As the DL himself [Himself?] points out below, this kind of thing has been said by the Pope (though he mostly criticizes Marxism for its materialism and atheism), so we can recycle the debates concerning the progressive vs. reactionary nature of the Pontiff. Both the DL and the Pope come from precapitalist cultures with major emphases on the production for use rather than production for exchange-value and surplus-value. The emphasis on production for use is shared by the socialist traditions, though the latter typically embrace "modernism," seeing potential gains from the application of modern science under different social relations of production than those now predominant. At 12:18 AM 9/14/99 -0400, you wrote: > >With some of the debates recently on the progressive vs. reactionary nature >of the Dalai Lama, this forwarded post seems interesting.--Nathan Newman > >-----Original Message----- >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ANDERSON DAVID > >"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is >founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned with 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 the 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 just recently read an article a paper where his holiness the Pope also >pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism... > 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 Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses Hello Dalai! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
