Marxism for Buddha. posted by Richard Seymour

I'm not inclined toward religion, and least of all toward theocracy, but when someone described the Dalai Lama the other day as a Gucci sandal wearing feudal theocrat, I felt a little pang of sympathy for the pious one. After all, was it not he who said :

Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to do some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people.

Instead, the Chinese communists brought Tibet a so-called "liberation." These people were not implementing true Marxist policy. If they had been, national boundaries would not be important to them. They would have worried about helping humanity. Instead, the Chinese communists carried out aggression and suppression in Tibet. Whenever there was opposition, it was simply crushed. They started destroying monasteries and killing and arresting lamas.

Or even:

"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 utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes - that is the majority - as well as with those who are underprivileged and in need; and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For these reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems to be 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 and half-Buddhist." (Quoted in Bertell Ollman, How To Take an Exam... & Remake the World, Black Rose Books, 2001).

But I've always thought that the trouble with Buddhism, aside from its involving religious spiritual beliefs which clash with my religious mechanistic beliefs, is its lack of militancy, specifically in respect of Tibet. Get yer goddam guns and give the Chinese a good fricking whipping! Not much chance of that, unfortunately, if this Buddhist socialist is representative:

In sum, the Buddhist attitude toward the class struggle is of a piece from
start to finish: It means to stand within the no-self that is also the Great Self, to take as one's purpose that one will cherish the propertyless masses and liberate the
deprived classes, using methods that exclude military force and violence, and especially
taking as one's basic principle the resistance that is non-resistance.

"Resistance that is non-resistance". Fan-fuckin-tastic.