious excesses of capitalism, but not actually alter the relations of production.

With socialism - that is, working-class control of the means of production - the divides would be done away with and production would be geared toward human need, not private profit. Socialism has nothing to do with making everyone "low income," and for the working-class to fulfill its historical role and seize power, racism has to be overcome. Assuming socialism is reached, it would suggest that racism as an ideological tool of the ruling class has been seen through by working-class people of all colors for the farce that it is.

If you want to ask, "can working-class white people in the U.S. overcome their racism?" then that's a legitimate question It's definitely an uphill battle

And at the top you still have a small group of wealthy people who live by their own rules

There wouldn't be a "small group of wealthy people who live by their own rules" under a society in which the working-class controls production.

If anything marxism is the end game for the wealthy to finalize the consolidation of power. Not only do they have most the wealth and capital but they want the crumbs too and from that they'll divide the crumbs as they see fit.

This is a trash way to live unless you have some truly righteous people at the top

But we dont

That is not Marxism. The end game for the bourgeoisie when it is threatened is fascism, but things like social democratic states and welfare capitalism might be the most solid arrangements for the wealthy given the stability and suppression of working-class agitation for those systems (outside of times of crisis, when welfare capitalism generally gets dismantled).

 

[Mowgli]

He is not a Marxist -- at best, he is a social democrat. He leads a movement which wants to restore feudalism in Tibet for fukk's sake. Whatever he wants to say about rich and poor, okay, whatever, that's nice - but it isn't Marxism.



Marxist principles stand in stark opposition to White supremacy, as racism is oppressive and is an ideological and material tool of the ruling class to keep the working-class divided. What are you talking about when you speak about "vast majority Indian support?"



That isn't what Marxism is. This is about what class controls the means of production and how production is organized. Anything that talks about "evening out" socioeconomic divides is not Marxism - it is some type of social democracy or welfare capitalism which wants to do away with the most egregious excesses of capitalism, but not actually alter the relations of production.

With socialism - that is, working-class control of the means of production - the divides would be done away with and production would be geared toward human need, not private profit. Socialism has nothing to do with making everyone "low income," and for the working-class to fulfill its historical role and seize power, racism has to be overcome. Assuming socialism is reached, it would suggest that racism as an ideological tool of the ruling class has been seen through by working-class people of all colors for the farce that it is.

If you want to ask, "can working-class white people in the U.S. overcome their racism?" then that's a legitimate question It's definitely an uphill battle



There wouldn't be a "small group of wealthy people who live by their own rules" under a society in which the working-class controls production.



That is not Marxism. The end game for the bourgeoisie when it is threatened is fascism, but things like social democratic states and welfare capitalism might be the most solid arrangements for the wealthy given the stability and suppression of working-class agitation for those systems (outside of times of crisis, when welfare capitalism generally gets dismantled).

You work off ideals and not the human translation. A small group of men will always be above the law because they make the law. When the working class and means of production are basically owned by a cabal of goons who are owned by a.small group of men you get what I'm talking about.

Marxism can't take away human beings desire to set rules for other people while they live a life of true freedom. It's just another vehicle to organize sheep.