Regarding the Dalai Lama (who is I believe having a conference soon in The
Hague):
"The Dalai Lama and the majority of the elite agreed to give away Tibet's
de facto independence in 1950 once they were assured by Beijng that their
oppressive theocratic political system and the exploitative semi-feudal
economic system would be maintained. Nine years later, only when they felt
their privileges being threatened by a tax from Beijng, did the elite
manage to win some poor Tibetans to their cause and stage a revolt. This
revolt was led by monks from the Lithang Monastery in eastern Tibet. Chris
Mullin, writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review, described Lithang's
monks as "not monks in the Western sense... many are involved in private
trade; some carried guns and spent much of their time violently feuding
with rival monasteries. One former citizen describes Lithang as :like the
Wild West". Prior to the outbreak of the revolt, the Dalai Lama issued an
appeal for gold and jewels in order to build himself another throne which
he claimd would rid Tibet of "bad omens". 120 tons of gold and jewelry were
collected and over 60 tons preceded the Dalai Lama on his flight to India
in 1959. Between 1956 and 1972 the CIA armed and trained Tibetan guerillas
and provided an annual subsidy of $1.7 million dollars throughout the
sixties. Before the 1959 uprising, the CIA parachuted arms and trained
guerillas in eastern Tibet. The Dalai Lama maintained radio contect with
the CIA during his 1959 escape to India. This Lama has no problem aligning
himself and his cause with the largest imperialist power in the world,
while dragging along a whole bunch of wellmeaning pacifists and hippies in
his wake. This he does in the name of human rights. This same Lama has no
compunction in declaring divergent Buddhist heretics for following the
wrong saint, who, he claims, is actually a demon. Give me a break. The only
Lamas I'll be supporting are the kind with hooves and bad breath"
Quoted from "Ride my Lama ?" by Linda Kearns, in: Revolution (Christchurch,
New Zealand: Radical Media Collective), issue #10, August/September 1999.
At 11:42 AM 9/17/99 +0100, you wrote:
>"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is
>founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned with only with
>gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of
>wealth
>on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production.
>It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is the
>majority--as well as the with the fate of those who are underprivileged and
>in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed
>exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.
>I just recently read an article a paper where his holiness the Pope also
>pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism...
>The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure
>of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of
>myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST