Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[goldisheavy]

http://theparisreview.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/6002

 

Usually I write little introductions for the links, but I can't think of anything this time other than various different things came to mind as I was reading this. I wasn't expecting much from this interview when I started reading it, but later I thought it was a very interesting interview.

[innerspace_cadet]

I think it is heartbreaking that the monk had to violate his own precepts against nonviolence to stop the Communist wolves from destroying his country. It is also interesting that he sensed that there was an evil lurking behind the smiles of the Chinese communists. I think what he sensed was a dangerous and fanatical attachment to a utopian ideology that promised heaven on earth, which in reality gave the Tibetans nothing but hell on earth.

 

If you want to really know the hell that is communism, I suggest you read the "Black Book of Communism" which was written by former communists.

[goldisheavy]

I think it is heartbreaking that the monk had to violate his own precepts against nonviolence to stop the Communist wolves from destroying his country. It is also interesting that he sensed that there was an evil lurking behind the smiles of the Chinese communists. I think what he sensed was a dangerous and fanatical attachment to a utopian ideology that promised heaven on earth, which in reality gave the Tibetans nothing but hell on earth.

 

If you want to really know the hell that is communism, I suggest you read the "Black Book of Communism" which was written by former communists.

 

Demonizing Communism is a stupid move. Communists saw real problems in society, but unfortunately, their solutions in USSR and in China were not effective.

 

For example, wealth disparity is a real problem. Countries with high wealth disparities are less happy than those with smaller wealth disparity.

 

The problem with Soviet and Chinese style communists was that they didn't understand that the problem was caused by culture, and tried to use force to fix things. Of course cultures cannot be fixed by force.

 

Also, we tend to lionize Tibetans, but Tibetans also were assholes in many ways. Even the monk admitted it when he said it is probably their own bad karma that was catching up to them.

Edited April 21, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sloppy Zhang]

Great interview.

 

 

I think there are some good points to the stuff that the monks studied- namely the history. It gives you perspective on the ebb and flow of cultures and power amongst countries. One country invades, then years later can be invaded. Victims can quickly become the perpetrators. Not many people see it, but then again, not many people are really looking out for it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Sloppy Zhang

[orb]

Demonizing Communism is a stupid move. Communists saw real problems in society, but unfortunately, their solutions in USSR and in China were not effective.

 

For example, wealth disparity is a real problem. Countries with high wealth disparities are less happy than those with smaller wealth disparity.

 

The problem with Soviet and Chinese style communists was that they didn't understand that the problem was caused by culture, and tried to use force to fix things. Of course cultures cannot be fixed by force.

 

Also, we tend to lionize Tibetans, but Tibetans also were assholes in many ways. Even the monk admitted it when he said it is probably their own bad karma that was catching up to them.

 

Please tell me how were the Tibetans assholes ?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Please tell me how were the Tibetans assholes ?

 

I don't want to speak for gold, but here is a quote directly from the interview:

 

We Buddhists believe in karma, in cause and effect. An action has consequences. Perhaps this happened because there was a time in the eighth century when we Tibetans invaded China and tortured the Chinese. It is our turn to suffer for what we did in previous lives.

[Oleg Galkin]

If you want to really know the hell that is communism, I suggest you read the "Black Book of Communism" which was written by former communists.

 

Communism (Socialism) isn't hell at all. It is just different. I was born in USSR and I know a little about that.

[~jK~]

Communism (Socialism) isn't hell at all. It is just different. I was born in USSR and I know a little about that.

 

Communism and Capitalism are 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Communism is used for a developing economy whereas the government subsidizes particular intrests to help them develop.

 

Capitalism is used within a developed economy to create competition within the economy.

 

If the people do not think for themselves - they become sheep being led to the slaughter - by TV, news etc... Remember smoking is healthy ads on TV? Beer is sexy.... etc.

[passenger1980]

Amazing article, very moving and inspiring. We should all be thankful for not been exposed to those type of situations and/or crossroads in our lives.

[ralis]

Communism and Capitalism are 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Communism is used for a developing economy whereas the government subsidizes particular intrests to help them develop.

 

Capitalism is used within a developed economy to create competition within the economy.

 

If the people do not think for themselves - they become sheep being led to the slaughter - by TV, news etc... Remember smoking is healthy ads on TV? Beer is sexy.... etc.

 

Communism was an absolute atrocity and failed miserably! Capitalism in the U.S. is failing miserably!

 

 

ralis

[RongzomFan]

Capitalism is NOT failing in the U.S.

 

I don't see hunger lines or riots. People go to work, and then ride their bikes in the park, go to the movies, go to Best Buys etc.

 

 

The problem with communism, is that you can NEVER get to the final stage of actual communism. China is not really communist. The Soviets were not really communist. Totalitarian YES. I remember writing papers on this stuff in school

Edited April 21, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

Capitalism is NOT failing in the U.S.

 

I don't see hunger lines or riots. People go to work, and then ride their bikes in the park, go to the movies, go to Best Buys etc.

 

When Soviet style Socialism fell in exUSSR, there were no riots or hunger lines either. And people went to the stores as usual.

 

Things can fall in different ways. Not every fall has to be cataclysmic.

[goldisheavy]

Please tell me how were the Tibetans assholes ?

 

Tibetans felt free to ignore the world around them (this is why many modern developments caught them by surprise), and for the longest time were a closed society. It's hypocritical. If you believe that Buddha Dharma is life-saving, you should present it to the world. I'm not saying that Buddhists should proselytize and try to gain converts -- absolutely not. But Buddhists shouldn't have kept their treasures secret for so long -- that's selfish and unkind to the rest of humanity.

 

Tibetans had a theocratic society.

 

Tibetans are enamored of cultish secrecy (I believe in scientific openness).

 

Generally I like Tibetans, but I don't think they are angelic. They are much better behaved people than many other people (I won't name names now), but not without flaws.

[gendao]

Demonizing Communism is a stupid move. Communists saw real problems in society, but unfortunately, their solutions in USSR and in China were not effective.

 

For example, wealth disparity is a real problem. Countries with high wealth disparities are less happy than those with smaller wealth disparity.

 

The problem with Soviet and Chinese style communists was that they didn't understand that the problem was caused by culture, and tried to use force to fix things. Of course cultures cannot be fixed by force.

 

Also, we tend to lionize Tibetans, but Tibetans also were assholes in many ways. Even the monk admitted it when he said it is probably their own bad karma that was catching up to them.

Communism failed because the ideology is inherently flawed. There are disparities in every society, and not only in wealth (Western materialistic focus). Some people may be poorer, but enjoy more relationships or spiritual devotion, for example. Some people choose to spend more of their time working for more wealth. Others may choose to spend more time leisurely or after other pursuits, while earning less. In the end, some of these various disparities may all somewhat balance each other out & to each their own. You reap what you sow. But Communism denies individual choices and tries to forcefit equal results (regardless of varying efforts) in just a few cherry-picked metrics (namely, financial). Now you reap what others sowed.

He said that the Chinese had taken the family house, and our land, and all the yaks, saying that we were landowners and so class enemies. They gave the yaks to a collective farm and made the family live in the yak shed.

This is fundamentally unfair and unrealistic - which is why it fails in EVERY culture it infects, bar none.

 

How could that system possibly WORK anywhere? It certainly doesn't in Nature - which operates under harsh Darwinism where results are anything but equalized. You fail, you die. Every life is an elimination round & only the winners go on to the next one.

 

Governments that mimic Nature will be the most successful. That is why China is starting to prosper again - because they've steadily become more capitalist. Fair competition breeds success & eliminates the ineffectual - just like in Nature. Remove quality control & you remove quality. Reward failure...and you breed more failure.

 

Communism is also purposely a Trojan Horse for totalitarianism, btw. Most totalitarian regimes actually start off from the radical left and promise a utopia for all, especially the "materialistically downtrodden." Of course none of them start off by promising a totalitarian state - cuz who the h*ll would sign up for that? So, they try to lure & hook people in with false promises (many of which weren't even asked for) - and then pull the bait & switch once they're in power.

 

I found this liberal rhetoric eerily familiar here in the US:

Their colonel wore spectacles and was very polite. He said they had come to help Tibet be self-reliant and that they would return home when they had taught us to be modern. He said they had come to bring justice, and to help the poor, and to make Tibet a good country, like China. He said that China was like our big brother, and that it would be good for us if we accepted their authority until the people of Tibet were ready to govern themselves in a modern, Communist way. The colonel even told us he had come to liberate us. To this the abbot replied that he could not liberate us, as the Lord Buddha had showed us that it was up to each man to liberate himself. I dont think the colonel understood what the abbot was talking about.

 

After that, the Chinese came to the monastery every month or so and gave us a lecturethey called them indoctrination meetings. Sometimes the posters they put up were blasphemousinsulting the Buddha and saying that the monks were trying to keep the people of Tibet poor and ignorant. Gradually the lectures became ruder: they said that everything the monasteries did was wrong, and that there was no other option but to accept the changes the Chinese were making.

 

I realized something was wrong. Something evil was creeping behind their smiles. I began to have sleepless nights. I didnt want to be under Chinese rule, but I couldnt see any alternative. Some of the monks began to say that the Chinese were out to destroy Buddhism, and that we should not simply surrender to what they wanted, but fight back. Some nights as I lay awake I wondered whether these monks might be right.

 

In the summer of 1954, rumors began to spread that the Chinese had bombed a monastery at the other end of our province, killing many monks. Then we heard that the same thing had happened closer to us, at Changtreng Gompa, and that the monastery had been first bombed and then desecrated.

 

There were other stories, too: that the Chinese made monks get married and forced them to join their army, build roads, and work in slave-labor camps. We heard that parents who refused to send their children to Chinese schools were tied to posts and had nails driven through their eyes.

 

As we were hearing these things, the Chinese army came to our monastery and asked us to turn over all the guns and swords from the monastery armory. The abbot said that these things had been given to us by our forebears and parents, and that the Chinese had no right to take them. But they ignored him. They searched the monastery and removed all the weapons they could find.

 

After this, the monks had a meeting. We were unanimous that we had to fight, since the Chinese were clearly intent on destroying the Buddhist dharma and so had become tendra, or enemies of the faith. We heard that thousands of fighters had gathered in Lhokha to the south and founded a resistance movement called the Chu-zhi Gang-drung, or Four Rivers, Six Ranges. We went in front of the abbot and renounced our vows. We said that we could not continue as monks. The abbot gave us his permission.

One can find some parallels here between the CCP & Democrats...rumored labor camps & FEMA camps...Tibetan Buddhist monks & (often Christian) Tea Party militias, no?

 

I found the philosophical questions here the most interesting, though.

 

When push comes to shove, do we all revert to our basic human instincts?

I joined a secret Tibetan unit in the Indian army known as the Special Frontier Forces, or Unit 22. We were jointly trained by India and the CIA in a camp near Dehra Dun.

 

They would make us drink rum and whiskey so that we would kill without hesitation, and not worry about the moral consequences. Every day I saw corpses. Sometimes even now at night I see the whole scene: people shooting, others being shot. Airplanes dropping bombs, missiles, and napalm, and people screaming, houses burning, and the women screaming. War is far worse than you ever imagine it to be. It is the last thing any Buddhist should be involved in.

 

But within my heart, I knew I was going against ahimsa, nonviolence, and all the most important Buddhist principlesit was not to fight the Pakistanis that I gave up my monastic vows. I knew that I wouldnt free Tibet, however many Pakistanis I killed. It was for the Tibetan cause and to defeat China that I joined the army. But it dawned on me that we were now no better than the Chinese, killing anyone we were told to kill.

Can right alone conquer might? Or do you need both to assure victory?

Can love or compassion conquer all? Or do they also include fairness & firmness?

How important is memorizing sutras...vs just meditating?

Can karma manifest amongst groups or nations?

Edited April 21, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

When Soviet style Socialism fell in exUSSR, there were no riots or hunger lines either. And people went to the stores as usual.

 

Things can fall in different ways. Not every fall has to be cataclysmic.

 

 

I know, just half of the population fell into poverty, and the death rate skyrocketed.

 

Pretty minor effects. NOT.

Edited April 21, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Tibetans felt free to ignore the world around them (this is why many modern developments caught them by surprise), and for the longest time were a closed society. It's hypocritical. If you believe that Buddha Dharma is life-saving, you should present it to the world. I'm not saying that Buddhists should proselytize and try to gain converts -- absolutely not. But Buddhists shouldn't have kept their treasures secret for so long -- that's selfish and unkind to the rest of humanity.

 

Tibetans had a theocratic society.

 

Tibetans are enamored of cultish secrecy (I believe in scientific openness).

 

Generally I like Tibetans, but I don't think they are angelic. They are much better behaved people than many other people (I won't name names now), but not without flaws.

 

Demonizing Communism is a stupid move. Communists saw real problems in society, but unfortunately, their solutions in USSR and in China were not effective.

 

For example, wealth disparity is a real problem. Countries with high wealth disparities are less happy than those with smaller wealth disparity.

 

The problem with Soviet and Chinese style communists was that they didn't understand that the problem was caused by culture, and tried to use force to fix things. Of course cultures cannot be fixed by force.

 

Also, we tend to lionize Tibetans, but Tibetans also were assholes in many ways. Even the monk admitted it when he said it is probably their own bad karma that was catching up to them.

 

 

 

WOW. Everyone take the time to read these works of beauty.

Edited April 21, 2010 by alwayson

[gendao]

I know, just half of the population fell into poverty, and the death rate skyrocketed.

 

Pretty minor effects. NOT.

Communism is said to have killed about

(~100-140 million, depending on how you count it) people worldwide.

 

This does not include all the massive non-fatal suffering, misery & cultural losses, either.

 

It was literally the most destructive ideology to ever engulf mankind, thus far. And again, all originally marketed under the utopian pretense of uplifting the poor & forcing "equality" for all.

Edited April 21, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

I agree

 

Communists killed many more people that Hitler.

 

Communism is pure evil.

Edited April 21, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

Wealth disparity is a bad thing. Of course there is always going to be some disparity. But the extremes are never good. So when the wealth disparity reaches the levels of a banana republic, that's an unhealthy extreme. A lot also depends on the cultural situation, and namely, what do people do with that disparity? A lot of times wealth is used negatively, as we are witnessing right now, with the latest market crash.

 

Communists were correct to notice this problem.

 

However, what was the solution that Communists offered? It was brutality. Brutality was the solution. Brute force. That's very bad.

 

It's as if you had a doctor who correctly diagnosed skin cancer on top of the head as a malady, but then used a beheading as a "cure." The diagnosis is correct and helpful, but the cure is obviously very wrong. And that's what happened with Communism.

 

Communists had valid complaints about life, but their solutions were all wrong. You must also keep in mind the formative times of Communism. In Russia it was forming during Czarism, which was truly an awful time. Arguably, as bad as the Soviet Socialism was, it was still better for most people than Czarism. I'm not saying this to defend any ideology. I'm just saying that things are not as black or white as you are brainwashed to believe in USA. People in USA have a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction to words like "Communism" and "Socialism." Well, not so much "Socialism" anymore, as most people associate that with Scandinavia, where life is good.

Edited April 21, 2010 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

Wealth disparity is a bad thing. Of course there is always going to be some disparity. But the extremes are never good. So when the wealth disparity reaches the levels of a banana republic, that's an unhealthy extreme. A lot also depends on the cultural situation, and namely, what do people do with that disparity? A lot of times wealth is used negatively, as we are witnessing right now, with the latest market crash.

Says who? Some financial referee who thinks that ideally, everyone should be making the exact same amount of money, whether they're a jobless crackhead or a neurosurgeon???

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people can choose to find happiness even under meager poverty & austere living conditions? And might prefer that - to a change in lifestyle needed to acquire more wealth?

At the end of this period we were each sent off to live in a cave for four months to practice praying in solitude. There were seven other boys nearby, in the same cliff face, but we were not allowed to speak to one another.

 

Initially I felt like a failure. I was lonely, and scared, and had a terrible pain in my knees from the number of prostrations—we were expected to do thousands in a day—but by the end of the first fortnight, I finally began to reflect deeply on things. I began to see the vanity of pleasures and ambitions. Until then I had not really sat and reflected. I had just done what I had been taught and followed the set rhythms of the monastery.

 

I felt that I had found myself in the cave. My mind became clear, and I felt my sins were being washed away with the austerity of the hermit’s life, that I was being purified. I was happy. It is not easy to reach the stage when you really remove the world from your heart. Ever since then I have always had a desire to go back and to spend more time as a hermit.

Funny, I never heard a single complaint from this monk about being poor. In fact, he recalls his happiest time LIVING IN A CAVE. So, who the hell are you to impose your standards upon him?

 

It'd be different if these poor folks were begging for modernization & wealth - but they weren't. That was all just a ploy used to justify what the Commies were already planning on doing.

Communists were correct to notice this problem.

 

However, what was the solution that Communists offered? It was brutality. Brutality was the solution. Brute force. That's very bad.

 

It's as if you had a doctor who correctly diagnosed skin cancer on top of the head as a malady, but then used a beheading as a "cure." The diagnosis is correct and helpful, but the cure is obviously very wrong. And that's what happened with Communism.

 

Communists had valid complaints about life, but their solutions were all wrong. You must also keep in mind the formative times of Communism. In Russia it was forming during Czarism, which was truly an awful time. Arguably, as bad as the Soviet Socialism was, it was still better for most people than Czarism. I'm not saying this to defend any ideology. I'm just saying that things are not as black or white as you are brainwashed to believe in USA. People in USA have a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction to words like "Communism" and "Socialism." Well, not so much "Socialism" anymore, as most people associate that with Scandinavia, where life is good.

Again, why is that a problem? Bill Gates is incalculably richer than I am - yet I don't see that as a problem. Do you?

 

The real problem is not if some people are richer or poorer...but if some people were UNFAIRLY richer or poorer under their current system.

 

And of course the Commies didn't come up with a good answer. That was never their intention to begin with. The "problem" of wealth disparity was a manufactured one from the beginning...as a prefab means to justify their endgame.

The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm (The Hegelian Dialectic)

1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others

2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights

3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis

And you can't draw a 1-to-1 correlation between any nation's standard of living and its government - because there are sooooo many other factors involved. For example, a military strategist might say that Sweden is geographically remote & stays neutral in wartime - thus saving billions on defense expenditures (similar to Canada). Hitler might have attributed Sweden's high quality of life to the fact that it is mostly Aryan stock. Christians might say it's because 73% are Lutherans. A nutritionist might say its because they eat a lot of herring & seafood. Etc etc. Edited April 21, 2010 by vortex

[Sunya]

True [Marxian] Communism was never fully implemented, Soviet and Maoist versions are a bit different. Anyway how's Communism evil? Because people (Stalin, Mao) made bad choices? This says nothing about the ideology of communism. It is an idealistic utopian format which ultimately will fail until people are more evolved by becoming less prone to corruption, greed, and selfishness. Capitalism works because it feeds off of greed, which humans have plenty of. The problem is that this greed is a remnant of the human's animalistic nature and having a whole system that runs off greed prevents the human from evolving further and embracing a system with a more socialistic framework.

 

I believe people generally have many wrong ideas about communism. It is an ideology that can foster much progress but unfortunately the majority of people become lazy and unmotivated, because they only work for themselves. If people become enlightened and see that we are all interconnected, then working would be positive and we would each find jobs that are fulfilling and allow us to contribute to the greater community we are part of. Currency then wouldn't be required and greed would be a thing of the past. Maybe I've watched too much Star Trek but I think it's definitely possible.

Edited April 22, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Says who? Some financial referee who thinks that ideally, everyone should be making the exact same amount of money, whether they're a jobless crackhead or a neurosurgeon???

 

Here's what I actually said:

 

Wealth disparity is a bad thing. Of course there is always going to be some disparity. But the extremes are never good

 

Notice that I am not trying to promote absolute equality here? But when you reply to me, you make it sound as if I am.

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people can choose to find happiness even under meager poverty & austere living conditions?

 

As long as people feel it's a free choice, they will enjoy it. I was participating in a discussion at one time and someone said that prisoners all agree that solitary confinement is the worst punishment. So being in prison is already a punishment, but being put in solitary confinement is even worse than merely being in prison for most prisoners. I said, "But many monks enjoy solitude in caves for years." Needless to say, people were not pleased with my point. And I can see why. It's one thing you choose that kind of life for yourself, after prolonged training designed to make such life palatable, and it's another thing when it is forced on you without any prior training.

 

Lots of people feel coerced even though no one personally coerces them. For example, many people complain constantly about being coerced to pay taxes, even though no particular person actually does this type of coercion in person. It's our social order. In our social order you have to pay taxes to be a good citizen. This is an example of an impersonal, systemic coercion.

 

So when you have a social order that makes it hard to become a billionaire, it's no longer a free choice when people end up non-billionaires. Most poor people agree that their condition is a result of impersonal and system coercion in exactly the same way that those who have to pay taxes feel coerced.

 

Again, why is that a problem? Bill Gates is incalculably richer than I am - yet I don't see that as a problem. Do you?

 

I see it as a problem, yes. I won't even get into the dirty underhanded tactics that Bill Gates used to achieve his riches.

 

The real problem is not if some people are richer or poorer...but if some people were UNFAIRLY richer or poorer under their current system.

 

Not just that. What if you become richer quite fairly, but later use the leverage of your riches to hoist an unfair political system on the rest of the population? That's a huge problem. In fact, this problem is much bigger and much worse than simply becoming rich due to unfair means. So if rich people simply restricted themselves to enjoyment of their mansions and yachts, it would be OK. Instead the rich people like to bribe politicians, they buy up media companies (Rupert Murdoch, GE, etc.) and they spew extremely biased and harmful propaganda and so on. So the rich people are not content to just enjoy riches. Nay. They like to use their riches to majorly stick their hands into the political pot and decide what's best for everyone. The rich very often use their money to subvert an honest and fair political process. For example, how was it fair when Ron Paul and Ralf Nader were banned from presidential debates? It wasn't fair at all. But the rich interests that owned the "property" on which the debate were to happen had this legal control, they could do it. It's legal and yet extremely immoral and harmful to our society.

 

Another problem is dynastic wealth. Even if the originator of wealth can sometimes be said to have earned that wealth, obviously the same thing cannot be said of his/her sons and daughters. So the myth of fairness breaks down here.

 

Another problem is that rich people can't help but keep their money invested in banks and other interest-gathering places. This means that rich people make money by virtue of simply having money. At the same time, poor people feel pressed to take out loans just to make the ends meet, and then they work back-breaking labor to pay insane interest, as much as 125% on some microloans today in Latin/Central America. Hell, even Mafia didn't charge that much interest!

 

So while some people have to work for their money, other people make money just from having money. This is obviously unfair. Interests rates keep our society stratified and they keep poor people perpetually poor, and rich people above a certain level of wealth, perpetually rich.

 

And of course the Commies didn't come up with a good answer.

 

Of course not. I agree.

 

 

That was never their intention to begin with.

 

This isn't true. Commies are a diverse bunch of people. Some people who called themselves "Communists" surely wanted to take advantage of the system just like many people enjoy taking advantage of Capitalism for nefarious purposes. Others, honestly wanted to improve living conditions and made an honest mistake. They had honestly good intentions, but were misguided in their suggested solutions.

Edited April 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

The ideas in communism are an intelligent response to and critique of capitalism as it existed in the late 19 century in places like Britain and Germany. Marx attempted to deconstruct the alienation of human beings who had become subject to economic processes which no longer served the purpose of creating individual wealth but subjected the majority to act as cogs in the great industrial machine. the few got very rich at the expense of the majority who lived a life of drudgery. There is no wonder that Marx and Engels wanted to change things.

 

Marx dismissed any spiritual nature of reality and saw religion as something fed to the masses to keep them from reacting to the adverse conditions in which they lived. The opiate of the people - although he did also describe it as a soulful cry in a soulless world. So he understood that people were yearning for freedom - but he wanted that energy to go into changing this world rather than dreaming of another.

 

The capitalism we have today is one which has learned to avoid the extremes of the industrial revolution and the ravages of depression - but not because it has our best interest at heart but because this is its best protection against revolutionary change.

 

The states which have called themselves communist such as the Soviet Union and the PR of China developed distorted versions of the original communist ideal based on the personalities of Stalin and Mao. In the Cold War period westerners were told how bad a repressive both these regimes were and their populations were fed equally distorted views of what the 'West' was all about. Again people were manipulated in order to maintain the regimes of both East and West.

 

Anyone who now describes communism in its entirety as evil or similar is just a victim of this manipulative conditioning. Communism is not about preventing people being wealthy but more about developing social purpose in a world where some starve while others live in incredible luxury without contributing anything.

 

Countries like Tibet escaped all of this and remained closed for most of the 19th and early 20th Century. They had feudal societies similar to those which existed in Europe in the Middle Ages. This policy of closure meant that the influences which would otherwise have produced change and adaptation were excluded. This meant that when change came it was fast, dramatic and violent, especially as China itself was going through the upheaval of the Cultural Revolution. That change would come at some time was inevitable and that the rulers of Tibet failed to recognize this is a severe criticism - especially as Buddhism teaches impermanence and therefore that change is a feature of the world. But this doesn't excuse the violence of the Chinese actions and their attempts to reduce Tibetan culture to a quaint minority dwarfed by the Han.

Edited April 22, 2010 by apepch7

[gendao]

As long as people feel it's a free choice, they will enjoy it. I was participating in a discussion at one time and someone said that prisoners all agree that solitary confinement is the worst punishment. So being in prison is already a punishment, but being put in solitary confinement is even worse than merely being in prison for most prisoners. I said, "But many monks enjoy solitude in caves for years." Needless to say, people were not pleased with my point.

 

In our social order you have to pay taxes to be a good citizen. This is an example of an impersonal, systemic coercion.

 

So when you have a social order that makes it hard to become a billionaire, it's no longer a free choice when people end up non-billionaires. Most poor people agree that their condition is a result of impersonal and system coercion in exactly the same way that those who have to pay taxes feel coerced.

Basically, it's not really not about rich vs poor - but the ability to exercise your own free will, without unfairly impinging on the free will of others.

 

And its hard to become the top .1% of any group in any field - by definition. Cuz if everyone reached that level...it would no longer be the top .1% anymore.

 

It's all relative. Likewise, if everyone was a billionaire, it wouldn't be considered "rich" anymore and merely Middle Class.

 

Flat, homogeneous distributions are rarely natural. Nature usually forms bell curves, due to its heterogeneous diversity. Bell curve distributions in wealth are thus totally natural. So don't blame these bell curves on "unfairness" or see them as problems that can be fixed. It's actually a working natural mechanism that spreads risk & enhances adaptability through portfolio diversification.

 

People supposedly pay taxes not to be good citizens, per se...but to pay for the government services & infrastructure that they enjoy. If you choose to use any of those services...like driving on a highway...then you do owe the government some money some way, somehow. There's no free lunch.

I see it as a problem, yes.

 

Instead the rich people like to bribe politicians, they buy up media companies (Rupert Murdoch, GE, etc.) and they spew extremely biased and harmful propaganda and so on.

 

Another problem is dynastic wealth. Even if the originator of wealth can sometimes be said to have earned that wealth, obviously the same thing cannot be said of his/her sons and daughters. So the myth of fairness breaks down here.

 

Another problem is that rich people can't help but keep their money invested in banks and other interest-gathering places. This means that rich people make money by virtue of simply having money. At the same time, poor people feel pressed to take out loans just to make the ends meet, and then they work back-breaking labor to pay insane interest, as much as 125% on some microloans today in Latin/Central America. Hell, even Mafia didn't charge that much interest!

 

So while some people have to work for their money, other people make money just from having money. This is obviously unfair. Interests rates keep our society stratified and they keep poor people perpetually poor, and rich people above a certain level of wealth, perpetually rich.

Why is it a problem, if Bill Gates earned the money "fairly?" I mean, didn't I have the same freedom (if not necessarily the same business acumen & resources) that he had to do the same thing?

 

I agree that media moguls use their outlets as propaganda mills to disseminate their own political agendas. That's why I don't even own a TV anymore. However, there's nothing keeping anyone else (per se) from doing the same thing. Nor is there anything FORCING all the idiot sheeple out there to watch this filth!

 

Nothing "unfair" about dynastic wealth or banking, either. Your ancestors had the free choice to stock up a lot of money and pass it down to you too. You do as well for your progeny. Don't blame others for doing it, if your lineage chose not to.

 

Someone is also free to charge 100% interest there for microloans & beat all the competition. However, I'm guessing that is not really feasible down there because the interest rate must be jacked up so high because they are loaning money to indigents with negative credit whose default rates are sky-high. So, anyone who charged less than 125% interest...probably went bankrupt & thus got weeded out.

Edited April 22, 2010 by vortex

[goldisheavy]

Apepch7, I want to congratulate you for a brilliant post. I agree with almost everything you say, but wanted to make a few comments.

 

The ideas in communism are an intelligent response to and critique of capitalism as it existed in the late 19 century in places like Britain and Germany. Marx attempted to deconstruct the alienation of human beings who had become subject to economic processes which no longer served the purpose of creating individual wealth but subjected the majority to act as cogs in the great industrial machine. the few got very rich at the expense of the majority who lived a life of drudgery. There is no wonder that Marx and Engels wanted to change things.

 

Marx dismissed any spiritual nature of reality and saw religion as something fed to the masses to keep them from reacting to the adverse conditions in which they lived. The opiate of the people - although he did also describe it as a soulful cry in a soulless world. So he understood that people were yearning for freedom - but he wanted that energy to go into changing this world rather than dreaming of another.

 

The capitalism we have today is one which has learned to avoid the extremes of the industrial revolution and the ravages of depression - but not because it has our best interest at heart but because this is its best protection against revolutionary change.

 

Except it didn't learn it well. It seems the capitalism of today is a C- student that is bordering on failure. It is constantly playing with fire and constantly tempting the revolutionary passions of people. The latest bailout was the biggest dick move that made people furious, conservatives and liberals, both. It's theft, pure and simple.

 

The states which have called themselves communist such as the Soviet Union

 

The ruling political party in Soviet Union was the Communist Party, but the state itself was called Socialist and not Communist. In fact, that's what USSR means: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It's right there in the name of the country. You can't miss it.

 

and the PR of China developed distorted versions of the original communist ideal based on the personalities of Stalin and Mao. In the Cold War period westerners were told how bad a repressive both these regimes were and their populations were fed equally distorted views of what the 'West' was all about. Again people were manipulated in order to maintain the regimes of both East and West.

 

Anyone who now describes communism in its entirety as evil or similar is just a victim of this manipulative conditioning. Communism is not about preventing people being wealthy but more about developing social purpose in a world where some starve while others live in incredible luxury without contributing anything.

 

Exactly.

 

Countries like Tibet escaped all of this and remained closed for most of the 19th and early 20th Century. They had feudal societies similar to those which existed in Europe in the Middle Ages. This policy of closure meant that the influences which would otherwise have produced change and adaptation were excluded. This meant that when change came it was fast, dramatic and violent, especially as China itself was going through the upheaval of the Cultural Revolution. That change would come at some time was inevitable and that the rulers of Tibet failed to recognize this is a severe criticism - especially as Buddhism teaches impermanence and therefore that change is a feature of the world. But this doesn't excuse the violence of the Chinese actions and their attempts to reduce Tibetan culture to a quaint minority dwarfed by the Han.

 

I agree. I think if Tibetans were smarter, they would at least send observers into the world at large. There should have been a few observers in China, a few in India, a few in Europe and maybe even a few in the New World, reporting back to Tibet. This way Tibet would at least know which way the political winds are blowing and wouldn't be caught navel gazing.

Edited April 22, 2010 by goldisheavy