Dialectical materialism

Now that's a phrase one does not hear too much these days. But in the 19th century it was part and parcel of Marxist Theory. Especially the dialectics part.

Yet even today in the 21st century I read the Dalai Lama says he is a Marxist. Now I wonder, does he mean what he says, or has the definition changed, or more likely, is he just educated and experienced enough to be dangerous? I don't know myself, and won't waste my time guessing about him.

I have moved on.

Now I also wonder just how trapped we are by our ancestors' decisions during their time in influence. For example, are we always bound by their choices for borders (like the Durand Line), or creating nations out of tribal areas (in Africa and Asia), or even creating some Nations and ignoring others, like Baluchistan.

My point is that we are in charge, and not bound by our ancestors' past, though that should certainly be taken into consideration. After all, they have left us their best efforts in their time's definitions. Said another way, are we going to send our military men and women to some foreign land to fight for some old idea?

My vote, or unsolicited opinion, is that any peoples will always act in their local interests (perceived or otherwise), to include protecting their women. I would. And that is often not the same interests as the outside "invader". Now that could be a recipe for just going along or doing nothing, but that is also incorrect. There are good reasons to invade, but it had better be in the national interests' of the invader, whose citizens will accept the consequences, like the death, maiming, or injury to their children who serve in the invading military force.

So back to the title of this post.

Are we acting in today's time, or just reinforcing decisions and theories our ancestors had?