< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Idiots everywhere!

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Idiots everywhere!

Saw this over at one of John Ray's pages. A quote from the Dalai Lama in 1996:
"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. . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist".
Ok, my estimation of him just plunged quite a few notches. I now think of him as third-Marxist, third-Buddhist and third-Fool. Marxism is moral??? How can a supposedly educated man believe the bullshit about means of production or that Marxism gives two-shits about the working class? "Capitalism" created the working class, free markets are the only system that can sustain and feed the working class in any meaningful way. Marxism and its offspring have subjugated the working class beyond comprehension and starved it to death in many cases. Yeah Marxism cares, you fool.
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Chefen | 9/27/2005 08:09:00 pm

11 Comments:

Blogger JamesP said...

Don't be too harsh :)

It is possible that he is merely saying that to placate the Chinese who he needs to maintain good relations with. Or that living under Chinese rule and then being surrounded by Chinese stooges in exile has softened his view to the Communist world-view.

Or he may simply be referring to the relative merits of the competing theories. After all Marxism has some quite appealing aspirations that capitalism lacks. The problem with Marxism et al. has, and IMO will always be, the impossibility of implementation and therefore the subsequent non-realisation of those aspirations. Marx never intended for the working class to starve. He just couldn't foresee that his ideas could never be made to work anywhere near as well as capitalism.

9/27/2005 08:41:00 pm  
Blogger Chefen said...

I tend to think that he (the Dalai Lama) probably believes it. After all Marxism and religion grow from the same soil. He probably regards communism as some wayward application of the ideal, rather than the inevitable outcome. As for the relative merits of Marxism, well I don't really see any. The supposed aspirations are impossible except under totalitarian rule and then they destroy what would ordinarily be called humanity. There is nothing appealing in it at all, it certainly does nothing for the underpriviledged or promote equality. Marx and Engels were nasty racist thugs who had enormous German supremacist streaks. The fact that it can be regarded in anyway as positive is amazing.

9/27/2005 09:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marx was an utter, fawning capitalist. He wanted to improve the object of his affections, but died before publishing anything of substance.

His lack of progress with the last half of Das Kapital is a clear indication that he wasn't up to the task, which is forgivable in the light of history (nobody else has managed it).

Almost all of "Marxism" was made up by socialist hacks after his death.

9/27/2005 09:04:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

"After all Marxism and religion grow from the same soil."

You mean that strange thing in the human mind that makes us as a species need to reach out beyond ourselves and find something bigger and more powerful than ourselves?

9/27/2005 09:21:00 pm  
Anonymous george said...

Well Karl Marx is dead and now knows a lot more than he knew before on earth. It will happen to us all. But as to his temporal knowledge I prefer the comment made by Churchill

"There is not one single social or economic principle or concept in the philosophy of the Russian Bolshevik," he once wrote, "which has not been realized, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the White Ant."

ie. it destoys the habitat that gives it substance. In this case society.

9/27/2005 09:31:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Chefen, you might find it interesting to know that Pope John Paul II was totally against Marxism. He went after something called "liberation theology" which seems to be a marxist version of Catholosism that grew in South America. The left really hate him for taking out Marxist Bishops and teachers. Here's something from Green Left in Australia.

I must admit that I am very surprised the Dalai Lama thinks Marxism is "moral". Probably why thousands of Buddhists are converting away to mostly Christianity.

9/27/2005 10:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to think that communism was a great idea if only someone would put it into practice properly (but admittedly the enormous body count from the various attempts was a warning sign).

Then I decided it was flawed so badly that it was unworkable, but at least people believed in it when they implemented it.

Then I became cynical and decided that no one really thought it would work, or even wanted it to or believed it could. It was just about power.

Now I understand that communism is no better than fascism. It is an evil, fully corrupt system which demonstrates how wrong things can get when you start from first principles and try to 're-wire' the ways things are.

Communism is founded on moral principals? Only a truely warped mind could imagine this, a mind which is better than average at ignoring reality, history, common sense and basic human decency.

9/27/2005 10:22:00 pm  
Anonymous STC said...

I tend to think of "Fukuyama Capitalism" (ie Capitalism 'twinned' with minimal democracy) as completely devoid of morality as a system - he intends that local populations create their own standards.

Marx intended the economic system to reward people as close to fairly for their labours as possible, whereas Capitalism intends for Entrepreneurs to pay the smallest amount possible to acquire the benefit of employees' labour.

Ayn Rand justifies this by pointing out that in a Capitalist system, there are no labours without an entreprenurial class.

Where Marx comes from is a historical view that privliges the working class as providing the stability for the entreprenurial class to exist and expand, using the labour market.

I think both of these views are essentially correct, but Rand makes a very wrong assumption in her belief that all Government is wrong.

The Dalai Lama, incidentally, is a very confused man, who seems to say whatever is on his mind at any given time, even if it contradicts itself - much like Winston Peters.

9/28/2005 01:09:00 am  
Blogger Chefen said...

But surely Marxist labour theory fails because it can't value "labour", fairly or otherwise, in a large system. The sheer amount of information about prices, demand and supply make judging the current "fair" price of labour impossible even if it meant anything in a highly specialised workforce. A free market can do so in something approaching an optimal manner, so long as interference is kept to a minimum. Some government is necessary, since anarchy is not conducive to a free market, but only in as much as providing a definite rule of law so all actors are certain of how the rules apply and that the rules are as much as possible "greasing the wheels". What all forms of socialism fail to include is the extended order that emerges in a large free market system that is more than any subgroup can control. The morality of a free market system? Well, people don't tend to starve to death or live under totalitarian states so...

9/28/2005 02:27:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lama is a Marxist, so what? Ghandi was a racist. Not a lot of people know that he considered African blacks sub-human, and spent a good deal of his time as a journalist drawing distinctions between Indians and Africans so his fellow white racists wouldnt be mistaken.

Also dont forget what Tibet WAS before the Chinese claimed it. It was a theocracy! A self appointed ruling elite, backed by the Universe if you believe them, hads absolute power. Tibet had peasants and the powerful. Lhasa had palaces and slums (real slums). Only the annointed were educated, with the rest of the population kept illiterate.

The Lama can say whatever he likes now, nobody really gives a shit. Just like they do with Ghandi, they have their image of the "Hollywood freidnly" Lama cemented in place, and nothing can shake it.

Just think about what those who advocate returning Tibet to the way it was before are really wishing on people. A turd sandwich in place of giant douche.

Kimble

9/28/2005 11:09:00 am  
Blogger Sean said...

Like most attacks on capitalism (harnessing self-interest for the common good), the profit motive is found morally wanting. What is always missed is that the profit motive is only one side of the equation - and the lesser side at that.
It is capitalism's intolerance of loss that constitutes its greatest strength - and is the main reason it is despised by the Left in my opinion. By ruthlessly culling activities that don't work and/or waste resources capitalism is not kind to their ideas (which feature both as inate characteristics).
In short, capitalism doesn't suffer fools - and the fools don't like it!

9/29/2005 04:37:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home