15 Comments

Mrs. Jackson
May 21st, 2010 | 1:39 pm

“Where does one begin?”

A good starter would to ask him what his definition of moral is…

John Cummins
May 21st, 2010 | 1:40 pm

“Where does one begin?”

Presuming that you not only disagree with the Dalai Lama, but find his comments fatuous, ignorant, polluted by the same intellectual and spiritual diseases that lead to Western acquiesence before Jihad, the election of Obama, the current feebleness of manners and morals, and compelled by his having to cater to an audience of those in and among whom such evils reside, one begins a demonstration of Marxism’s lack of “moral ethics” and of capitalism’s enshrinement of them. Go for it.

Mike Melendez
May 21st, 2010 | 2:05 pm

Huh? That’s to the Dalai Lama. I thought he was Buddhist but I guess I forget that his office (in theory at least) is ruler of the Tibetans.

Bill Reichert
May 21st, 2010 | 5:57 pm

“Marxism has “moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.””

Actually Marxism makes hash of little countries so unfortunate as to have a Marxist country for a neighbor. Such as, e.g., Tibet.

Diane
May 21st, 2010 | 7:00 pm

Ignorant of history!

ahem
May 21st, 2010 | 8:02 pm

F.A. Hayek

John Cummins
May 21st, 2010 | 8:09 pm

“Actually Marxism makes hash of little countries so unfortunate as to have a Marxist country for a neighbor. Such as, e.g., Tibet.”

No, the imperialism of the Han Chinese does so, whether led by emperor or Communist Party. Marxism is involved only so far as it’s paid lip service.

Andre
May 22nd, 2010 | 5:38 am

Would you say Jesus was a capitalist? Or that He approved of capitalism? Which one would He choose : Marxism or catilaism?

Ars Artium
May 22nd, 2010 | 9:38 am

Capitalism at its best (including a safety net for those in need) encourages creation of wealth. It increases funds that are available for private and governmental distribution to those in need. Governments do not generate wealth. Those in power collect it from those who create it and then distribute it with the aim of shaping society (that means you). A primary assumption of Marxism is that there is no human nature; man is available for “conditioning” by those in power; the new “new man” (not the one who is born in Christ). Marxism is a godless philosophy; Christianity without Christ, faith without God.

Dean Steinlage
May 22nd, 2010 | 11:13 am

catilaism?
Rule by cats?

I’m cool with that.

a different Andre (not the same as posted above)
May 22nd, 2010 | 6:51 pm

Christ says that we should serve and care for one another (I think). I am reminded of Thomas Sowells riff about how money could be viewed as “certificates of service”; the more you served people, the more certificates you received.

In material terms, at least, Capitalism has done a far better job of serving the mass of humanity (I’m generalizing, of course, and plenty of counter-examples could be given, but overall….)

That Marxism has “moral ethics” may be true, unfortunately they are primarily anti-humanistic, anti-Christian ethics.

No wonder that so many on the Left, who are usually so hostile to religious figures, are so enamored of the Dali Lama.

Blaise Pascal
May 22nd, 2010 | 7:26 pm

How is dialectial materialism compatible with Buddhism?

Emina Melonic
May 23rd, 2010 | 10:36 am

Dean, I am cool with rule by cats too!

donh
May 24th, 2010 | 8:20 am

I have never like this fraud who ran away from his people . No wonder he likes Marxism. The monastic system in Tibet is one where the common people slave away in the field and hand their work over to a bunch of meditative good for nothing vegetable Monks living in stately palaces at the expense of others. The top tier of Tibet cult leaders are also tied to The Lucious Trust of Alice Bailey and the theosophical society of Madam Blavatsky. He even has a CREEPY facial resemblance to LAM drawn by an american occultist from telepathic dreams many years ago…. http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/iii/i/LIBER71/lam.jpg

Izy
May 24th, 2010 | 11:27 am

Now I know why I never took him seriously…