Re: [Marxism] Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

Walter Lippman wrote:

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
by Michael Parenti

<....The converse is also true. To denounce the Chinese occupation  
does not
mean we have to romanticize the former feudal régime. One common
complaint among Buddhist proselytes in the West is that Tibet's
religious culture is being destroyed by the Chinese authorities.
This does seem to be the case. But what I am questioning here is the
supposedly admirable and pristinely spiritual nature of that
pre-invasion culture. In short, we can advocate religious freedom and
independence for Tibet without having to embrace the mythology of a
Paradise Lost.

Finally, it should be noted that the criticism posed herein is not
intended as a personal attack on the Dalai Lama. He appears to be a
nice enough individual, who speaks often of peace, love, and
nonviolence. In 1994, in an interview with Melvyn Goldstein, he went
on record as having been since his youth in favor of building schools,
"machines," and roads in his country. He claims that he thought the
corvée and certain taxes imposed on the peasants "were extremely bad."
And he disliked the way people were saddled with old debts sometimes
passed down from generation to generation. (52) Furthermore, he
reportedly has established "a government-in-exile" featuring a written
constitution, a representative assembly, and other democratic
essentials. (53)

Like many erstwhile rulers, the Dalai Lama sounds much better out of
power than in power. Keep in mind that it took a Chinese occupation
and almost forty years of exile for him to propose democracy for Tibet
and to criticize the oppressive feudal autocracy of which he himself
was the apotheosis. But his criticism of the old order comes far too
late for ordinary Tibetans. Many of them want him back in their
country, but it appears that relatively few want a return to the
social order he represented.

In a book published in 1996, the Dalai Lama proffered a remarkable
statement that must have sent shudders through the exile community. It
reads in part as follows:

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. (54)

And more recently in 2001, while visiting California, he remarked that
"Tibet, materially, is very, very backward. Spiritually it is quite
rich. But spirituality can't fill our stomachs." (55) Here is a
message that should be heeded by the affluent well-fed Buddhist
proselytes in the West who cannot be bothered with material
considerations as they romanticize feudal Tibet.>


Thanks for posting this Walter. I had indeed read various statements  
from the D.L. in the past in which he had spoken clearly about the  
evils of Tibet's feudal past, as well as the famous "marxist- 
buddhist" statement. And Parenti is correct to point out that  
Buddhism shares a history of violence with other religious  
traditions. I don't think any serious scholar of Buddhism could deny  
that fact.  And no one who I know seriously imagines that Tibet was  
some sort of paradise. In fact, it was a nomadic warrior culture for  
hundreds of years, and it's feudalism was also war-like.

But in comparison with other religious traditions, as well as in  
comparison to some more contemporary 20th century ideologies,  
Buddhism still stands heads and shoulders above the rest in terms of  
its overall non-violent approach. Most buddhists practice what they  
preach. Or better put, most buddhists practice what the philosophy of  
buddhism recommends, because buddhism is not a preaching or  
proselytizing tradition, nor is it really a system of beliefs. Its a  
pragmatic philosophical system, traditionally with an idealist bent,   
revolving around a practice of meditation and yoga. Most of the rules  
and prescriptions are functionalist, designed to make the meditation  
more effective. That is to say, there is little if any theology, and  
certainly no preacher spewing forth from the pulpit. As buddhism and  
meditation have become more popular in the west, more secular  
versions have emerged, reflected in books by Jon Kabat-Zinn, (who by  
the way is married to Howard Zinn's daughter), and Stephen  
Batchelor's "Buddhism without Beliefs".

i appreciate Parenti's nuanced critique, but again, even though the  
group around the D.L. seems to be advocating a movement toward  
representative democracy, Parenti seems to distrust it. He is  
correct, from what I know, in his assessment that most Tibetans want  
him back, but they do not want a return to feudalism. Let's see. The  
D.L. is moving toward democracy, the people want him back, both  
groups seem to want to move beyond feudalism, so why not give them  
the chance? It could be the first and only marxist-buddhist democracy  
on the planet.

Greg McD
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism