Interesting Quote from one of the world's great spiritual leaders

[realtrance]

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned 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 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. . . .

 

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.

 

 

---The Dalai Lama in Marianne Dresser (ed.), Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses (Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 1996).

[Phait]

I still don't know what Marxism / Communism / Totalitarianism, etc. is or why it's trendy to toss an ISM after everything.

 

I guess I shoulda cared about history. Well not entirely, it was always hard for me to fully understand what they meant even when I read a summary.

[nursers]

Originally posted by realtrance:

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned 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 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. . . .

 

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.

 

 

---The Dalai Lama in Marianne Dresser (ed.), Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses (Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 1996).

Yep - and he's pretty damn right. Although, totalitarianism and communism are now so tightly perceived as being aligned to marxism that I can't see the ideology ever taking off in a widespread way ever again.

 

The eye-opener for me on marxism as a very thorough approach came when doing some philosophy studies - old Karl knew his stuff

[not coaster MODERATOR]

[nursers]

Originally posted by not coaster:

That's true as well

[Jotown]

Originally posted by not coaster:

Damn Coaster that was a deep thought!

 

NOT!

[Prague]

Send me money!

 

(I don't have any, BTW, but you understand)

[Philip OKeefe]

No offense, but for me, one of the greatest failings of communism is the fact that it removes all incentive for individuals to excel.

[nursers]

Exactly - and that's not what marxism is - big difference

[Geoff Grace]

"Workers of the world unite!"

- Karl Marx

 

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know!"

- Groucho Marx

 

You be the judge!

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Bbach1]

We should have some kind of political forum for this type of stuff.

[Kendrix]

Building on Phils comment the failure of communism to "provide incentives for individuals to xcel" has a devastating effect in the macro sense.

 

It fails to maximize the creation of wealth. Without innovation driven by a balanced risk/reward profile facing investors/entrepreneurs wealth creation is stunted big time.

 

Whats the point of distributing wealth equally when you re failing to produce wealth at all? Id rather have a much bigger pie to share somewhat unequaly than a much much smaller one divided equally.

 

Priority one: provide a system that maximizes the creation of wealth.

 

Prioroty two: without destroying #1 create a system that protects all members, provides for minimum needs, and, beyond that, ensures the limted resources are distributed fairly.

 

Id much rather be treated "unequally", by the welfare programs in the US than I would want to get a equal share of the pie in Bangla Desh or Russia or N. Korea. No contest.

 

The experiment is over, the data is in, the result is clear. Even previously dogmatic China gets it.

 

Note that this is a purely economic discussion. It has nothhng to do with the need for community, spirituality, a fair legal system or similar topics. It has little to do with political systems. We are talking economics.

 

Is the distribution of wealth in the US perfecct? NO. But that still doesn't mean the capitalistic economic growth engine is the issue.

 

BTW-IMO this definately belongs in the political forum.

[nursers]

Agree again, but also again - Marxism isn't Communism.

 

It's like saying classical music is rock 'n roll. In both cases one is the precursor to the other, but they aren't the same

 

Here\'s a useful link on the issue

[Botch.]

Another quote for you, courtesy of an old boss of mine: "TRUE Marxism, like TRUE Christianity, has never really ever been practiced anywhere in the world". Human greed will ensure that is always true.

[realtrance]

Botch,

 

You and me must've worked for the same guy -- I've heard that line, too, and in many ways, it is quite accurate.

 

rt

[Raymar]

Anybody checked out the price of real estate or gas lately? Glanced at the national debt? Excelling isn't everything.

 

Steve

www.soundclick.com/steveraymar

[theblue1]

Originally posted by Phait:

I still don't know what Marxism / Communism / Totalitarianism, etc. is or why it's trendy to toss an ISM after everything.

 

I guess I shoulda cared about history. Well not entirely, it was always hard for me to fully understand what they meant even when I read a summary.

In a democracy -- it's the responsibility of citizens to know enough to make proper decisions at the ballot box. The unwillingness of otherwise decent, caring people to shoulder that responsibility is how we got into the mess we're in today.

 

As long as we're quoting, George Santayana said:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

 

[Doesn't this belong in the polical forum?]

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe:

No offense, but for me, one of the greatest failings of communism is the fact that it removes all incentive for individuals to excel.

Agreed, Phil. Marxism works well on paper, but not in execution, and much of that is due to human nature and greed. But the equality of Marxism is, at least on paper, appealing.

~~~~~

Also, although I am heavily opposed to political discussion on this forum, this discussion can perhaps be of a more philosophical nature.

~~~~~~

And finally, here's a quote from another Tibetan that I really like:

 

"My religion is not to be ashamed of myself when I die."

-Milarepa, Tibetan saint/philosopher

[Prague]

Yea, Marx was a "true" thinker. He married into German royalty and his wife supported him. Ha! What a phony.

 

The minds of 100 years ago were every bit as bright (if not moreso) than this forum. They've had 100 years to try it and no one will take the chance.

 

"oh, but we are going to do it right."

 

Yea, right.

[theblue1]

Prague

 

Techniques of economic and system analysis pioneered by Marx are used all the time by Fortune 500 econmic analysts.

 

 

Now, I'm a strong believer in the marketplace -- when it's a free, clean and fair marketplace uncorrupted by government-business collusion.

 

And I'm none too impressed with the results of attempts to implement Marxist social theories, either. Then, too, those attempts have mostly been wildly inconsistent with the principles of those theories.

 

But I also know enough to not make an ass out of myself with a buffoonish statement like yours.

[Is there bass in the caR-R]

For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

 

 

---The Dalai Lama in Marianne Dresser (ed.), Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses (Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 1996). [/QB]

Does that make you an X-budd?

[Prague]

Originally posted by theblue1:

Prague

...But I also know enough to not make an ass out of myself with a buffoonish statement like yours.

Bite me.

 

This is fun.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Prague:

Yea, Marx was a "true" thinker. He married into German royalty and his wife supported him. Ha! What a phony.

Prague, just so you know, a LOT of writers have someone support them so that they can write their book, especially if they are not financially independent. Now, I know little about Karl Marx as a person, his history, etc., but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

You might not agree with Marx' philosophy, but that's a whole 'nother story!!

[theblue1]

Originally posted by Prague:

Originally posted by theblue1:

Prague

...But I also know enough to not make an ass out of myself with a buffoonish statement like yours.

Bite me.

 

This is fun.

Your response is appropriate. Better, proably, than I deserved.

 

I meant to go take that last gratuitously nasty bit off, went looking for the thread and got distracted.

 

I'm glad you took it at the appropriate level.

 

I'm grumpy before I've had coffee, what can I tell you?

 

 

Sorry.

 

TK

[Geoff Grace]

Since this thread lasted much longer than I expected it to, I'll make a serious reply.

 

I'm far from an expert on Marx; but from what I understand, it could be argued that social democracies are a truer result of Marxism than communist states have been. For example:

 

Posted at the Australian National University site :

The young Marx came increasingly to believe that no society which was divided into exploiting employer and exploited worker could ever achieve full democracy ... As he wrote in 1847 in a pamphlet outlining the views of a socialist grouping he was involved in:

 

"We are not among those communists who are out to

destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the

world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic

workhouse. There certainly are some communists who,

with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance

personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out

of the world because they consider that it is a

hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire

to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced

that in no social order will freedom be assured as

in a society based upon communal ownership."

The French revolution had democracy at its heart; and yet for awhile, the French wound up with Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. I think that advocates for democracy wouldn't want their cause represented by Napoleon any more than proponents for Marxism would want their cause to be represented by Josef Stalin.

 

Furthermore, I'd like to add how lucky we were in the United States that George Washington had no aspirations of becoming King George I of the Americas. If Washington had been seduced by power, what a different country this might have become! For that matter, what a different course democracy might have taken as well in the world at large. The debt we owe to George Washington is incalculable!

 

We were very lucky!

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Is there bass in the caR-R]

Some "Great Experiments" will bear fruit, and some will not. With experiments of the scope of how to organize and maintain an entire society, the simple size of the lab, or "control group" is difficult to manage. Here in America, we have a live model of capitalism and democracy in all it's glory and shame.

 

For what this combination of government and economy is good for, it's pretty good. For the things that it is not good for, its painfully obvious.

 

People who are not successful with the capitalistic model are not only pennyless- they are also homeless, hopeless and abandoned by the society that didn't allow for a certain percentage of people who simply didn't fit the model... and they usurp resources that were not allocated for them. I don't say that to be mean, but in any society, I think you have to allow for a percentage of people that will just not fit in- for whatever reason.

 

And even if that wasn't an issue, there is a disturbing number of people who have sub- standard health care... In a country that has the best health care available anywhere in the world. Add to that the large number of "working poor" and a Social Security "benefit" that seems to take in more money than it pays out, and you begin to get a picture of a social experiment gone awfully awry... If 90% of the people have 10% of the wealth, the other 10% of the people will have to deal with crime, indigency and living in gated communites.

[philbo_Tangent]

I pretty much agree with Kendrix & Phil O'Keefe on this. Since we're throwing quotes around, here's one that could surely apply on some level:

 

"Keep it as simple as possible. But, not too simple" - Albert Einstein

[nursers]

Originally posted by philbo_Tangent:

I pretty much agree with Kendrix & Phil O'Keefe on this. Since we're throwing quotes around, here's one that could surely apply on some level:

 

"Keep it as simple as possible. But, not too simple" - Albert Einstein

Also valid - Marx's theories are far from simple though. I sure as hell can't understand a lot of it, as it suffers in translation to English. I suppose my point is that Marxism does not equal what was termed communism by the USSR, China and Nth Korea.

 

And Gas makes good points - the capitalist model certainly has major downfalls as well...

[John Sayers]

I find this interesting coming from the Dali Larma considering he heads one of the most repressive religious elite in Tibet where he was born and 30% of the society were buddhist monks and ruled over the remaining 70%. Hardly Marxist.

 

cheers

john

[Prague]

No biggie, blue1. It's cool.