“I was very young when I first heard the word communist. The 13th Dalai Lama had left a testament that I read. Also, some of the monks who were helping my studies had been in monasteries with Mongolians. They had talked about the destruction that had taken place since the communists came to Mongolia. We did not know anything about Marxist ideology. But we all feared destruction and thought of communists with terror. It was only when I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese revolution. Once I understood Marxism, my attitude change completely. I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member.” :bravo:
“Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuione communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people..”
If you had no idea about the way Communism was implemented or the suffering and oppression it caused, you could easily be attracted to the idea. I mean, things like classless society, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”, workers’ control of the means of production and equality for all are very attractive ideas.
Unfortunately, the governments decided to accomplish this by oppressing freedom and democracy, stealing property, murdering anyone who they deemed a threat to them, and imposing half-baked policy that ended up in mass starvation and poverty.
Communisme and Marxisme are not working because people always try to be doing less and get more out of the system … nobdy is going to work harder to get other people more perks … it’s human nature, we are not made to work …
It’s the top of the communists that have the most advantages … other people suffer … it’s not communisme anymore
Capitalisme is closer to the natural model, gather as much as possible … survival of the fittest, smartest and strongest … but, even in nature there is some sharing going on but that doesn’t make it socialisme or communism it’s just for the survival of the breed (clan) …
On the other hand noone should be limited in what he can do or think … in nature any animal can levae the secure surroundings of their herd or pack or whatever … but what than? If it’s a strong animal it can survive and start it’s own pack … same happens in human life.
Ther are always followers that want a free meal and that’s the one you need to make sure a thing as communisme can survive … in another way you can actually create dependance, that’s what communisme and Marxisme are doing, you need to rely on them to get something.
Communism/socialism works great in theory. But only in theory.
Even if countries/regimes that have tried it had have done so and protected freedoms, human rights, democracy etc, it still would have failed.
Human nature won’t let communism succeed. Face it, humans are greedy. We always want more, or we want something for nothing, or something the other guy doesn’t have.
Not sure what you’re trying to get at with this Mr. Wu. Too bad for you the Dali Lama has ceeded his former political power to an elected governemnt in exile and has repeatedly expressed his support for democracy and has constantly reminded his followers that he will not be reborn in side territory controlled by the CCP, for obvious reasons. Sounds like a Red Book waving fanatic to me .
Can we think of any mitigating circumstances, that might excuse the DL’s endorsement? Sure we can. For one thing, the Dalai Lama would have been about 21 years old at the time. But lest we dismiss him as just some college kid looking for a radical cause to join, recall that since his sixteenth birthday he had been shouldering the responsibility of negotiating the fate of Tibet.
In that light, even if deep-down he really disliked Communism, he might have deemed it more diplomatic to praise aspects of it, and search for some sort of common ground. Think of Gandhi’s praise for the ideals of Christianity. In general, I think there are bigger problems in the world than the tendency of some people to be overly patient and charitable toward their enemies.
Some of us may disagree with the Dalai Lama’s tactics, and point out (in hindsight of course) the crucial fact that they didn’t work, but I’m inclined to cut him some slack. I mean, he was trying to make the best of an impossible situation. He could have fled to India in 1950, but he waited until 1959, hoping to find a way to deal with the Chinese as human beings. It was a good try. Come to think of it I guess he’s still at it.
On the other hand, he did apparently enter into a correspondence with Josef Stalin before his flight to India. I wonder what was discussed…?
Since it’s obvious that he doesn’t support one-party rule by anybody (though he might be persuaded to accede to it), I suppose the crucial issue from the standpoint of Marxist theory would be what sort of economic system he wanted Tibet to have in the future. I would guess that point he (like the Chinese authorities, on paper anyway) favors a mixed system which combines capitalism with greater attention to the poor.
Well thats dictaorship of the Proletariat. What we need is a system like Cuba; free heathcare education etc etc.
Can you name me the most successful Capitalist countries?
Lets see AmeriKKKa, England, Japan, what else… Western countries. They all got rich off imperialism.
Uh, Castro also oppressed freedom in his country, squashed any and all democratic movements, and stole property when he came to power. Oh most definitely has murdered countless Cuban citizens because they were “dissidents”
Well, first of all, by definition, the US’ imperial holdings were almost entirely for military strategic reasons. You can’t tell me that Wake Island and Puerto Rico are exactly loaded with natural resources. The US grew rich for a variety of reasons, imperialism was jsut a small small part of it. Don’t forget that non-capitlaist countries like the USSR and PRC have also reached outside their borders and snatched up land too.
Uh, England is not longer the name of a political entity. I suppose you mean the United Kingdom.
And Japan? Please . Sure they were the greatest imperial force in Asia BEFORE their embarrassing loss to the US in WWII. After which they were stripped of every last piece of their former imperial greatness, their economic and industrial infrastructure was completely destroyed by the US military, and they after all of that they had few natural resources of their own. Tell me, please, how imperialism has led to Japan being one of the richest ocuntries in the world today.
Cuba does not allow multi-party elections, protect basic human rights (freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, dissent, privacy rights, etc.), or operate under the rule of law. That is unacceptable.
Right, and I suppose Congressional backlashes against Bush are all a part of the grand Cheney dictatorship conspiracy, and we can pretend that power never shifts from one party to the other. And of course we can always pretend the U.S. brainwashes its citizens, despite poll results that indicate the unpopularity of the current president. And we of course can play the moral equivalency game between American involvement in Iraq and the cultural revolution…just repeat after me: America is evil, America is evil, America is evil… :loco:
.
. Sure they were the greatest imperial force in Asia BEFORE their embarrassing loss to the US in WWII. After which they were stripped of every last piece of their former imperial greatness, their economic and industrial infrastructure was completely destroyed by the US military, and they after all of that they had few natural resources of their own. Tell me, please, how imperialism has led to Japan being one of the richest ocuntries in the world today.
