Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[Apech]

Gold,

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

Yes, the USSR was a socialist state (or a union of them) with the goal of communism (never achieved) - true.

 

I know what you mean about capitalism being a C student but you have to admit its got a lot more guile and cunning than communism (or fascism/totalitarianism) - the bank bail out was actually a panic by government when it had the specter of global meltdown pointed at its head (if you can point with a specter !). I think the public sector always loses out when it tries to play poker with those city boys.

 

I believe that the previous Dalai Lama was quite shrewd in his dealings with China, India, Britain and Russia and played one off against the other. So it wasn't all navel gazing in the high Himalayas. But you are right of course - why didn't they introduce gradual reforms to modernise? why not form treaties with India, Britain, USA to guarantee their borders? Not sure why - but maybe we just have to conclude that it was their karma (?).

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

Exactly. Remember this, I will come to this point later.

 

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.

 

There is one difference though. For example, if I want to become a number one weight lifter, there is nothing stopping me from exercising. I don't have to interact with convention to achieve that status. I can learn what I need without seeing another person.

 

Another example. If I want to become a programmer, today we have so much excellent freely available material online (freely accessible at the library), that as long as I can afford a small $300 netbook, or buy a more powerful used computer for the same money, I can learn to program for free. Getting a job without a college degree is not easy, but it's not impossible. So here we do have a bit of social/systemic coercion going on. Why? Because you really don't need a college degree to learn everything that colleges teach (MIT has released all their teaching materials and video lectures for free, there are plenty of resources for anyone willing to learn, even without MIT's open courseware). But at the same time, there is a conventional road bump set up by arguably stupid HR departments and stupid corporate culture that wants to see some credentials. They don't have the knowledge to actually test the skill, and instead rely on a "shortcut" of credentials. The problem is that this "shortcut" is discriminatory against poor people who cannot afford college. And while some poor people can get a scholarship, again, this is not a solution as it doesn't cover everyone. So there is quite a bit of systemic coercion there, but not too much. So I think we would all agree that if someone is not the best programmer ever, it's mostly that person's fault and nothing else.

 

Why is this? That's because learning programming and weight lifting are not skills that depend on social order and social status. I can be ugly and smell bad and be a great programmer or a great weight lifter. I can become great in the absence of or with little participation/approval of/from society.

 

But business is fundamentally different from professional skills. Why? Because business depends on social graces, on prejudices, on luck, on connections, on how you smell, on how you look, and so on. Business is not fair and success in business is also not fair. People who are tall, look good, smell good, have advantage. People who wear good clothes have an advantage. Often people with the right skin color will have an advantage. Of course no one will admit to racism, but what are the chances that some business deals are not skewed by racial perceptions? So, it may be hard for a black guy to break into an all-white men club just like it can be hard for a white guy to become a rapper. And what about connections? In business, those are everything.

 

Bill Gates had connections at IBM right from the start. Bill Gates comes from a rich family. Gates' family is by no means poor. Sergey Brin of Google fame comes from a relatively poorer family and might be a better example than Gates, especially considering that Gates was an antisocial asshole who has hurt computing industry with his antics as much as he helped.

 

So there business is not like most other skills. Business is unfair in the same way that entertainment industry is unfair. Who becomes a star and who doesn't is not always based on your skill and talent.

 

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

 

The problem is not the amount of money, but the wealth disparity. If everyone was a billionaire, none of us would have extra leverage to hire a lobby company to work on our behalf. What wealth disparity allows is enormous privileges that others cannot have. For example, a rich guy can have an army of lawyers, that getting a significantly better deal in the court system. And this is huge.

 

Imagine this. You're a small businessman and someone slaps you with a patent infringement claim. As a small businessman you think the claim is unfair and wouldn't stand up in court, but you have no money to litigate. You lose without even getting a shot to play the game (to go to court to find out who is right). Hell, you don't have to use your imagination. What I am describing here is reality.

 

What if you're a rich guy? You get a patent infringement claim, and you say, "What's this? It doesn't seem fair. Fuck this, I AM SUING!" You hire an army of the best lawyers, and if you're crooked, you butter up the judge and the opposing team's lawyers as well, and you get your way in court easily. If the claim really was unfair, there is no doubt you would get your way. But even if the claim was somewhat fair, if you sufficiently buttered up the right people, you might still get your way.

 

And patents are essential in many areas of business. So lots of business is off-limits, depending on whether or not someone doesn't like your presence on the market and has some claim to slap you with.

 

Now, if our wealth disparity did not reach into 1000x and well beyond, would this situation that I am describing happen? No, it wouldn't.

 

Flat, homogeneous distributions are rarely natural.

 

Extremes are rarely natural. Absolute flatness is one extreme. And having someone's wealth be millions times your wealth is another extreme. There is a healthy middle somewhere in there.

 

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.

 

And here we come back to your original point. This entire discussion is not really about wealth but about how wealth serves as leverage on personal will. If everyone personal will was the same, we wouldn't have a perception of our own will being impinged. But if someone has 1 billion dollars leveraging their personal wishes, obviously this power has to manifest only as impinging on the wishes of others. After all, if other people want the same thing, why would you need to back up your wish with money? If you use money to push your wishes onto the world, it's only because others don't agree. Thus rich people are almost always big economic coercers.

 

And don't bother trying to dissuade me vortex. I will continue in similar vein until I die. I doubt you can make an intelligent argument to defend extreme wealth disparity.

Edited April 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sunya]

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.

 

A very good and fair point. Nice, goldie. Its absolutely true that those with money have power over others. This is the biggest flaw in capitalism: money is power. It is one thing to say everyone is free to work and earn as much as they can, but when that money turns into power over others.. it's extremely problematic for society as a whole. If I remember correctly, John Locke was a major influence on the creation of the United States. One of his major tenets was utilitarian, which is a very "hippie" mentality. Actions are morally just if and only if they provide happiness to the largest amount of people. I believe John Locke also stated that politically we must be free to do as we wish as long as we don't hurt others. Somebody earning a shit load of money is then in power over others, can hurt others, and doesn't necessarily have the best interest of others in mind.

 

A point I was pondering. Unequal healthcare and education are intrinsically tied to the perpetuation of a stratification of society. To say it is everyones right for healthcare, everyones right to be educated, is not only expressing that everyone deserves such things but also expressing that there is a real danger in not doing so. Everyone having education means less idiots out there which means society functions better. But also, besides the obvious positive effect it'll have on society, these social institutions are a requirement to move beyond the Darwinian model we have where the rich are the fittest and the poor are destined to be removed from the gene pool. It is just a false model. The rich are no better than anyone else. There is a lot of potential among poor people but there are so many road blocks in place that prevent upward mobility, healthcare being one. If you're born poor the likelihood if you going to college is unlikely. You won't reach your potential and instead will work lousy jobs and probably be unable to afford health insurance. Is that fair? I heard that the incomes were released for the heads of hedge funds, some guy made an annual profit of 3 billion dollars. Is that fair? Now he can profit his own war if he wanted to and because he learned how to manipulate the system and earn a shitload of money? Is that power justified? Why is he more worthy of living and being healthy than any other person?

Edited April 22, 2010 by mikaelz

[innerspace_cadet]

I honestly can't think of a communist-run country that didn't repress or at least severely restrict religious freedoms at some point in its history. China has recently relaxed its grip on religion, but that's not saying much, considering it was trying for the longest time to squeeze the life out of it.

 

Inequalities or disparities in wealth, power or influence have existed in every society, but communism is a horrible way to tackle that problem. It aims to create an essentially classless society, which is virtually impossible. Everyone is not equally gifted, talented or hard working, and no amount of wealth redistribution or collective ownership will change that. It flies in the face of human nature.

 

You can see it with utopian communes in America; once the community grows to a certain size, collective ownership becomes untenable.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Yes apepch7, great posts.

 

Vortex, I have the feeling you're about to break out some Ayn Rand any minute now...

[goldisheavy]

I agree 100% mikaelz. You make great points.

 

Also, if people are healthier, they tend to be happier, and it's good to be surrounded by happy neighbors for everyone, even for the well-to-do. The happiness is contagious.

 

The unhappiness is also contagious.

 

I don't argue for any kind of extremism. I argue against extremes. Trying to make everyone exactly the same is definitely an extreme undertaking. But the opposite extreme is just as dangerous for the reasons that have been plentifully outlined.

 

Another thing is that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were quick to use any amount of violence to "instill" their desired culture into the population. To my mind, that is obviously wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think Marx thought that Capitalism would naturally, organically, over time evolve into Communism. Marx didn't think of violence and revolutions. Marx just saw the Capitalist regime as unsustainable in the long run. There is a gradual cultural change that is happening slowly as we move away from Capitalism. This change is not a result of violence but a result of wisdom, insight, and reflection.

 

A lot of people want change, but who wants a bloody revolution? I would say very few or none. Violence is the last thing most people want, but at the same time, people do want a better life in a world that's not as "dog eat dog" as we have now. I think we all want to live among kinder and more generous people. We all want to work in a place that doesn't dehumanize us. None of us want to be treated as fungible commodities at work. We don't want to be treated as a resource, like copper or nickel or oil. We are people and we want just a little bit of human dignity in our lives. Nor do we want to be treated as soldiers who absolutely must obey all orders or be court-martialed, and yet this is precisely how people get treated every day in most places of employment. It's a cultural issue and it cannot be solved by putting a gun to someone's head. I think Marx could see that.

 

I think people are learning that, yes, greed really is a destructive force. It's not a positive force. Sages have been saying this for years (or thousands of years) but humanity as a whole is just barely beginning to learn that.

Edited April 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

GIH - The problem with your analysis is that you're judging everyone based upon the same essential life path (college-cubicle career-monetary metric only). Again, it's very narrow, select criteria. Which of course some will be better suited than others for - whether that's genetically or otherwise.

 

What you are missing is that if you were to change your focus to another life path or activity - now different people will be better suited.

 

If you are trying to drive a nail in a board, of course a hammer will beat a nail. But if you got a screw, it will be vice-versa.

If you are racing down the Autobahn, a Porsche will beat a Humvee. But if you're in a jungle, vice-versa.

 

A failure by one metric, might be a success by another. That's the whole point behind diversity.

 

So, Bill Gates might suck at swimming, yet be great at running a business. Some 7' tall dude might suck at horse jockeying, yet be great at hoops. Some high school dropout grease monkey making minimum wage might be getting paid 5X less but laid 5X more than a college grad cubicle slave.

 

You can't just compare and judge everyone based upon their SALARIES alone. Quality of life encompasses MUCH more than that! Look, say some dude is born 6'5" and looks like a GQ model - another is born 5'2" & looks like a troll. The former will have a HUGE advantage with women...but how could you ever equalize that?

 

Now, let's say that troll worked really hard to get rich to compensate for his looks. But now you equalize their wealth. Haven't you actually now UNequalized things & screwed this troll over even more now?

 

Or, do you support eliminating extreme dating disparities too and mandate equal sex for everyone? Hey, Tiger Woods got 17 babes simultaneously! That's not fair! We need policies to correct this extreme disparity! Seriously, where would it end?

these social institutions are a requirement to move beyond the Darwinian model we have where the rich are the fittest and the poor are destined to be removed from the gene pool.

Actually, you do know that the opposite is true? The poorest people actually reproduce the most & the wealthiest the least? That's one reason why they're both poor & rich.

Extremes are rarely natural. Absolute flatness is one extreme. And having someone's wealth be millions times your wealth is another extreme. There is a healthy middle somewhere in there.

Well, extremes are naturally rare. That's how a bell curve works.

And don't bother trying to dissuade me vortex. I will continue in similar vein until I die. I doubt you can make an intelligent argument to defend extreme wealth disparity.

Well, you attribute it mainly to extremely unfair privileges, circumstances and such. You seem to deny the fact that there may also be extreme disparities in individual effort. Given that this is also a fact, why shouldn't there also be some extreme disparities in results to match?

 

To me, the real problem would be extreme disparities in deserving effort & wealth. As long as the wealth is well-earned & fairly gotten, I have no problem with it. Sure rich people could abuse it too - but poor people can also abuse others without wealth as well - by say, mugging them. So, that's still a red herring.

 

Personally, there is a humungoid wealth disparity between me & Bill Gates. And I don't really care, cuz he worked his ass off for it.

Now bankstas ripping everyone off on Wall St - yes, that really pisses me off! But a businessman making money "legitly"...so what?

 

 

I think before you start tampering with Nature's system, you need to step back & take a look at the broader picture. It's easy to isolate any one aspect and see how certain people excel more than others at it. But that doesn't mean they excel OVERALL in ALL aspects. And inequity in one area could be counterbalanced by inequity in another. Whereas artificially equalizing just ONE thing (wealth) could actually cause more inequality in the overall picture.

 

 

 

 

Anyhow, the reality-based question is: Would you prefer extreme wealth disparities (capitalism) or extreme poverty for all (Communism)?

 

Because, "poor" people here in the US...would still be considered Middle Class people in China right now.

Edited April 22, 2010 by vortex

[goldisheavy]

You can't just compare and judge everyone based upon their SALARIES alone. Quality of life encompasses MUCH more than that! Look, say some dude is born 6'5" and looks like a GQ model - another is born 5'2" & looks like a troll. The former will have a HUGE advantage with women...but how could you ever equalize that?

 

Now, let's say that troll worked really hard to get rich to compensate for his looks. But now you equalize their wealth. Haven't you actually now UNequalized things & screwed this troll over even more now?

 

This example shows me that you don't actually understand what I am saying. Nor do you understand the real grievances of people. You think that people like me just want to take from the haves and give to the have nots. In so thinking you severely degrade my argument to the point where it's not even worth responding. You have a serious knee-jerk reaction going, I can tell. Why don't you put your prejudice aside and try to understand what I am talking about?

 

I feel like you're worried I will steal your hard earned money or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I want to steal your money, I am not going to consult anything with you or have a discussion. I'll just take your money without questions and chit chat. And if you stand in my way, I won't hesitate to blow you away. Obviously I am not doing that. Obviously I am here discussing things. Any intelligent person would understand, given these facts, that I don't want to grab your gold bars that you so desperately protect. Your greed has caused you to be blind. You can't even understand what I'm talking about because all you can think of is how me and people like me will come and take your gold and redistribute it to the welfare moms and such. You need to take a cold shower, calm down, take a deep breath, check your greed at the door, and try to understand what I am saying anew.

 

No matter how intelligent my points are and no matter how nuanced my presentation is, all your ears can hear is "He's coming for my gold, fuck, I must hide my gold and get into a defensive stance! I MUST PROTECT CAPITALISM!!! COMMIES ARE COMING!!! AAAAAAA!!!!"

 

Or, do you support eliminating extreme dating disparities too and mandate equal sex for everyone?

 

I specifically said that I don't support brute force and yet here again you talk as if I am about to force something using brute force on you.

 

You're making a big mistake.

[Guest paul walter]

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.

 

 

 

What you refer to was not communism-only Americans and French intellectuals seem to think communism as it was enforced in the 20th C was communism...It's more like totalitarian state capitalism, at best a faulty attempt to stem the tide of capitalist/feudalist chaos, at worst an attempt to seize power and play out ideological fantasies.

 

A couple of hundred thousand preventable deaths a year in just the US from faulty medical prescribing/treatment and workplace accidents is also an atrocity but by another name. One would have to know a little about the state of capitalist 'atrocities' at the turn of the 19th C in order to fully understand why what we know as communism had any appeal at all. Paul.

Edited April 22, 2010 by paul walter

[goldisheavy]

You seem to deny the fact that there may also be extreme disparities in individual effort. Given that this is also a fact, why shouldn't there also be some extreme disparities in results to match?

...

...

Personally, there is a humungoid wealth disparity between me & Bill Gates. And I don't really care, cuz he worked his ass off for it.

 

1. West Virginia coal miners work their ass off much harder than Bill Gates ever will. They sacrifice their health and sometimes their very lives for that coal. They put their lives on the line every day. Bill Gates does not put his life on the line every day in an air-conditioned office, sitting in his nice office chair. If the amount of effort was the determinant for compensation, then Bill Gates would earn 1/100th of what a coal miner earns.

 

2. Thieves also put a lot of planning, thinking and effort into theft. This doesn't make theft any more moral. The amount of effort you expend neither indicates the morality of your labor nor the deservedness of compensation.

 

I think before you start tampering with Nature's system

 

Nature doesn't have property rights. The way Nature works is simple: I see it, I take it. That's it. If you want us to stoop to that level, I am willing to oblige. I am a warrior and I will easily blow greedy pansies like you away. You won't even see me coming.

 

If you want to be civil, you will have to take my preferences into consideration and not just your own. You will also not pretend that your preferences are the very Nature itself. What hubris.

Edited April 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Oleg Galkin]

I agree

 

Communists killed many more people that Hitler.

 

Communism is pure evil.

 

Wow. The Ghost of Communism is still bothering the minds of people. You know, Stalin had eaten one million of infants personally.

[C T]

Wow. The Ghost of Communism is still bothering the minds of people. You know, Stalin had eaten one million of infants personally.

I think you'd know by now that this world and her human inhabitants are a strange and wonderful lot... and trust me, there are a lot less significant things that bother people every single moment - wrinkles, hair out of place, the way their steak is prepared, how their kids behave according to their social status etc. It all stems from some sort of inner loss of equilibrium, which, unfortunately, is fanned by the constant bombardment of subliminal media 'brain wash' propaganda that somehow we are never gonna be satisfied, no matter how hard we try, we will be hard-pressed to erase the imprint of 'lack' that has been, and fervently continue to be layered on to the human psyche.

Edited April 22, 2010 by CowTao

[RongzomFan]

Wow. The Ghost of Communism is still bothering the minds of people. You know, Stalin had eaten one million of infants personally.

 

 

Stalin killed more people than Hitler....So while you are at it, why don't you defend Hitler?

 

And regarding tibetan buddhism, the commies STILL have the Panchen Lama kidnapped till the present day!

 

And I saw a rare interview with the China president on CNN. That guy is fucked up in the head!!

Edited April 22, 2010 by alwayson

[Nanashi]

Communism was created by a Rothschild through various agents (Lenin, Marx) to be a false duality against capitalism-- something for people to fight over. It was never meant to be sustainable, given the greed of man.

 

The real problem with any system of economics and governments is corruption-- even philosopher kings are fallible. There is no utopia in them; with all the technological wonders we enjoy, there will the horrors of inequality and exploitation. The only true utopia existed when man was still apart of nature: as nomadic animals.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I feel it deserved its own thread. It diminishes the impact of the OP article.

[Apech]

Communism was created by a Rothschild through various agents (Lenin, Marx) to be a false duality against capitalism-- something for people to fight over. It was never meant to be sustainable, given the greed of man.

 

The real problem with any system of economics and governments is corruption-- even philosopher kings are fallible. There is no utopia in them; with all the technological wonders we enjoy, there will the horrors of inequality and exploitation. The only true utopia existed when man was still apart of nature: as nomadic animals.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I feel it deserved its own thread. It diminishes the impact of the OP article.

 

 

Do you have a source for this assertion about the origins of communism?

 

BTW most Taobums threads are like this ... that's just how it is.

[Nanashi]

Appech: haha, true-- I was just thinking for this particular topic, more focus should have been on the article itself than the tangent. But, of course, you are right about that is what happens to most threads.

 

Anyway, here is a timeline ( http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm ) of the Rothschild family, you can ctrl+f for communism and its names (Mao, Marx).

 

Few nations can modernize on their own, through their own merit and resources-- it takes funding. Before the IMF, there were the banking families.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Nanashi

[voidisyinyang]

Nice to see some heated debate on taobums! Thanks for that Paris Review interview. It's part of a chapter of a book on India which I blogged about here:

 

http://naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com/2010/04/happy-earthday-or-emptiness-day.html

 

As for "communism" -- the new documentary "Soviet Story" settles the matter as far as the atrocities committed -- it was worse than Hitler if such a comparison can be made. http://www.jurnaltv.ro/video/The_Soviet_Story_Povestea_sovietelor_incredibil

 

 

BOTH Hitler and Stalin were funded by the capitalist investors as Sutton documented.

 

The CIA was in Tibet BEFORE the Chinese invaded, just as the CIA was in Afghanistan before the Soviets invaded in the 1970s....

[gendao]

This way Tibet would at least know which way the political winds are blowing and wouldn't be caught navel gazing.

I guess this really puts their Buddhist convictions of all phenomena being merely illusive and the body just being a skin bag...to the test. I think this is a conflict that many spiritually-oriented people face - grounding in the real world, as illusive as it might be.

This example shows me that you don't actually understand what I am saying. Nor do you understand the real grievances of people. You think that people like me just want to take from the haves and give to the have nots. In so thinking you severely degrade my argument to the point where it's not even worth responding. You have a serious knee-jerk reaction going, I can tell. Why don't you put your prejudice aside and try to understand what I am talking about?

 

I feel like you're worried I will steal your hard earned money or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I want to steal your money, I am not going to consult anything with you or have a discussion. I'll just take your money without questions and chit chat. And if you stand in my way, I won't hesitate to blow you away. Obviously I am not doing that. Obviously I am here discussing things. Any intelligent person would understand, given these facts, that I don't want to grab your gold bars that you so desperately protect. Your greed has caused you to be blind. You can't even understand what I'm talking about because all you can think of is how me and people like me will come and take your gold and redistribute it to the welfare moms and such. You need to take a cold shower, calm down, take a deep breath, check your greed at the door, and try to understand what I am saying anew.

Wow, projecting much?

 

But ok, maybe you're right. Next time you're short on cash but just "need" something...just grab it off the shelf of a store and walk out without paying. If they accost you, tell them to calm down, go take a cold shower and stop being so greedy. Then come back here and let me know how that works out for you.

No matter how intelligent my points are and no matter how nuanced my presentation is, all your ears can hear is "He's coming for my gold, fuck, I must hide my gold and get into a defensive stance! I MUST PROTECT CAPITALISM!!! COMMIES ARE COMING!!! AAAAAAA!!!!"

Have you ever actually lived under Communism? Cuz that's actually not much of an exaggeration - as the monk mentioned. Not to mention 100-140 million DEAD victims??? Does that figure mean absolutely nothing to you?

 

But ohhh, none of these were caused by "real" Communism...which never existed in the real world - because IT CAN'T. Because it is not based upon human nature, like capitalism.

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.

Basically, 8 billion people would have to all become enlightened for it to hypothetically "work." IOW, it's totally unrealistic. Of course if that happened - we might not need ANY form of government.

 

Nonetheless, parts of it that were effectively implemented did result in epic failure, time & again.

 

And again, you dodged my real world question: Would you prefer extreme wealth disparities (capitalism) or extreme poverty for all (Communism)? Remember, politics is generally the lesser of evils...

I specifically said that I don't support brute force and yet here again you talk as if I am about to force something using brute force on you.

Uh, I said "Or, do you support eliminating extreme dating disparities too and mandate equal sex for everyone?" Where in tarnation did I accuse you of using brute force in there?

As for "communism" -- the new documentary "Soviet Story" settles the matter as far as the atrocities committed -- it was worse than Hitler if such a comparison can be made. http://www.jurnaltv.ro/video/The_Soviet_Story_Povestea_sovietelor_incredibil

 

BOTH Hitler and Stalin were funded by the capitalist investors as Sutton documented.

 

The CIA was in Tibet BEFORE the Chinese invaded, just as the CIA was in Afghanistan before the Soviets invaded in the 1970s....

Bingo! We have a winner! It's amazing to me that a Trojan Horse that has killed over 100 million people (and made Hitler look like a Girl Scout) is still duping people today! Edited April 22, 2010 by vortex

[Apech]

Stalinism does not equal communism. Just thought I would remind people. The Russians actually played more of a role in defeating fascism than the other allies.

 

I haven't read any posts here that seek to defend Stalin or Mao but it strikes me as very, very odd that communism is treated as an absolute evil by people on a (principally) Taoist forum - when Taoism sees all such judgements as relative.

[Sunya]

Yeah I too am confused by Stalinism and Maoism are the basis for blanket statements about Communism when a true Communist state has never been.

 

The overgeneralized hypothesis of wealth disparities OR extreme poverty for all is deluded. The world is not so black and white. Progress does not depend on manipulating greed so people work. Communism would work but everyone in the world would have to have the same values, where selfish desires are replaced with communal ideas like helping everyone. There would have to be a paradigm shift in the individual to identify with everyone instead of just himself or his family. Then there would be, dare I say, way more progress than there has been with Capitalism.

 

We should also define 'progress'. I don't see longer life, shinier toys, healthier bodies, and endless modes of entertainment as substantial progress that is worth becoming a slave to banks and corporations. In Capitalism you become a slave, pure and simple. Your desires are fed to you and your worth is calculated by how much work you can do. You are no better than a robot. Debt is the epitome of slavery and our whole system NEEDS debt. Without debt there wouldn't be banks! Check out 'Money as Debt' on youtube since it explains this thoroughly.

 

Intellectually, spiritually, ethically we haven't made any progress since the ancient Greeks. What progress? Ok we have science, great, maybe there's some intellectual progress there but the majority of people have the emotional control of children and lack any spiritual awareness whatsoever. Is progress simply becoming as comfortable as possible, satisfying as many desires as possible, and even creating new ones?

Edited April 22, 2010 by mikaelz

[gendao]

I haven't read any posts here that seek to defend Stalin or Mao but it strikes me as very, very odd that communism is treated as an absolute evil by people on a (principally) Taoist forum - when Taoism sees all such judgements as relative.

Have you ever heard of a Taoist book called the Dao De Jing? I believe you have confused non-duality with non-judgement. Because it actually gives a lot of explicit political advice:

If you want to be a great leader,

you must learn to follow the Tao.

Stop trying to control.

Let go of fixed plans and concepts

 

The more subsidies you have,

the less self-reliant people will be.

 

I let go of all desire for the common good,

and the good becomes common as grass.

 

Governing a large country

is like frying a small fish.

You spoil it with too much poking.

1. West Virginia coal miners work their ass off much harder than Bill Gates ever will. They sacrifice their health and sometimes their very lives for that coal. They put their lives on the line every day. Bill Gates does not put his life on the line every day in an air-conditioned office, sitting in his nice office chair. If the amount of effort was the determinant for compensation, then Bill Gates would earn 1/100th of what a coal miner earns.

 

2. Thieves also put a lot of planning, thinking and effort into theft. This doesn't make theft any more moral. The amount of effort you expend neither indicates the morality of your labor nor the deservedness of compensation.

I said DESERVING effort. Which is determined via supply & demand in a fair free market in accordance with criminal laws.

 

By which coal miners actually make about DOUBLE ($65,000) the per capita income in the US of $33,881. Given that this is a fairly unskilled, but high-risk occupation, it's probably a fair sum.

Nature doesn't have property rights. The way Nature works is simple: I see it, I take it. That's it. If you want us to stoop to that level, I am willing to oblige. I am a warrior and I will easily blow greedy pansies like you away. You won't even see me coming.

It doesn't? Try taking over a hornet's nest. Or stealing a salmon away from a bear who just caught it. What do you think a tiger is doing when it marks its territory? I think if you try to simply "take what you see" in Nature - you will also find that it is not quite as simple as you think.

 

And don't forget about all the other warriors whom YOU won't ever see coming..

 

And Communism has property rights too - all property simply becomes property of the State. The State pwns your ass. Tells you when to get up, when to take a sh*t & when to go to bed. How you like dem apples?

 

 

 

But, why so defensive? What is it that feels so threatened here? Your ego? All I'm doing is challenging your personal beliefs. Not your personal safety in any shape or form.

Edited April 23, 2010 by vortex

[Apech]

Have you ever heard of a Taoist book called the Dao De Jing? I believe you have confused non-duality with non-judgement. Because it actually gives a lot of explicit political advice:

 

Vortex,

 

I can only think you have misconstrued what I was trying to say and this may be my fault. I recognise the quotes from the TTC although not sure which translation that is. I do understand the difference between non-duality and non-judgement and I do not consider Stalin, Mao, Hitler or even Obama, Mandela, Gandhi or whoever to be the good ruler as defined by the TTC. So I don't understand your point and can't answer it.

 

John

[goldisheavy]

Have you ever actually lived under Communism? Cuz that's actually not much of an exaggeration - as the monk mentioned. Not to mention 100-140 million DEAD victims??? Does that figure mean absolutely nothing to you?

 

I left USSR in 1989. I grew up there.

[goldisheavy]

I said DESERVING effort. Which is determined via supply & demand in a fair free market in accordance with criminal laws.

 

That's just not good enough. Lawful behavior is often immoral. Supply and demand alone are not sufficient basis for good culture.

 

By which coal miners actually make about DOUBLE ($65,000) the per capita income in the US of $33,881. Given that this is a fairly unskilled, but high-risk occupation, it's probably a fair sum.It doesn't?

 

It's downright offensive. What Gates did is unskilled labor. Making deals is natural to human beings and is not some special skill. Even kids make deals among each other. Get some perspective. Mining takes a lot of skill. Why don't you go into a mine without skills and see how long you last. You'll probably lose an arm on your first day. Learn some respect for ordinary professions.

 

Try taking over a hornet's nest.

 

I know how to take over a hornet's nest. I won't get stung.

 

Or stealing a salmon away from a bear who just caught it.

 

That's dumb. Why not just kill the bear? It's not that hard. All you need is a good spear. Heck, there was a dude who killed a bear by smashing its face with a log, in the news not too far back. Bears are fast and strong and if they get close to you, they can kill you. However there are ways to deal with it. People routinely kill animals larger than themselves. In fact, it's a common occurrence in an animal kingdom for a smaller and better adapted animal to kill a larger one.

 

Get it through your stupid thick head that the reason I don't use force is not because:

 

1. I am afraid.

2. I don't know how.

3. I can't do it.

4. I don't know how to build alliances/gangs/groups to support my mission.

 

It's none of the above. I don't use it because I believe in civility. But my belief in civility absolutely requires that I am surrounded by compassionate and sympathetic people, and you are not one of them. You are a chickenhawk who thinks he's all tough, but will run at the slightest sign of trouble. You go around puffing up your chest and proclaiming how the world is Darwinian and how we need to all make our own money and how "it's every man for himself." You don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you take that kind of ideology. I am warning you -- you need to wake up. You should try to see things from other people's point of view.

 

I understand greed. I understand the desire to own property and to refuse to share. I understand the desire to be 10000 greater than your neighbor. I know these impulses, because I have defeated them in myself.

 

I am not out to lord it over anyone. However. When assholes like you promote "every man for himself" heartless capitalism, you ruin my life and I will resist. I will resist with words and arguments, but if it comes to that, I will use force.

 

What do you think a tiger is doing when it marks its territory?

 

This isn't what property is, moron. Property is a social contract that roughly states, "The government, vested by the people, will guarantee and protect your belongings in return for some obligations from you back to the government." Property is not the ability of the strong to keep their shit from the weak. Property is when a smaller weaker guy can keep his morally earned stuff due to government protection, even though there is a bigger stronger guy next to the smaller guy who would prefer to take those belongings. Get it?

 

Property is precisely the opposite of "might makes right" Natural law. The mighty don't need protections or governments. The reason government and social contracts exist in the first place is to protect the weak and the vulnerable.

 

Your lack of compassion is leading you into a dangerous territory. Your arrogance is boundless. Don't think you are so tough. Don't think that people who have empathy or compassion are helpless and fearful bleeding heart liberals. You don't understand shit about the world if that's what you think.

[gendao]

Get it through your stupid thick head that the reason I don't use force is not because:

 

It's none of the above. I don't use it because I believe in civility. But my belief in civility absolutely requires that I am surrounded by compassionate and sympathetic people, and you are not one of them. You are a chickenhawk who thinks he's all tough, but will run at the slightest sign of trouble. You go around puffing up your chest and proclaiming how the world is Darwinian and how we need to all make our own money and how "it's every man for himself." You don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you take that kind of ideology. I am warning you -- you need to wake up. You should try to see things from other people's point of view.

Woaaa, I've never seen you lose your cool like this. You might want to listen to yourself here, buddy.

I understand greed. I understand the desire to own property and to refuse to share. I understand the desire to be 10000 greater than your neighbor. I know these impulses, because I have defeated them in myself.

Freudian projection, check.

I am not out to lord it over anyone. However. When assholes like you promote "every man for himself" heartless capitalism, you ruin my life and I will resist. I will resist with words and arguments, but if it comes to that, I will use force.

WOW, these are some bold statements & threats! Capitalism "ruins your life" and you will resist it with force???

 

And yet:

I left USSR in 1989. I grew up there.

So as Communism was failing in the USSR...why did you chose to flee to a capitalist country like the US? Instead of another Communist country? You chose to ruin your own life?

Property is not the ability of the strong to keep their shit from the weak. Property is when a smaller weaker guy can keep his morally earned stuff due to government protection, even though there is a bigger stronger guy next to the smaller guy who would prefer to take those belongings. Get it?

 

Property is precisely the opposite of "might makes right" Natural law. The mighty don't need protections or governments. The reason government and social contracts exist in the first place is to protect the weak and the vulnerable.

Well, both "weak" & "strong" can be vulnerable at various times. It's all relative and changing. So, the same person could be the "stronger" one today, but the "weaker" one tomorrow. Property rights thus protect everyone's property under a mutually-agreed upon ceasefire.

Your lack of compassion is leading you into a dangerous territory. Your arrogance is boundless. Don't think you are so tough. Don't think that people who have empathy or compassion are helpless and fearful bleeding heart liberals. You don't understand shit about the world if that's what you think.

I think when you mature, you will realize that only fairness is equitable & sustainable and enabling failure disables in the long run. Your thinking has led to 140 million deaths and untold suffering. You call that COMPASSIONATE? You don't understand shit about the world if that's what you think. If that's not dangerous territory, I don't know what is?

Well, (I assume) you freely chose to move from a Communist to a capitalist country. Actions speak louder than words. I think this debate is now over. Thx for playing.

 

Seriously, we may just have to agree to disagree here. Obviously, you are literally deadset in your beliefs...so be it. It's a free country, to each their own. ^5

Edited April 23, 2010 by vortex