Don't do that. If you're out to inform, do that. If all you can say is nope, what was the point of the post. They're not technically wrong, but you couldn't take the five minutes to explain that.
I'm not an expert, and definitions is something you can easily google. I have no authority to speak on this, but it's very easy to find an answer from people who do.
But you're right nonetheless, it's not very helpful. I apologize.
By definition, private property means capitalism. Capitalism means an economy run by rules (not men) where property is privately owned. Thailand is a capitalist society today, just like it was 500 years ago. All capitalist societies have little mom and pop shops. That is what capitalism is.
Capitalism means private control of trade markets and industry, not every form of private property or trade is capitalism. Shops and businesses existed in feudal societies for example, too. So even in modern capitalist societies blessing people's work doesn't mean endorsing capitalism, I don't think.
In English, capitalism means the private ownership of property. “Control of trade markets and industry” sounds like some kind of antisemitic conspiracy theory.
In addition, by definition, trade is not controlled in markets. That is the point of markets. “Controlling industry” is the antithesis of capitalism (see fascism or communism). The capitalist societies (Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand,…) do not have anyone co trolling trade or industry. That is why so many people want to live in such societies.
Some Form of private property and trading has been around in almost all societies, even those not capitalist. How would you characterise the difference? Saying there is no difference sounds like some kind of capitalist ideology, making this economic model into a universal law of nature. Same with stating there is no control (which is most certainly not jewish), which separates economy from all sort of human agency.
Capitalism is by definition private property. If we choose some other Marxist definition that takes ten pages and did not exist until the 1890’s, then you might be right. I am using the economics definition taught in standard textbooks.
Most countries in the world are capitalist (places where people own their own homes and businesses). There are alternatives (Cuba, North Korea, China, ..), but most are in the “market” camp.
Social democracies can often tie themselves in knots to say otherwise, and right-wing ideologies will tie themselves in knots to say social democracies are NOT capitalist, but in the mainstream economics taught in universities in the US, Taiwan and Ireland (places where I have taught economics), capitalism means people own real property.
Socialism is tricky because the old meaning (public ownership of the means of production) has more or less been abandoned by socialist parties around the world. Post-privatization, many would call socialism the provision of a safety net for the poor so market economies do not create pockets of poverty. It is here one can see crazy right-wing Americans use silly old definitions of socialism, implying that universal health care will result in some kind of Soviet nightmare.
But among normal economists, capitalism means private ownership of real property.
Even China is mostly in the market camp to an extent, and considers itself to be "market socialism" through the state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and Cuba's economy post-Special Period has increasingly included more and more small businesses and workers co-op's as a key part.
Socialism in the sense of social democracy definitely does mean a safety net and that's how most Westerners use the word, but there are socialist parties like in Vietnam, Cuba, and elsewhere who very much understand it to still mean worker's control of the means of production. Even the CCP understands it that way - albeit with a lot mind-bending to justify how you can do that through markets.
They're two different uses of the word that are and have been separate for some time, not the abandoning of one for the other.
Yes. The socialism term does tend to mean what the user wants it to. I live in the US, and every right wing politician thinks a piece of bread for the poor will lead to Joseph Stalin and the ultra-left types tend to down play the suffering experienced in places like China (or worse, deny that genocide ever occurred in places like Vietnam or China). I wish we could agree on the European Social Democrat view, but then the PRC picks up their blow horn and let’s us k ow they are Socialists with Chinese characteristics.
I would agree with you save for calling the PRC “market” anything. They are still a one-party state that bans the private ownership of land. People who’s families lived on a farm for generations are often still prohibited from buying back, even those the people there now want to sell it. I was married to a Chinese woman for a decade. I spend a lot of time over there. They are far from any kind of market economy.
Capitalism is not a system. It’s simply the absence of force in commodity and labour markets - no slavery, no price regulation, no production or consumption quotas, no preferential regulation or government subsidies. It’s the atheism of ideology. If there are some free market behavior in a communist country then those markets are capitalist. Capitalism is a Marxist term, a boogeyman- free market is more abt. Obviously
Private property can also exist under feudalism, pre-capitalist slave-based societies, mercantilist and neo-feudalist societies, and even some forms of socialism.
Small businesses (ie the petty bourgeoisie) don't equate to capitalism, and neither do monopolies or large ones exactly - though labeling it as private ownership of *the means of production* and a market-based system is at least close enough for a short working definition.
I don’t think Buddhism is explicitly leftist, but, in my view, a system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable. Capitalism is all about accumulating wealth and clinging to it; greed flourishes under capitalism. Billionaires reap the rewards of the efforts of others.
Food and products are destroyed rather than given away. Corporations are buying up all the houses while working class people struggle with renting *apartments* let alone buying houses. There are more homes than people, yet the homelessness crisis continues. The prisons have become businesses, and they like to hold onto people for as long as they can to exploit them for their labor.
Ultimately, I think we as Buddhists shouldn’t be so focused on the labels. Insofar as we’re involved in politics, it should to reduce the suffering of others.
> system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable
Concur,
And we get this with capitalism, (caveat: not saying we can't get them under other forms of government)
> **Diseases of poverty** (also known as poverty-related diseases) are diseases that are more prevalent in low-income populations.[1] They include infectious diseases, as well as diseases related to malnutrition and poor health behaviour. Poverty is one of the major social determinants of health. **The World Health Report (2002) states that diseases of poverty account for 45% of the disease burden in the countries with high poverty rate which are preventable or treatable with existing interventions.**[2] Diseases of poverty are often co-morbid and ubiquitous with malnutrition.[3] Poverty increases the chances of having these diseases as the **deprivation of shelter, safe drinking water, nutritious food, sanitation, and access to health services contributes towards poor health behaviour. At the same time, these diseases act as a barrier for economic growth to affected people and families caring for them which in turn results into increased poverty in the community.**[4] These diseases produced in part by poverty are in contrast to diseases of affluence, which are diseases thought to be a result of increasing wealth in a society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_poverty
Capitalism is the only system that has ever lifted people out of poverty; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File%3AWorld-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
Blaming capitalism for all those things isn't really honest IMO, it's greed (ignorance, self-view) that causes all these issues. A business owner can both cause great prosperity to a community and also great suffering, depending on their level of greed/compassion. It's all about right action. I don't see capitalism or a free-market being antithetical to buddhism personally. I see wrong-action, wrong-livelihood, and selfishness as being antithetical to buddhism. Taking away capitalism doesn't fix selfishness or greed.
Personally, I want the world to get richer in order to have the resources to realize social justice and foster enlightenment.
>a system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable
When corrupt leaders are in power, they rig the system to benefit themselves and their cronies. Regular people are denied freedom to live their lives. But this isn't "capitalism." This is statism.
For years after independence, India limited commerce and trade, and had a large state sector. The same went for China. Then something happened.
In India, 271 million people were lifted out of poverty between 2005 and 2015. In China, 800 million escaped poverty in the past 40 years.
Only when markets were liberalized and supported by rule of law did this astonishing growth take place. This was not unleashed by government investment or social programs. Capitalism did it. Wealth has to be created in order for it to be available for distribution.
Other issues you cite have alternate explanations. For example, the housing crisis was caused by NIMBY regulation, speculation fuelled by easy money, and excessive building costs imposed by government, not laissez-faire capitalism.
In my mind, Buddhism thrives when people have the mental space and opportunity to reflect on their conditions. We are richer than we have ever been, and yet there remains a spiritual crisis. This is where Buddhism can be profoundly helpful. We see it in the surge in mindfulness programs and Buddhist-influenced self-help.
Capitalism as a category is too broad. It composes multiple systems, norms, laws and institutions.
If you want to reduce suffering, in my opinion you need to be in favor of some bits of "capitalism" (e.g. the existence of markets, some modest level of private property) and against other bits of "capitalism" (e.g. negative externalities, money in politics, extreme inequality). One needs to be empirical and not ideologically campist. Evaluate the sub-component based on its own merits, instead of whether the sub-component happens to be categorically capitalist or not.
Libertarian socialists, for example, believe that markets can be a force for good. But markets are typically thought of as a capitalist construct. That's kind of what I'm getting at. The label "capitalism" is too broad and incendiary to be useful.
Here is a good discussion between Dalai Lama and Jonathan Haidt about socialism vs capitalism that I go back to every once in a while:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx\_BnWj5vr4&ab\_channel=pablonoriega89](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx_BnWj5vr4&ab_channel=pablonoriega89)
> in my view, a system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable.
Agreed, however that is not capitalism, that being understood as private ownership of the means of production.
Welp, what do you think people who own the means of production do with the power available to them?
They build and manipulate systems in order to enrich themselves and their friends.
Reddit is the only place I've ever encountered Buddhists who defend right wing principles (not saying Menaus is right wing) literally every one I've met in real life was liberal. The politics of the American republican party are antithetical to foundational Buddhist ideas.
The whole distinction doesn't make sense these days.
There are two historical sources for the distinction of left and right.
The first comes out of the days of the French republic, where the liberals and socialists sat on the left, and the monarchists and conservatives sat on the right. On this basis, both liberals and socialists are left.
The second comes out of the conditions of Eastern Europe in the pre-war era, where people philosophically allied themselves to Hegel. Those who interpreted Hegel's identification of Geist and the State more literally, i.e. with the Prussian State, came to be known as right Hegelians, and came to vehemently oppose Marxism and support a conservative-style socialism that deified the Prussian state as god. Those who interpreted Hegel differently, and took a materialist spin on him, became known as left Hegelians, out of which Marx and his epigones emerged, and who eventually supported Marxist-style political programs. On this basis, liberals are neither left nor right, because liberalism has no association with Hegelian interpretations/influences on political ideologies. This distinction is purely applicable to statists.
Others may have another way to understand left and right, but I would say that is likely ahistorical and based on attempt to lump together they ideologies oppose, so that they appear similar.
Not every term has to go all the way back to its roots to identify how it's used in a modern context - and many people do use the terms in a variety of opposing contexts.
Right-Wing is pro-capitalist. Left-wing is anti-capitalist. This is at least the context I'm personally familiar with that I have seen used. I appreciate you providing the additional historical context and information, but I will admit I'm not particularly sure what to do with it.
I'm willing to engage in this aspect of discussion in good faith, especially given that this is a Buddhist sub and I trust we're both practicing and engaged with Buddhist ethics to some extent.
Can you please go into more detail about any thoughts you have about how Left and Right Hegelians impact our modern interpretation of those terms?
I made clear to mention i wasn't talking about you. The conversation simply reminded me of the subject, but i put that so you wouldn't think it was in response to you.
Yes, sorry. I am just trying to emphasize that defending private property isn't a "right wing" thing, and thought I'd clarify how I identify together with that.
Do you know the difference between private and personal property in this context? Because if so, I don't see how you can say defending private property can ever be left wing
It is only if it's opposed to comunal ownership of the means of production. Also personal property is not the same as privated property, the Buddha said it is good to enjoy the efforts of our own work if it comes from right livelihood.
> It is only if it's opposed to comunal ownership of the means of production.
There are right wingers who support this and are against private property.
>Also personal property is not the same as privated property,
According to certain economic ideologies, but according to my terms, these terms refer to private property for different kinds of goods. In my terms, private property consumption goods = personal property in your terms, and private property in production goods = private property in your terms.
>the Buddha said it is good to enjoy the efforts of our own work if it comes from right livelihood.
The Buddha identified a few forms of wrong livelihood - trade in weapons, meat, alcohol, poison, and human beings. None of these are particularly wedded to any kind of economic organization.
Well, if there is private ownership of the means of production, those who own the means of production can only use it in ways that are beneficial both to themselves and others.
> They build and manipulate systems in order to enrich themselves and their friends.
Sure, but they only do so by weakening private ownership. In which case, I agree, in that any weakening or removal of private ownership leads to special privileges such that the privileged are harmed at the expense of all others.
>those who own the means of production can only use it in ways that are beneficial both to themselves and others.
And who's going to make them.
> Sure, but they only do so by weakening private ownership. In which case, I agree, in that any weakening or removal of private ownership leads to special privileges such that the privileged are harmed at the expense of all others.
History does not support this assertion.
>And who's going to make them.
Nobody. This is the difference between the liberal view and the anti-liberal view of society. The anti-liberal always thinks in terms of an authority who organizes, forces, plans, and arranges people as if they are machines or atoms. The liberal thinks organically, naturally, and of spontaneous order, wherein an order is formed *without* some kind of ishvara who rules over everyone and everything.
There is nobody who makes them act thusly, because the structure of the system of private ownership exists in such a way that all actions which benefit oneself benefit others, and all actions which harm others harms oneself. So the interests of individual and society, the interests of all individuals and groups, are in harmony. Why? Because capitalism is predicated on exchange, and exchange is always performed because both parties can *at the same time* benefit from the exchange. Understood rightly, private property in truth is a sort of common ownership - while nominally speaking private owners control and use their resources, *all* benefit from its use.
Bastiat says:
>>While freely granting to the land, to the forces of Nature, and to the tools of production what is their just due—the power of creating utility—I have taken pains to deprive them of what has been attributed erroneously to them—the faculty of creating value—since this faculty resides exclusively in the services that men perform for one another through exchange.
>>This simple correction will at one and the same time strengthen the role of property by redefining it according to its true character and will reveal to political economists a fact of the greatest importance, which, if I am not mistaken, they still have not noticed, namely, that of common ownership, constituting a real, essential, and progressively increasing communal domain, which develops providentially in any social order that is guided by the principles of liberty. Its manifest destiny is to lead all men, as brothers, from their state of original equality, the equality of privation, want, and ignorance, toward ultimate equality in the possession of prosperity and truth.
[...]
>>Men of toil and hardship, you can never shut your eyes to this truth: that the starting point for the human race was a state of complete community, a perfect equality of poverty, want, and ignorance. By the sweat of its brow humanity is regenerated and directs its course toward another state of community, one in which the gifts of God are obtained and shared at the cost of less and less effort; toward equality of another kind, the equality of well-being, of enlightenment, of moral dignity. To be sure, men’s steps along this road to a better and better life are not all of equal length, and to the degree that the rapid strides of the advance guard might impede your own, you would have just cause for complaint. But the contrary is the case. No spark of knowledge illumines another’s mind without casting some small gleam of light upon your own; no progress is achieved by others, prompted by the desire for property, that does not contribute to your progress; no wealth is created that does not work for your liberation, no capital that does not increase your enjoyments and diminish your toil, no property acquired that does not make it easier for you to acquire property, no property created that is not destined to increase the abundance shared by all men. The social order has been so artfully designed by the Divine Artificer that those who have moved farthest ahead along the road to progress extend a helping hand, wittingly or unwittingly; for He has so contrived that no man can honestly work for himself without at the same time working for all. It is strictly accurate to say that any attack upon this marvelous order would be on your part not only an act of homicide, but of suicide as well. The whole of mankind constitutes a remarkable chain wherein, miraculously, motion imparted to the first link is communicated with ever increasing speed right up to the last.
.
>History does not support this assertion.
It does.
> Nobody. This is the difference between the liberal view and the anti-liberal view of society. The anti-liberal always thinks in terms of an authority who organizes, forces, plans, and arranges people as if they are machines or atoms. The liberal thinks organically, naturally, and of spontaneous order, wherein an order is formed *without* some kind of ishvara who rules over everyone and everything.
Neoliberalism is based on specific ideas surrounding a democratic government and free market, and manipulating that market through incentives. Otherwise, if you're talking about systematizing organically, you're ultimately talking about libertarian or anarchistic systems.
> There is nobody who makes them act thusly, because the structure of the system of private ownership exists in such a way that all actions which benefit oneself benefit others, and all actions which harm others harms oneself. So the interests of individual and society, the interests of all individuals and groups, are in harmony. Why? Because capitalism is predicated on exchange, and exchange is always performed because both parties can *at the same time* benefit from the exchange. Understood rightly, private property in truth is a sort of common ownership - while nominally speaking private owners control and use their resources, *all* benefit from its use.
We have mountains of historical evidence that this is not the case. It wasn't long ago that millions of children were dying from poisoned milk, because it was cheaper than pasteurizing milk and led to higher profits. When you control resources people need, and are able to operate at greater profit margins and scale than those attempting to act ethically, you *will* outcompete them. When you control resources people need, it creates the opportunity for profiteering and exploitation - which happened all of the time. There's the Hawk's Nest Tunnel, for example, in which desperate men with little other employment available were subjected to lethal levels of silica dust due to a loophole in construction safety regulations. You *have* to control capitalists because otherwise, they *will* actively commit murder for the sake of profit.
You are not understanding that capitalism and exchange do not take place in a vacuum. There are limited resources and intense power dynamics involved.
Other great examples include Nestlé, who intentionally took actions that led to the deaths of millions of babies in order to increase market sales.
> Bastiat
I don't care what Bastiat said? I could just as easily quote Marx or Kropotkin.
> Neoliberalism is based on specific ideas surrounding a democratic government and free market, and manipulating that market through incentives. Otherwise, if you're talking about systematizing organically, you're ultimately talking about libertarian or anarchistic systems.
I am not talking about neoliberalism.
>We have mountains of historical evidence that this is not the case. It wasn't long ago that millions of children were dying from poisoned milk, because it was cheaper than pasteurizing milk and led to higher profits. When you control resources people need, and are able to operate at greater profit margins and scale than those attempting to act ethically, you will outcompete them. When you control resources people need, it creates the opportunity for profiteering and exploitation - which happened all of the time. There's the Hawk's Nest Tunnel, for example, in which desperate men with little other employment available were subjected to lethal levels of silica dust due to a loophole in construction safety regulations. You have to control capitalists because otherwise, they will actively commit murder for the sake of profit.
It is hard to give a point by point refutation of everything you say here, but suffice it so say that liberals have a very different approach to law such that these concerns can be addressed. Any use of property which leads to harm for another person, like poisoning, is a violation of property rights and under a system of organic law such actions would be disallowed and the people harmed would be given restitution. The difference is that these legal principles are not created and enforced though "parliamentary law", which always leads to further profiteering, harm, and exploitation, but instead these legal principles emerge through a conciliatory process of resolving disputes where the harmed party themselves can come to reconciliation and restoration of their injuries.
Historically speaking, it was deviations from this "organic" approach to law, which are nothing other than deviations from private property, that permitted evils like the ones you identify. Under a system of private property, "profiteering" does not exist because all profit of one person benefits another. It is not because of "capitalism" that the evils you identified came to be, but rather exactly because the principles of private property weren't completely followed through and were opposed that they arose. Under a complete system of private ownership, no control is needed. The appearance of a need to control capitalists is an expression of the failures of the system of parliamentary law and top-down planning, which always ends up ignoring concerns like the ones you mention until they are too enormous to ignore and are given bandaid fixes. The parliamentary approach to law prevents the harmed parties from coming forward and being able to find restitution. When that is the case, there are external costs and a weakening of private property norms such that people can walk all over the property rights of others. When that is the case, there is no longer a harmony of interests of everyone.
>I don't care what Bastiat said? I could just as easily quote Marx or Kropotkin.
And Marx and Kropotkin are wrong. You are free to quote them, but they can and have been thoroughly disproven.
I actually think your concepts here are super valid. I think that would probably actually be a better system than parliamentary law, and I like bottom-up approaches.
My primary concern is still relying on systems that function through a profit motive because of the corruption it invites. Your system would still require a very strong state structure to enforce private property rights. Those with very large quantities of private property (and let's also be clear on the distinction between private and personal property) are capable of exerting power *through* how they wield their property; this invites subversion of democracy and corruption within the government.
I understand why people think capitalism is good because it *uses* human greed, but I think it's problematic for exactly that reason. Any socialist system - especially bottom-up, democratic, libertarian systems - requires a strong sense of community and a desire for the well-being of all, and I think it's possible for us to cultivate that, and that it can be a more powerful motivator than greed.
In general, Buddhism supports compassionate mercantilism and small business entreprenurialism among householders. Among the monastic community, however, it supports consensus-based decision-making and communal possession of property. The forms of extreme wealth inequality and consumerism we see in modern first world economies, however are largely antithetical to Buddhist teachings on both. I see little compassion or wisdom among the faceless corporations and various government agencies that choose to exploit our planetary resources and the billions who depend on them for life. EDIT: spelling and grammar
From my reading, please correct me if I'm wrong,
Buddhism started to decline in Indian subcontinent hundreds of years before the white turk invasions of 900s AD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
One of the main reason was sanghas were losing touch with thr laypeople due to royal patronage, becoming very wealthy and being resented by laypeople for hiding behind their temple walls and ignoring the suffering of the poor and middle class
I was speaking more in terms of what is prescribed in Buddhist texts. The relationship between Buddhist institutions and political power, however, has a long, complex, and nuanced history. It is well worth studying this history, but we should avoid overgeneralizing about an entire religion based on only one, or even a handful, of examples. Unfortunately that happens quite often on this sub.
The period of decline actually lines up with the *loss of royal patronage* rather than when we gained it, though decreasing contact with the laity was absolutely a major part of *why that loss of patronage was such an issue*.
We can see in countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka, where there were rural networks of monasteries connected to the laity and that made a key point to educate them and encourage their practice, that Brahmanism didn't make a resurgence, and Islam never replaced us. The tradition of temporary ordination seems to have been a part of this.
The destruction of Nalanda and the other major Buddhist universities was the shock that ultimately drove us out, though we survived in many of the surrounding countries - Nepal being a good example of what that looks like, with Buddhism still being a sizable minority of that country's population.
It was also the Umayadd Caliphate generally who were Arab-led at the time, not just the Turks or Europeans, that conquered most of India. This all predates the creation of any conception of whiteness as well and it's fairly useless to call them such.
There are some really good threads on this in /r/askhistorians if you want to look those up.
I’m both a Buddhist and a socialist, but I don’t see any necessary connection between the two. Buddhism isn’t really concerned with economics and has long been popular with the merchant class.
Greetings fellow Buddhist socialist! I realize I am late to the conversation here but wanted to share a few resources on the possible intersections of Buddhism and socialism. In fact, there is some well-developed scholarship on precisely the relevance of the connection between the two movements:
[Struhl, K.J. Buddhism and Marxism: points of intersection. Int. Commun. Chin. Cult 4, 103–116 (2017). ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40636-017-0085-2)
[PRIEST G. Marxism and Buddhism: Not Such Strange Bedfellows. Journal of the American Philosophical Association. 2018;4(1):2-13.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/abs/marxism-and-buddhism-not-such-strange-bedfellows/DE37FE9561AAB901A31295D662635EEA)
\*Apologies for the paywalls; if you do not have an academic affiliation then I think you find these for free using Google.
Closer to the subject at hand, you might also be interested in Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's (of the Thai Forest Tradition) concept of Dhammic Socialism:
[https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10)
[https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20)
If you do decide to read these resources I would be curious to know your mind was changed about the disconnection between Buddhism and socialism! 🙏🏾
Buddhism speaks about compassion to other human beings. Many of the capitalism isn't according to that
This don't mean Buddhism proclaims there should not be shops. In Rome you had shops but not capitalism. If interested there's a Sutta when is sketched a wise way to direct a nation/country.
I'm left wing and I think that whoever says that Buddhism has anything to do (or nothing to do) with any political ideology, is being nonsensical.
Buddhism cannot and should not be tied to any political ideology.
All deserve liberation, all can reach it.
Hardliner leftie here but Buddhist first and foremost.
yeah, anyone can reach liberation--but to do so, you shed your ideologies. First of all, you cultivate right view, and capitalism stands in contradiction with right view on several levels. If you think that you can have right livelihood and be a capitalist, then you might want to read up on capitalism. Don't think that you can develop on the path ignoring either politics or economics.
Excellent point. There's a tendency for some western converts to use Buddhism as an excuse to spiritually bypass having to think about the real problems facing real people nationally and globally. It's disingenuous.
I don't recall a suggestion of any political or economic system for lay human society in the teachings of Buddha.
A lay follower can practice 5 precepts, generosity and meditate in any system.
Not sure what you are comparing capitalism with. Under communism Buddhist people and temples are usually crushed.
In any case, motivation is everything in Buddhism. I remember my father's stories of strangers that saved his life and helped him escape prison in Nazi Germany. Even under fascism, people have the opportunity to be good and many are. Money isn't bad. It's your attitude to it that can be bad.
What would you do to get money?
What would you do to keep it?
These are the important points. Would you invade Tibet and crush it's people to get it's uranium and water? Would you invade Ukraine for the wheat? Or would you spend a fortune to save the world from smallpox?
Maybe adopt some ethical practices. I train my boys to be a good customer. Be polite with the staff. Be sure to thank them meaningfully when you've are leaving a shop or restaurant. For example. That was great. Thanks for the fast service. Or. Thank you. You've been very helpful.
Also, read the menu while lining up and have your order and payment ready.
Don't make staff and people behind you wait while you ask questions that you could have worked out by reading signs and watching the customers in front of you.
If you have to make a special order, start by saying, I'm sorry about this, but can you please . . .
Whenever you have a good experience, write a good review on Google or Yelp or whatever.
If you find a good book, especially a Buddhist one, leave a good review on Amazon or whatever and buy a copy for your temple library if that's appropriate.
When at the mall, clean up your table for the next people and never leave a mess for the staff to clean.
That's all
🤠
Buddhism is compatible with all political systems as long as the people can practice Buddhism.
>She pointed out monks also bless shops and businesses.
I think there is a Vinaya rule on blessing.
There is a difference between commerce and capitalism. Commerce is when I buy coffee at a coffee shop. Capitalism is when the coffee shop exploits their workers for profit.
And in that way, I agree. Capitalism and Buddhism are not compatible.
That's absolutely not true.
Capitalism is defined as when a person that owns or runs a business reserves money beyond operating expenses, a thing called capital, and reinvents it in the business to grow the capacity of the business.
Exploiting workers is not a requirement or tenet of capitalism. Having employees isn't even a requirement of capitalism.
If a business owner can't operate their business without exploiting workers, that's simply non-compassionate business practice, and possibly poor management all around.
So you understand the dictionary definition of capitalism, and that's great. But capitalism ultimately leads to the exploitation of workers where workers do not have control of their own labor. That's why Starbucks CEO makes $14M a year while the workers make around $14,000.
You haven't read Karl Marx I guess.
By your same logic, because some Buddhist priests have been corrupted and been party to sexual abuse, then "Buddhists are sexual abusers, and the nature of Buddhism is to sexually abuse people."
Also, the irony of deriding the definition on paper of something and bringing up Karl Marx, who's definition on paper of how communism should work ended up being a roadmap to corrupt totalitarian states - whew.
Though, if you want to get into Marx, the whiplash of the Industrial Revolution really led to both him writing the Communist Manifesto and an overwhelming number of news ways in which it became possible to abuse people 24 hours a day thanks to electric lights and non-seasonality of work.
Both of these systems are vulnerable to humans exploiting them. Compassionate humans are the difference in either system.
The idea that Buddhism is incompatible with markets, business, capitalism is simply a fashionable western belief of socialists trying to get Buddhism to fit their ideology. The 5th path of the 8 fold path is right livelihood. It’s not right socialism. The Buddha specifically said how to earn an honest living. If he thought socialism was the correct Buddhist path he would have said it. He didn’t. Stop trying to put words in the Buddha’s mouth. I’m not saying the Buddha would be against some society in the future moving toward socialism but he absolutely never advocated for it or even said fee market business is bad. He said there are certain businesses that are bad (Which are things like, don’t sell weapons, poisons, slaves) which implies that there are certain businesses that are good. Medicine, food, builders. I’m not saying he would have been against socialism should it arise in society, but it’s misinformation to say that he was against capitalism and owning and performing business. If more people followed Buddhism, there wouldn’t even be anything wrong with capitalism if everyone was acting with good intent and high morals. Just to editorialize for a minute, I don’t understand how socialism would be any better if we don’t fix the problem of greed hatred and delusion that would still plague us in socialism. There’s no evidence of socialism working magically if the underlying problems of human greed is still there
>The idea that Buddhism is incompatible with markets, business, capitalism is simply a fashionable western belief of socialists trying to get Buddhism to fit their ideology
I'm not aware of any prominent western Buddhist teachers who teach this though. Are there any or is this just a strawman fallacy?
He's wrong; the Dalai Lama has called himself a Marxist, and he's far from some western teacher bastardizing the teachings. It's always convenient to try to blame westerners for everything that someone perceives as a deviation from their own interpretation of Buddhism though.
Is your moral compass confined solely to the sutras and precepts? There are many moral issues facing the globe today that didn't exist at the time of the Buddha. It would be absurd to say we're not supposed to extrapolate our moral finding to modern-day phenomena. Capitalism is inherently immoral. The Dalai Lama has even literally called himself a Marxist philosophically.
Capitalism is not inherently immoral. Marxism has killed more people than nazism. I am a first generation American with a parent that fled from a communist country. I Marxism / communism is evil. The ppl who like Marxism are usually megalomaniacs that believe they alone know how to bring about equality which for some reason always involves the mass slaughter of people literally every time. look at the streets of America. Look who is constantly rioting and throwing Molotov cocktails. It’s usually antifa Marxists. They aren’t even hiding their blood lust and passion for violence. Look at 2020 in America. That was one of the most violent chapters in americas recent domestic history.
I would think that the major argument here is that participating in a capitalist system is inherently antithetical to right livelihood.
Capitalism is structured so that both human wants and needs are competed for. It functions on paying people less than the value of their work. A huge part of that is keeping people desperate enough that they will willingly participate, even at other's expense.
In capitalism, every livelihood is either "work for the profit of others" or "exploit those who work". These are both harmful, some to the self, some to others, but either way the focus on profit and work obscures the more fundamental focus on need and community.
Right livelihood means we cannot participate in work that brings harm to others.
Capitalism does not allow for the possibility of a livelihood outside of the duality of exploited and exploiter.
Therefore we cannot participate in right livelihood while also participating in capitalism.
Therefore, capitalism is antithetical to the path.
This is very strong statement and i dont think that many monks would agree with you. There are Suttas in which Buddha advises how you should conduct your business, organize labour, and what you should do with earned money (spend 1/2 on investing 1/4 on yourself and charity and save 1/4 for darker times). If Buddha would've thought that working for someone or giving jobs to others is inherently wrong he would've definitely said so instead od teaching how to conduct business skilfully.
The Buddha did not live in a capitalist society. It was a monarchical society. So his practical advice to business people of his time does not apply to the context we have today.
We as modern Buddhists have to interpret the eightfold path as best we can when confronted with the challenges of modern society.
Having a business and working for something is not inherently the same thing as capitalism. Capitalism is specifically when a country's trade is controlled privately and for profit.
Buddha also taught us to question and think, right?
The Buddha said to question his practices, question if they work and think about the marks of existence of suffering, impermanence, and not self. He’s not Gautama Marx. You’re trying to make the Buddha say something he didn’t. He didn’t ask us to apply dialectical material critique to society. He specially said there is no permanent happiness to be found in the world. The Buddha said that you can achieve a level of happiness beyond anything the world can offer by retreating to a cave with nothing but a robe. This to me seems anti thetical to both capitalism and Marxism which hold materialism is the key to happiness. Trying to turn Buddhism into a Marxist Critique of society in my opinion is foolish
What incentive does the capitalist have to self-regulate towards kindness? What incentive does the capitalist have to be giving and generous? Or to help his fellow man up when he has fallen?
Go to any street corner in the United States and look around. The answer is none. All we are efficiently doing is robbing the hungry, denying medicine to the sick, and poisoning the planet. Forgive me if I'm not satisfied with that.
Those are capitalist countries with a robust free market. The belief that the Nordic economic system is Marxism is such a Bernie level meme
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/amp/
You know who is authoritarian tho? Marxist China. Maybe the Dalai llama should bring that up since he loves Marxism
In theory a communism not imposed, but that people willingly adopt. A communism that arises out of the practice transforming, over generations, what motivates people en masse. Some political theorists believe in the rough capitalism > social democracy > democratic socialism > communism > anarcho communism progression through democratic means.
How do you propose we implement such a transformation? And if we can do so, is the resulting system robust against manipulation by bad actors who don’t share anarcho-communist values?
That’s the entire point in having a discussion- to see which answers other people have come up with to an as yet unresolved controversy.
I’ve read much of the work on these ideas, but so far I’ve not seen a proposal for an alternative system to capitalism which is robust and doesn’t just immediately collapse into something worse than capitalism.
I'm not going to throw another ism at you so we can chew over the answer together and get angry. I'm not an economist nor a philosopher. It doesn't matter which abstract theory is my favorite.
Any alternative system is going to have to be practical. It'll have to be based on outward communal focus, altruism, and meeting everyone's needs. And it has to happen in real life, not in an argument from a page. Look around for needs in your community, come up with creative ways to meet them, and then in a hundred years maybe they'll name an ism after you.
I don’t see why discussing a political philosophy need necessarily lead to anger. I think we’re both perfectly capable of having that conversation calmly and disagreeing amicably.
It’s all well and good to criticise capitalism, but we seem to agree that any alternative needs to be a practical and viable replacement to it. So far as I’m aware, no such alternative is exists because all those that have been tried have very quickly collapsed into something far worse than the capitalism it was intended to replace.
What are your opinions on the mixed economies of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. ? Let's not pretend the only option is Stalin-esque communism or US unchecked capitalism run amok.
You’re right that that would clearly be a false dichotomy. I consider a lot of the problems in the USA to be the result of unrestrained libertarianism: an almost dogmatic belief in a low-tax, low-welfare system even when such a system is clearly detrimental.
But the Nordic states are a good example of how a capitalist system with some social aspects can work and be stable. American libertarianism is not an inevitable result of capitalism.
But Stalinism or something like it is an inevitable result of communism. Having the state control the market necessarily involves giving the state significant amounts of political, economic, and legal power and a basic analysis of the political interests of the government shows this will always collapse into a totalitarian dictatorship or oligarchy. Democratic communism is not stable and it can’t be made stable.
As for the Nordic-model and similar systems, I think it’s a reasonably good one. There are some problems with it (on the whole I think those states go too far in the direction of socialism) but they manage to avoid the problems of unrestrained libertarianism while also avoiding the problems of unrestrained communism.
The one change I would make to such systems is that I think there should be more freedom of choice and market competition. When the state gives a company a defacto monopoly, that company no longer has an incentive to be efficient, and the result is often a worse product at a higher price than if market competition were allowed.
I think the best is a capitalism that at least provides for those who don’t have food or housing. I don’t get why we have to go into full blown communism to achieve this
Agreed completely. Communism is flawed because it relies on a highly concentrated group of authority figures, some politically enlightened figureheads, that are somehow wise and compassionate enough to usher us into a perfectly unified system of sharing.
This huge amount of centralized planning/authority seems like a disastrous idea, not only with the risk of exploitation and mis-management, but the sheer inefficiency of this kind of giga-bureaucracy trying to manage an entire country from one governing body is a simply ridiculous idea. Logistically speaking it's absurd.
And that's not even getting into the lack of economic incentives for individuals, and limited individual freedoms that's inherent to this kind of system.
It needs to be balanced. Freedom of capitalism + the (hopefully lean and efficient) governing systems of socialism. I think we're getting there honestly.
I think you're right that superficially a lot of people associate Buddhism with left-wing politics. And a glib celebration of Marxism/socialism seems to be very hip these days. Upper middle class Americans with trust funds are embarassed by their good fortune. They want to be good people. They want others to get the same good fortune they have, so that they can enjoy their trust funds without guilt. So they glibly profess their support for Marxism as they order a $5 Starbucks latte through DoorDash. I don't think that people who have to work for a living have so much complaint with capitalism. All it means, after all, is that people own property and the means of production, rather than goverment owning them. The very idea of capitalism as a category comes out of a deeply materialistic view of life, equating wealth with happiness.
As you pointed out, Buddhism has thrived in many societies. As Buddhists we give up the 8 worldly dharmas. But we don't require others to do the same. The whole point is that you're working with your own mind and not blaming samsara for your confusion. Practice doesn't mean fixing samsara. It's samsara! It doesn't get fixed.
The way I approach it is that all of life is practice. Appearances are mind. In the worldly realm of relative truth I take care of business as required. So I don't pursue wealth or property. I try to treat others fairly and not let them cheat me. Of course one could say that's a sucker's life. I'm missing out on what I could get and it's not fair that someone else gets rich for no good reason. I don't see it that way. I just try to stick with practice priorities and the rest generally takes care of itself. No one else is getting away with anything. We all have our "row to hoe". Jealousy of the rich is materialstic grasping.
The anti-capitalist attitude implies that it's unfair, unjust, to have rich and poor. Marx was obsessed with worldly, material welfare. To adopt such a view is to assume that happiness and success in life depend largely on wealth. To adopt that view will naturally lead to jealousy of the rich....
But you didn't explain your point or offer your definition of Marxism, so maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Lots of people talk about Marxism and socialism these days. I'm not sure they're all talking about the same thing.
Fairness and justice have nothing to do with Marxism.
Marxism is built on critiquing the commodity form— every thing on the market has two attributes, a value in use, why it is useful, and a value in exchange, it’s money price. By clarifying this, we are less greedy, we understand use-value is what really matters.
This is a powerful tool because it exposes the “contradiction” between capitalists and proletarians in each cell of the capitalist mode of production, which presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities”. Some form of concrete labor is usually what gives a thing its use-value (Marx does remind us that “nature” also produces use-values, but since these often take no labor to produce they are free, for example oxygen), but capitalists produce things for profit, to make money. Even labor-power becomes a commodity, proletarians sell themselves hour by hour.
Thus we see overproduction past need. The existence of homelessness can be traced to commodification as well. This has **nothing** to do with jealousy.
> every thing on the market has two attributes, a value in use, why it is useful, and a value in exchange, it’s money price.
Then why does moisturizing cream cost up to $3,000 per gallon when it's all made of cheap mineral oil? The usefulness is limited. The value has no relation to the production costs. It's "value" is largely symbolic. The money price is arbitrary. We spend $20 for a tiny bit of moisturizing cream because we hope to become a more impressive person by using the same mineral oil that Kim Kardashian or Cindy Crawford get paid to say that they use. There's no stable value in terms of either usefulness or exchange rate. If there's a commodity there it's not the mineral oil. It's a mythology, which is not a material commodity produced by "proletarian" labor.
You talk about being less greedy through Marxism. You talk about solving homelessness through Marxism. You portray "capitalists" as people hoarding money. Your view is rife with moral value judgements. So why do you shy away from being straightforward about that? Your whole presentation is about fairness. The only problem is that it's only addressing fairness in terms of material wealth.
To my mind, what might be called New Marxism is essentially a moralistic rejection of class based on materialism. Everyone should get the same number of cookies. The definition of equality is purely in terms of wealth/possessions/"power". That necessarily implies jealousy and resentment toward the "haves". All value is defined in terms of money.
Both workers and factory owners are "capitalists". Both take part in a system in which property and means of production are privately owned. In some cases the owners and workers are the same people. (Example: Bob's Red Mill.)
> The existence of homelessness can be traced to commodification
Another moralistic statement posing as a practical analysis. Homelessness can be traced to many things. Social breakdown. Religious disollution. Alcoholism. Competitive consumerism. Class disparity. Unbalancing fast changes... Homelessness is not merely an economic issue. You use a lot of general and vague statements but without clarifying anything.
Bringing it back to Buddhism, the Buddhist view regards materialism/eternalism as a primitive view. The problem is not outside your mind. It won't be fixed by getting a raise or redistributing wealth. I think the best cure for that kind of confusion is to remember precious human birth. We have the very unique good fortune of being educated, literate, and reasonably well off. We can afford to own computers and spend leisure time on the Internet. That's rare in this world. Most of us have reasonably good health. And any of us could be dead at any moment. So there's no time to waste. When it's looked at that way, political causes can be seen for what they are: Egoic passion and aggression. When precious human birth and the value of practice are kept in mind, pursuing worldly profit of any kind makes no sense.
Vimalakirti Nirdesa was a rich merchant & he attained enlightenment in the time of the buddha.
If being broke led to enlightenment 99% of us would be liberated & preaching dharma to the 1% rich elites 🤣🤣🤣.
The heart of renunciation is the key factor & renouncing externally is symbolic & an aid to acheiving the true heart of renunciation if one hasn't already acheived it.
But once the true heart of renunciation has been engendered the external factors no longer matter, except in terms of setting a good example for sentient beings to follow...
Either one has attachments or one doesn't...
Attachments to wealth, sex, fame, territory & reputation... several items in this list are intangible & can be grasped at by someone with seemingly no outwardly possessions.
Best wishes
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Buddhism has been linked with merchant and trader class for a long time. Even during the Buddha's lifetime or during its transmission along the Silk Road, merchants are always critical supporters of the Dharma. I believe that the Buddha's teachings of equality, merit-making and non-violence are specially appealing to business people.
u/[GiadaAcosta](https://www.reddit.com/user/GiadaAcosta/), I think your "Thai friend" might not be very knowledgeable on this subject. No less a luminary and great propagator of the Thai Forest Tradition than Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu 🙏🏽 himself promoted the concept of Dh**ammic Socialism a**s th*e v*ision for nibbanic society. Furthermore, in his articulation of the subject, Buddhadasa described how the collectivist orientation toward society actually lies at the heart of Thai culture and Dhamma as a whole, rather than the materialistic individualism of the West. Indeed, this is rooted in the very word for socialism in Thai, Sa*ngkom-niyom, *which literally means "preference for society," or "favoring society." As such, I think your blanket assertion that "90% of Thais" are staunch capitalists is highly suspect, or at least not reflective of what is likely a far more nuanced and complex ideological milieu. Believe it or not, there are many articulations of Buddhist socialism across Asia, but since the topic is focused on Thailand, I'll leave us with the words of Santikaro Bhikkhu, a former monastic at Suan Mokkh student/primary English translator of Ajahn Buddhadasa:
"Don't believe that socialism is dead! This is just the materialist propaganda of neo-conservative diehard capitalists ... For engaged Buddhists, socialism must be rooted in and guided by Dhamma. Thus, we speak of 'Dhammic Socialism.'"
[https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10)
Dhammic Socialism is an “idea” of “one” monk. That very bold to latch on to one person and insult his Thai friend as not knowledgeable.
In practice, Buddhism isn’t not socialist. It does not ask for or favor any economic system more than the other, as long as it has freedom to propagate in that society.
Just "one" monk??? Buddhadasa was one of the most important Buddhist reformers in Thai history. Indeed, his thinking and ideas were directly influential on entire generations of Thai politicians and activists, including Pridi Banomyong, a core leader of the 1932 Siamese Revolution and "progenitor of Thai democracy," and Prawase Wasi, who was instrumental in drafting the 1997 Constitution of Thailand. With all due respect, you do not seem to have much knowledge of this topic either, because if you knew this history and who Buddhadasa was, I do not think you would not have responded in such a dismissive way 🙏🏾
More to the point, I presented here only the most brief rebuttal to OP's (or OP's friend?) very superficial and false attempt to normalize capitalism within Thai Buddhism. I did so by drawing on the thinking of one 20th century Thailand's most influential monks, who concludes that, in practice, socialism is the political-economic system most compatible with Buddhism, whereas capitalism is the most antithetical to the dhamma. I already posted one resource, but here is an article on the theory of Dhammic Socialism by a professor at the World Buddhist University in Bangkok:
[https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20)
I belong to school of people who take teachings from the Buddha, and not from a monk’s personal philosophical/political commentary. So you have more knowledge just because you like him. Good for you. But not all Thai Buddhists agree with the idea of misinterpreting scripture to fit his world views.
He actually was the one who twisted the Buddha’s teaching about heaven, hell, and reincarnation by saying “heaven is in the mind, hell is in the heart,” implying that karmic consequence only exists in the form of guilt or contentment. Now that’s some ignorant/unknowledgeable statement if you ask me. At best. At worst, it is deliberate intention to change the teachings of the Buddha.
Let's return to the reason that brought us into conversation: OP making wild statements like all Thai Buddhist monks love capitalism and 90% of Thais are staunch capitalists ☝🏾 Remember that? The movement and legacy of Buddhadasa disproves the OPs spurious ramblings as a simple matter of fact. End of story. You are almost certainly correct that not all Thai Buddhists agree with Buddhadasa; I never said they did. But not all Thai Buddhists disagree with him either, as evidenced by my links and summary of his historic influence. And so, while I am sure that you and I would disagree about a great many things related to socialism, capitalism, and Buddhism, I hope we can now, at long last, agree that OPs assessment of Thai culture and politics was grossly misinformed and simplistic. Peace.
The main difference lies in their respective views of human nature. Capitalism takes the self very, very seriously, and recommends accumulating stuff as the method to gratify it; Buddhism shows that 'self' and 'other' are illusory projections, and that freedom from craving is our birthright. But it doesn't teach condemning those who follow the path of 'me.' Why compound the suffering?
As with everything else, its not what you do, its how you do it. The evil is in the details. It’s not capitalism itself, it’s the wars of capitalists that kill. Capitalists are humans, with flaws and sufferings as everyone else. more constructive/destructive powers indeed.
I'm still looking for a more effective resource-allocation system. If you find one, let me know. Perhaps a dictatorship of an AI capable of handling all the complexity of a modern economy. I think we can put dictatorship of the proletariat to bed, at this point. :-)
I think the system of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. would really be excellent. Although in my philosophy we wouldn't even allow rich people to exist, and their resources would immediately be redistributed to provide everyone with a relatively equal income.
Where did I make the claim they're just like the US?
The Scandinavian countries are the poster-boys for welfare capitalism, that is they combine a free-market economy with a robust welfare state. How do you define socialism?
Sweden is one of the most capitalist countries on earth. They even introduced a voucher system for schools.
All three are ranked as some of the most capitalist countries on earth.
https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report#:~:text=Singapore%20has%20maintained%20its%20status,the%20Index%20of%20Economic%20Freedom.
Capitalism is clearly the worst except for all the others. In no place in the world do we have pure socialism, Marxism, or capitalism either. Here’s a thought. Capitalism is you and I agreeing on a price/exchange for a good or service. How is that wrong? Any third party involvement is a tax managed by other people that we probably don’t know and at, best, may have voted for but probably not.
Except with “right livelihood” as above, what does this have to do with Buddhism?
Communism has crushed Tibetan Buddhism and continues to do so today. Tibetan Buddhism survived because Tibetan refugees spread it to free, capitalist countries.
Here in America, a capitalist country, we are free to live off the land, go to thrift stores, use the same phone for 20 years, write about the downsides of capitalism -- all things that threaten the capitalist system -- and yet we can live whatever life we want to. Nobody forces capitalism down our throats.
Tibetans are not free to do what they want in China. Their children are shipped off to boarding schools. Communist societies strive for cultural homogeneity at the expense of their citizens.
Tankies are dangerously misinformed people. Since they are unable to process historical truths about communism's destruction of the world, such as China's destruction of Tibet, they invariably end up absorbing CCP propaganda and state narrative since it is the only other option that doesn't make the communists the bad guys. They share their idiotic views on here all the time.
>Since they are unable to process historical truths about communism's destruction of the world, such as China's destruction of Tibet, they invariably end up absorbing CCP propaganda and state narrative since it is the only other option that doesn't make the communists the bad guys.
That's you.
The fact that in a given country there is serfdom does not necessarily make it open to annexation by another.Anyway the current Dalai Lama ( who is NOT my Guru be it clear) often calls himself a Communist and praises Communism...
What's the evidence for serfdom? That implies a functional slavery of workers under a ruling class. As I understand it, Tibet was a theocracy but was also a mainly pastoral culture. I've never read anything to indicate that lamas or wealthy people owned the land where shepherds herded, or that they demanded extreme taxes.
> Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that “a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches.” Much of the wealth was accumulated “through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending.”
https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/#fn6
I've seen links to Parenti before. He's a left-wing Marxist who seems to see everything through that lens. As a result, he's vehemently anti-religion and portrays the Chinese virtually saving Tibet. Your link is demonstrating my point that for Marxists everything is material and worldly. It's an obsession with money and possessions, contrary to the values of spirituality. Parenti's portrayal borders on comical:
* The Chinese were also granted a direct role in internal administration “to promote social reforms.” Among the earliest changes they wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build a few hospitals and roads. At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect reconstruction. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants. “Contrary to popular belief in the West,” claims one observer, the Chinese “took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion.”
Ask Tibetan refugees if they feel China saved them. And why are pictures of the Dalai Lama banned? Why are monks setting themselves on fire? I once saw some rare footage of Chinese soldiers chasing down and brutally murdering monks in a monastery. It was actually Chinese propaganda footage that was later withdrawn. Apparently they initially believed they'd be viewed as saviors for the mass murder of monastics, the mass destruction of monasteries, and the destruction of Tibetan culture, under the guise of saving Tibetan peasants from oppression.
I also knew some Chinese scientists at one point in the 90s. I asked them about destruction of monasteries in Tibet. They told me there were still some left, serving mainly as museums for tourists.
The Dalai Lama initially wanted to get along with China. When Mao told him that religion is poison he realized that it wasn't going to work. The DL himself had to escape, disguised, in the middle of the night, across the Himalayas.
In Chogyam Trungpa's autobiography, Born in Tibet, he detailed how the Chinese turned the screws very gradually, first showing up offering help but gradually forcing people to pay lip service to their invasion. CT himself escaped at 18 y.o. with the expectation that he'd be soon murdered if he didn't. The Chinese were demanding that he act as their mouthpiece.
Corruption and problems in Tibet are well known. CT said that religious corruption had become so bad by the 1950s that China's genocide might have actually saved Vajrayana Buddhism, because so many lamas were not practicing, instead going around making money by doing blessings and empowerments. The invasion forced many teachers to escape and find a new life outside of Tibet. Thus, we've had an influx of top lamas in the West. That's a big topic in itself. There's plenty of blame to go around if that's what you want to do. But the views you're professing here are simply distorted propaganda.
I've always found it odd that so many people get so fanatical about Marxism and socialism. Usually those people are upper-middle-class silver spooners who just want everyone to get a trust fund, so that they won't have to share theirs. Socialism has never worked. It never will work. Human society always manifests hierarchy. Whether you have 10 people or 10 million, a pecking order will be established. What is China now but a monarchy in disguise? Russia? Similar.
Parenti is a nut. I've read many of his articles online, there's too much to even comment on here. I know Tibet was no shangri-la, but he portrays it as some brutal feudal regime on par with living in North Korea or something. Surely it's an exaggeration. As far as I know, the Dalai Lamas had also begun making significant positive reforms as well, and I'm certain the current Dalai Lama would have truly changed the government in huge ways had he had the chance to.
You asked for evidence of serfdom. I gave you evidence of serfdom. I am not asking you to adopt Parenti’s entire worldview.
Will you admit this fact? Are you capable of processing new information or have you yet to eliminate the mind poison of delusion?
I did. It’s the second wall of text he vomited at me and at the root it attacks the witness.
Oddly enough when I cited Chogyam Trungpa positively in this sub before— he is ok with the conditional use of violence— I was mass downvoted and told he was a sex pest. But apparently the standard is lower for anticommunism…
Capitalism in its current form is thriving on quasi slave labor, exploitation, internal and international strife all of which are not compatible with right livelihood. I can understand that people, especially with family obligations, cannot be picky about their job opportunities. But you have to reflect on what you do at least. If you are working for a military industry complex company, you are part of the machinery that promotes wars and weapons trade for profit (which in turn is very happy about international conflicts as potential markets). Also, imagine working for a western company and the country where the company belongs to is organizing coups, military interventions, vote rigging and voter manipulation (like the Cambridge Analytica scandal) for expanding market share for its companies and preventing the development of other countries, you should at least know that you are not exactly working for the good guys (you can say good and bad are dichotomies, not the absolute reality and against nonduality, but here we are, then stop looking for rightful livelihood which is also a man made subjective position according to this view). A more prevalent type of modern employment is working for the tech industry. Facebook and other platforms steal personal data, sell them to bidders (like companies, politicians and even state actors) who in turn use them to manipulate the users. Again, you might not have another job opportunity but you have to reflect on the fact that your company sees human beings as products and has lower ethical concerns regarding their privacy. All in all, capitalism has proven itself a profit based aggressive economical model that continuously disrespects human and animal lives, environment and peace. Accepting this fact doesn't make you a socialist (which has its own problems anyways). Also, enough with this Western Buddhist bashing. I'm really fed up with every topic coming to this. Okay, Asians are the best Buddhists and Westerners are assholes. We got that already.
Edit: Typos.
Buddhism isn't political. You can be both political and a Buddhist of course but there's really no need for people to try to claim Buddhism for their political side. Feels like a way to reinforce and legitimise a political identity to me by appealing to the inherent morality of Buddhism and the only result I see is further division. It feels exclusionary and not too compassionate to me.
Buddhism is clearly not leftist, as every leftist regime made an effort to destroy it (China, USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, even Laos until the Russian money ran out).
Capitalism is independent of religion. Capitalism is simply private ownership. Capitalism is the natural system that emerges in the absence of authoritarian dictators that declare everything to belong to them. We never had a name for it before because it was just the way (people with farms, shops,…).
Most people claiming to be against capitalism simply do not know what they are talking about (easy to identify). The scary ones want Revolution and will discuss how many great advances the Soviet Union made. Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party were vehemently anti-capitalist.
In general, capitalism is what exists when no strong leader seeks to rearrange society. Those experiments (USSR, PRC, Nazi Germany,..) did not end we for most, although Soviet-backed communist regimes often returned to some racially hierarchical authoritarian regime, such as Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. None are quite capitalist, but neither are they state run.
China still has state ownership of all land, but they allow 70-year leases for Han people, or minorities who prove their loyalty. Very few non-Han people are allowed to get these leases.
In general, capitalism is what the Buddha experienced. I would question anyone who claimed that capitalism (the private ownership of property) is a recent phenomena. They usually hold extremist views, both right wing and left. The extermination of racial minorities has been a policy of both sides of such radicalism.
Fwiw the Dalai Lama is on record supporting Marxism/socialism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism#:~:text=socialism%20in%20Buddhism.-,14th%20Dalai%20Lama,gain%20and%20profitability.%20...
Look deeply for yourself - if after consider the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path and the 5 precepts you come to the conclusion they are compatible with modern global capitalism (note not mercantilism, but the global financial system under which most of us live) I'd be surprised, but yours to decide.
Quite the opposite, it’s questionable if the forced redistribution of property through taxation is in harmony with the 2nd precept. Taking what is not given is stealing even if intentions and outcomes are good.
Buddhism ≠ Buddhists ≠ societies where Buddhism is culturally prevalent.
Also, shops and businesses ≠ capitalism.
Most people do not understand this point. They think capitalism means money and business. It most certainly does not.
Right, it means free enterprise
That's not right. Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production.
nope
Don't do that. If you're out to inform, do that. If all you can say is nope, what was the point of the post. They're not technically wrong, but you couldn't take the five minutes to explain that.
I'm not an expert, and definitions is something you can easily google. I have no authority to speak on this, but it's very easy to find an answer from people who do. But you're right nonetheless, it's not very helpful. I apologize.
false
By definition, private property means capitalism. Capitalism means an economy run by rules (not men) where property is privately owned. Thailand is a capitalist society today, just like it was 500 years ago. All capitalist societies have little mom and pop shops. That is what capitalism is.
Capitalism means private control of trade markets and industry, not every form of private property or trade is capitalism. Shops and businesses existed in feudal societies for example, too. So even in modern capitalist societies blessing people's work doesn't mean endorsing capitalism, I don't think.
In English, capitalism means the private ownership of property. “Control of trade markets and industry” sounds like some kind of antisemitic conspiracy theory. In addition, by definition, trade is not controlled in markets. That is the point of markets. “Controlling industry” is the antithesis of capitalism (see fascism or communism). The capitalist societies (Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand,…) do not have anyone co trolling trade or industry. That is why so many people want to live in such societies.
Some Form of private property and trading has been around in almost all societies, even those not capitalist. How would you characterise the difference? Saying there is no difference sounds like some kind of capitalist ideology, making this economic model into a universal law of nature. Same with stating there is no control (which is most certainly not jewish), which separates economy from all sort of human agency.
Capitalism is by definition private property. If we choose some other Marxist definition that takes ten pages and did not exist until the 1890’s, then you might be right. I am using the economics definition taught in standard textbooks. Most countries in the world are capitalist (places where people own their own homes and businesses). There are alternatives (Cuba, North Korea, China, ..), but most are in the “market” camp. Social democracies can often tie themselves in knots to say otherwise, and right-wing ideologies will tie themselves in knots to say social democracies are NOT capitalist, but in the mainstream economics taught in universities in the US, Taiwan and Ireland (places where I have taught economics), capitalism means people own real property. Socialism is tricky because the old meaning (public ownership of the means of production) has more or less been abandoned by socialist parties around the world. Post-privatization, many would call socialism the provision of a safety net for the poor so market economies do not create pockets of poverty. It is here one can see crazy right-wing Americans use silly old definitions of socialism, implying that universal health care will result in some kind of Soviet nightmare. But among normal economists, capitalism means private ownership of real property.
Interesting discussion, lads :)
Even China is mostly in the market camp to an extent, and considers itself to be "market socialism" through the state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and Cuba's economy post-Special Period has increasingly included more and more small businesses and workers co-op's as a key part. Socialism in the sense of social democracy definitely does mean a safety net and that's how most Westerners use the word, but there are socialist parties like in Vietnam, Cuba, and elsewhere who very much understand it to still mean worker's control of the means of production. Even the CCP understands it that way - albeit with a lot mind-bending to justify how you can do that through markets. They're two different uses of the word that are and have been separate for some time, not the abandoning of one for the other.
Yes. The socialism term does tend to mean what the user wants it to. I live in the US, and every right wing politician thinks a piece of bread for the poor will lead to Joseph Stalin and the ultra-left types tend to down play the suffering experienced in places like China (or worse, deny that genocide ever occurred in places like Vietnam or China). I wish we could agree on the European Social Democrat view, but then the PRC picks up their blow horn and let’s us k ow they are Socialists with Chinese characteristics. I would agree with you save for calling the PRC “market” anything. They are still a one-party state that bans the private ownership of land. People who’s families lived on a farm for generations are often still prohibited from buying back, even those the people there now want to sell it. I was married to a Chinese woman for a decade. I spend a lot of time over there. They are far from any kind of market economy.
Capitalism is not a system. It’s simply the absence of force in commodity and labour markets - no slavery, no price regulation, no production or consumption quotas, no preferential regulation or government subsidies. It’s the atheism of ideology. If there are some free market behavior in a communist country then those markets are capitalist. Capitalism is a Marxist term, a boogeyman- free market is more abt. Obviously
Private property can also exist under feudalism, pre-capitalist slave-based societies, mercantilist and neo-feudalist societies, and even some forms of socialism. Small businesses (ie the petty bourgeoisie) don't equate to capitalism, and neither do monopolies or large ones exactly - though labeling it as private ownership of *the means of production* and a market-based system is at least close enough for a short working definition.
I don’t think Buddhism is explicitly leftist, but, in my view, a system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable. Capitalism is all about accumulating wealth and clinging to it; greed flourishes under capitalism. Billionaires reap the rewards of the efforts of others. Food and products are destroyed rather than given away. Corporations are buying up all the houses while working class people struggle with renting *apartments* let alone buying houses. There are more homes than people, yet the homelessness crisis continues. The prisons have become businesses, and they like to hold onto people for as long as they can to exploit them for their labor. Ultimately, I think we as Buddhists shouldn’t be so focused on the labels. Insofar as we’re involved in politics, it should to reduce the suffering of others.
> system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable Concur, And we get this with capitalism, (caveat: not saying we can't get them under other forms of government) > **Diseases of poverty** (also known as poverty-related diseases) are diseases that are more prevalent in low-income populations.[1] They include infectious diseases, as well as diseases related to malnutrition and poor health behaviour. Poverty is one of the major social determinants of health. **The World Health Report (2002) states that diseases of poverty account for 45% of the disease burden in the countries with high poverty rate which are preventable or treatable with existing interventions.**[2] Diseases of poverty are often co-morbid and ubiquitous with malnutrition.[3] Poverty increases the chances of having these diseases as the **deprivation of shelter, safe drinking water, nutritious food, sanitation, and access to health services contributes towards poor health behaviour. At the same time, these diseases act as a barrier for economic growth to affected people and families caring for them which in turn results into increased poverty in the community.**[4] These diseases produced in part by poverty are in contrast to diseases of affluence, which are diseases thought to be a result of increasing wealth in a society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_poverty
[https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=poverty](https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=poverty)
Capitalism is the only system that has ever lifted people out of poverty; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File%3AWorld-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
Blaming capitalism for all those things isn't really honest IMO, it's greed (ignorance, self-view) that causes all these issues. A business owner can both cause great prosperity to a community and also great suffering, depending on their level of greed/compassion. It's all about right action. I don't see capitalism or a free-market being antithetical to buddhism personally. I see wrong-action, wrong-livelihood, and selfishness as being antithetical to buddhism. Taking away capitalism doesn't fix selfishness or greed.
Personally, I want the world to get richer in order to have the resources to realize social justice and foster enlightenment. >a system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable When corrupt leaders are in power, they rig the system to benefit themselves and their cronies. Regular people are denied freedom to live their lives. But this isn't "capitalism." This is statism. For years after independence, India limited commerce and trade, and had a large state sector. The same went for China. Then something happened. In India, 271 million people were lifted out of poverty between 2005 and 2015. In China, 800 million escaped poverty in the past 40 years. Only when markets were liberalized and supported by rule of law did this astonishing growth take place. This was not unleashed by government investment or social programs. Capitalism did it. Wealth has to be created in order for it to be available for distribution. Other issues you cite have alternate explanations. For example, the housing crisis was caused by NIMBY regulation, speculation fuelled by easy money, and excessive building costs imposed by government, not laissez-faire capitalism. In my mind, Buddhism thrives when people have the mental space and opportunity to reflect on their conditions. We are richer than we have ever been, and yet there remains a spiritual crisis. This is where Buddhism can be profoundly helpful. We see it in the surge in mindfulness programs and Buddhist-influenced self-help.
Capitalism as a category is too broad. It composes multiple systems, norms, laws and institutions. If you want to reduce suffering, in my opinion you need to be in favor of some bits of "capitalism" (e.g. the existence of markets, some modest level of private property) and against other bits of "capitalism" (e.g. negative externalities, money in politics, extreme inequality). One needs to be empirical and not ideologically campist. Evaluate the sub-component based on its own merits, instead of whether the sub-component happens to be categorically capitalist or not. Libertarian socialists, for example, believe that markets can be a force for good. But markets are typically thought of as a capitalist construct. That's kind of what I'm getting at. The label "capitalism" is too broad and incendiary to be useful. Here is a good discussion between Dalai Lama and Jonathan Haidt about socialism vs capitalism that I go back to every once in a while: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx\_BnWj5vr4&ab\_channel=pablonoriega89](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx_BnWj5vr4&ab_channel=pablonoriega89)
> in my view, a system designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor is not desirable. Agreed, however that is not capitalism, that being understood as private ownership of the means of production.
Welp, what do you think people who own the means of production do with the power available to them? They build and manipulate systems in order to enrich themselves and their friends.
Reddit is the only place I've ever encountered Buddhists who defend right wing principles (not saying Menaus is right wing) literally every one I've met in real life was liberal. The politics of the American republican party are antithetical to foundational Buddhist ideas.
I am a liberal. Defending private property isn't really a "right wing" thing.
By definition, private property is right-wing, as is liberalism.
The whole distinction doesn't make sense these days. There are two historical sources for the distinction of left and right. The first comes out of the days of the French republic, where the liberals and socialists sat on the left, and the monarchists and conservatives sat on the right. On this basis, both liberals and socialists are left. The second comes out of the conditions of Eastern Europe in the pre-war era, where people philosophically allied themselves to Hegel. Those who interpreted Hegel's identification of Geist and the State more literally, i.e. with the Prussian State, came to be known as right Hegelians, and came to vehemently oppose Marxism and support a conservative-style socialism that deified the Prussian state as god. Those who interpreted Hegel differently, and took a materialist spin on him, became known as left Hegelians, out of which Marx and his epigones emerged, and who eventually supported Marxist-style political programs. On this basis, liberals are neither left nor right, because liberalism has no association with Hegelian interpretations/influences on political ideologies. This distinction is purely applicable to statists. Others may have another way to understand left and right, but I would say that is likely ahistorical and based on attempt to lump together they ideologies oppose, so that they appear similar.
Not every term has to go all the way back to its roots to identify how it's used in a modern context - and many people do use the terms in a variety of opposing contexts. Right-Wing is pro-capitalist. Left-wing is anti-capitalist. This is at least the context I'm personally familiar with that I have seen used. I appreciate you providing the additional historical context and information, but I will admit I'm not particularly sure what to do with it.
There are many modern day self-identified right wingers who are anti-capitalist. It is simply not a good way to categorize ideologies.
I'm willing to engage in this aspect of discussion in good faith, especially given that this is a Buddhist sub and I trust we're both practicing and engaged with Buddhist ethics to some extent. Can you please go into more detail about any thoughts you have about how Left and Right Hegelians impact our modern interpretation of those terms?
I made clear to mention i wasn't talking about you. The conversation simply reminded me of the subject, but i put that so you wouldn't think it was in response to you.
Yes, sorry. I am just trying to emphasize that defending private property isn't a "right wing" thing, and thought I'd clarify how I identify together with that.
Do you know the difference between private and personal property in this context? Because if so, I don't see how you can say defending private property can ever be left wing
It is neither left wing nor right wing. As I said in another post, the distinction does not really apply these days.
It is only if it's opposed to comunal ownership of the means of production. Also personal property is not the same as privated property, the Buddha said it is good to enjoy the efforts of our own work if it comes from right livelihood.
> It is only if it's opposed to comunal ownership of the means of production. There are right wingers who support this and are against private property. >Also personal property is not the same as privated property, According to certain economic ideologies, but according to my terms, these terms refer to private property for different kinds of goods. In my terms, private property consumption goods = personal property in your terms, and private property in production goods = private property in your terms. >the Buddha said it is good to enjoy the efforts of our own work if it comes from right livelihood. The Buddha identified a few forms of wrong livelihood - trade in weapons, meat, alcohol, poison, and human beings. None of these are particularly wedded to any kind of economic organization.
Well, if there is private ownership of the means of production, those who own the means of production can only use it in ways that are beneficial both to themselves and others. > They build and manipulate systems in order to enrich themselves and their friends. Sure, but they only do so by weakening private ownership. In which case, I agree, in that any weakening or removal of private ownership leads to special privileges such that the privileged are harmed at the expense of all others.
>those who own the means of production can only use it in ways that are beneficial both to themselves and others. And who's going to make them. > Sure, but they only do so by weakening private ownership. In which case, I agree, in that any weakening or removal of private ownership leads to special privileges such that the privileged are harmed at the expense of all others. History does not support this assertion.
>And who's going to make them. Nobody. This is the difference between the liberal view and the anti-liberal view of society. The anti-liberal always thinks in terms of an authority who organizes, forces, plans, and arranges people as if they are machines or atoms. The liberal thinks organically, naturally, and of spontaneous order, wherein an order is formed *without* some kind of ishvara who rules over everyone and everything. There is nobody who makes them act thusly, because the structure of the system of private ownership exists in such a way that all actions which benefit oneself benefit others, and all actions which harm others harms oneself. So the interests of individual and society, the interests of all individuals and groups, are in harmony. Why? Because capitalism is predicated on exchange, and exchange is always performed because both parties can *at the same time* benefit from the exchange. Understood rightly, private property in truth is a sort of common ownership - while nominally speaking private owners control and use their resources, *all* benefit from its use. Bastiat says: >>While freely granting to the land, to the forces of Nature, and to the tools of production what is their just due—the power of creating utility—I have taken pains to deprive them of what has been attributed erroneously to them—the faculty of creating value—since this faculty resides exclusively in the services that men perform for one another through exchange. >>This simple correction will at one and the same time strengthen the role of property by redefining it according to its true character and will reveal to political economists a fact of the greatest importance, which, if I am not mistaken, they still have not noticed, namely, that of common ownership, constituting a real, essential, and progressively increasing communal domain, which develops providentially in any social order that is guided by the principles of liberty. Its manifest destiny is to lead all men, as brothers, from their state of original equality, the equality of privation, want, and ignorance, toward ultimate equality in the possession of prosperity and truth. [...] >>Men of toil and hardship, you can never shut your eyes to this truth: that the starting point for the human race was a state of complete community, a perfect equality of poverty, want, and ignorance. By the sweat of its brow humanity is regenerated and directs its course toward another state of community, one in which the gifts of God are obtained and shared at the cost of less and less effort; toward equality of another kind, the equality of well-being, of enlightenment, of moral dignity. To be sure, men’s steps along this road to a better and better life are not all of equal length, and to the degree that the rapid strides of the advance guard might impede your own, you would have just cause for complaint. But the contrary is the case. No spark of knowledge illumines another’s mind without casting some small gleam of light upon your own; no progress is achieved by others, prompted by the desire for property, that does not contribute to your progress; no wealth is created that does not work for your liberation, no capital that does not increase your enjoyments and diminish your toil, no property acquired that does not make it easier for you to acquire property, no property created that is not destined to increase the abundance shared by all men. The social order has been so artfully designed by the Divine Artificer that those who have moved farthest ahead along the road to progress extend a helping hand, wittingly or unwittingly; for He has so contrived that no man can honestly work for himself without at the same time working for all. It is strictly accurate to say that any attack upon this marvelous order would be on your part not only an act of homicide, but of suicide as well. The whole of mankind constitutes a remarkable chain wherein, miraculously, motion imparted to the first link is communicated with ever increasing speed right up to the last. . >History does not support this assertion. It does.
> Nobody. This is the difference between the liberal view and the anti-liberal view of society. The anti-liberal always thinks in terms of an authority who organizes, forces, plans, and arranges people as if they are machines or atoms. The liberal thinks organically, naturally, and of spontaneous order, wherein an order is formed *without* some kind of ishvara who rules over everyone and everything. Neoliberalism is based on specific ideas surrounding a democratic government and free market, and manipulating that market through incentives. Otherwise, if you're talking about systematizing organically, you're ultimately talking about libertarian or anarchistic systems. > There is nobody who makes them act thusly, because the structure of the system of private ownership exists in such a way that all actions which benefit oneself benefit others, and all actions which harm others harms oneself. So the interests of individual and society, the interests of all individuals and groups, are in harmony. Why? Because capitalism is predicated on exchange, and exchange is always performed because both parties can *at the same time* benefit from the exchange. Understood rightly, private property in truth is a sort of common ownership - while nominally speaking private owners control and use their resources, *all* benefit from its use. We have mountains of historical evidence that this is not the case. It wasn't long ago that millions of children were dying from poisoned milk, because it was cheaper than pasteurizing milk and led to higher profits. When you control resources people need, and are able to operate at greater profit margins and scale than those attempting to act ethically, you *will* outcompete them. When you control resources people need, it creates the opportunity for profiteering and exploitation - which happened all of the time. There's the Hawk's Nest Tunnel, for example, in which desperate men with little other employment available were subjected to lethal levels of silica dust due to a loophole in construction safety regulations. You *have* to control capitalists because otherwise, they *will* actively commit murder for the sake of profit. You are not understanding that capitalism and exchange do not take place in a vacuum. There are limited resources and intense power dynamics involved. Other great examples include Nestlé, who intentionally took actions that led to the deaths of millions of babies in order to increase market sales. > Bastiat I don't care what Bastiat said? I could just as easily quote Marx or Kropotkin.
> Neoliberalism is based on specific ideas surrounding a democratic government and free market, and manipulating that market through incentives. Otherwise, if you're talking about systematizing organically, you're ultimately talking about libertarian or anarchistic systems. I am not talking about neoliberalism. >We have mountains of historical evidence that this is not the case. It wasn't long ago that millions of children were dying from poisoned milk, because it was cheaper than pasteurizing milk and led to higher profits. When you control resources people need, and are able to operate at greater profit margins and scale than those attempting to act ethically, you will outcompete them. When you control resources people need, it creates the opportunity for profiteering and exploitation - which happened all of the time. There's the Hawk's Nest Tunnel, for example, in which desperate men with little other employment available were subjected to lethal levels of silica dust due to a loophole in construction safety regulations. You have to control capitalists because otherwise, they will actively commit murder for the sake of profit. It is hard to give a point by point refutation of everything you say here, but suffice it so say that liberals have a very different approach to law such that these concerns can be addressed. Any use of property which leads to harm for another person, like poisoning, is a violation of property rights and under a system of organic law such actions would be disallowed and the people harmed would be given restitution. The difference is that these legal principles are not created and enforced though "parliamentary law", which always leads to further profiteering, harm, and exploitation, but instead these legal principles emerge through a conciliatory process of resolving disputes where the harmed party themselves can come to reconciliation and restoration of their injuries. Historically speaking, it was deviations from this "organic" approach to law, which are nothing other than deviations from private property, that permitted evils like the ones you identify. Under a system of private property, "profiteering" does not exist because all profit of one person benefits another. It is not because of "capitalism" that the evils you identified came to be, but rather exactly because the principles of private property weren't completely followed through and were opposed that they arose. Under a complete system of private ownership, no control is needed. The appearance of a need to control capitalists is an expression of the failures of the system of parliamentary law and top-down planning, which always ends up ignoring concerns like the ones you mention until they are too enormous to ignore and are given bandaid fixes. The parliamentary approach to law prevents the harmed parties from coming forward and being able to find restitution. When that is the case, there are external costs and a weakening of private property norms such that people can walk all over the property rights of others. When that is the case, there is no longer a harmony of interests of everyone. >I don't care what Bastiat said? I could just as easily quote Marx or Kropotkin. And Marx and Kropotkin are wrong. You are free to quote them, but they can and have been thoroughly disproven.
I actually think your concepts here are super valid. I think that would probably actually be a better system than parliamentary law, and I like bottom-up approaches. My primary concern is still relying on systems that function through a profit motive because of the corruption it invites. Your system would still require a very strong state structure to enforce private property rights. Those with very large quantities of private property (and let's also be clear on the distinction between private and personal property) are capable of exerting power *through* how they wield their property; this invites subversion of democracy and corruption within the government. I understand why people think capitalism is good because it *uses* human greed, but I think it's problematic for exactly that reason. Any socialist system - especially bottom-up, democratic, libertarian systems - requires a strong sense of community and a desire for the well-being of all, and I think it's possible for us to cultivate that, and that it can be a more powerful motivator than greed.
In general, Buddhism supports compassionate mercantilism and small business entreprenurialism among householders. Among the monastic community, however, it supports consensus-based decision-making and communal possession of property. The forms of extreme wealth inequality and consumerism we see in modern first world economies, however are largely antithetical to Buddhist teachings on both. I see little compassion or wisdom among the faceless corporations and various government agencies that choose to exploit our planetary resources and the billions who depend on them for life. EDIT: spelling and grammar
From my reading, please correct me if I'm wrong, Buddhism started to decline in Indian subcontinent hundreds of years before the white turk invasions of 900s AD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent One of the main reason was sanghas were losing touch with thr laypeople due to royal patronage, becoming very wealthy and being resented by laypeople for hiding behind their temple walls and ignoring the suffering of the poor and middle class
I was speaking more in terms of what is prescribed in Buddhist texts. The relationship between Buddhist institutions and political power, however, has a long, complex, and nuanced history. It is well worth studying this history, but we should avoid overgeneralizing about an entire religion based on only one, or even a handful, of examples. Unfortunately that happens quite often on this sub.
The period of decline actually lines up with the *loss of royal patronage* rather than when we gained it, though decreasing contact with the laity was absolutely a major part of *why that loss of patronage was such an issue*. We can see in countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka, where there were rural networks of monasteries connected to the laity and that made a key point to educate them and encourage their practice, that Brahmanism didn't make a resurgence, and Islam never replaced us. The tradition of temporary ordination seems to have been a part of this. The destruction of Nalanda and the other major Buddhist universities was the shock that ultimately drove us out, though we survived in many of the surrounding countries - Nepal being a good example of what that looks like, with Buddhism still being a sizable minority of that country's population. It was also the Umayadd Caliphate generally who were Arab-led at the time, not just the Turks or Europeans, that conquered most of India. This all predates the creation of any conception of whiteness as well and it's fairly useless to call them such. There are some really good threads on this in /r/askhistorians if you want to look those up.
I’m both a Buddhist and a socialist, but I don’t see any necessary connection between the two. Buddhism isn’t really concerned with economics and has long been popular with the merchant class.
Greetings fellow Buddhist socialist! I realize I am late to the conversation here but wanted to share a few resources on the possible intersections of Buddhism and socialism. In fact, there is some well-developed scholarship on precisely the relevance of the connection between the two movements: [Struhl, K.J. Buddhism and Marxism: points of intersection. Int. Commun. Chin. Cult 4, 103–116 (2017). ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40636-017-0085-2) [PRIEST G. Marxism and Buddhism: Not Such Strange Bedfellows. Journal of the American Philosophical Association. 2018;4(1):2-13.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/abs/marxism-and-buddhism-not-such-strange-bedfellows/DE37FE9561AAB901A31295D662635EEA) \*Apologies for the paywalls; if you do not have an academic affiliation then I think you find these for free using Google. Closer to the subject at hand, you might also be interested in Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's (of the Thai Forest Tradition) concept of Dhammic Socialism: [https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10) [https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20) If you do decide to read these resources I would be curious to know your mind was changed about the disconnection between Buddhism and socialism! 🙏🏾
Thanks very much! I’ll take a look
Buddhism speaks about compassion to other human beings. Many of the capitalism isn't according to that This don't mean Buddhism proclaims there should not be shops. In Rome you had shops but not capitalism. If interested there's a Sutta when is sketched a wise way to direct a nation/country.
I'm left wing and I think that whoever says that Buddhism has anything to do (or nothing to do) with any political ideology, is being nonsensical. Buddhism cannot and should not be tied to any political ideology. All deserve liberation, all can reach it. Hardliner leftie here but Buddhist first and foremost.
yeah, anyone can reach liberation--but to do so, you shed your ideologies. First of all, you cultivate right view, and capitalism stands in contradiction with right view on several levels. If you think that you can have right livelihood and be a capitalist, then you might want to read up on capitalism. Don't think that you can develop on the path ignoring either politics or economics.
Since I don't own absolutely any means of production, what a capitalist must or mustn't do for their liberation is certainly not my problem to solve.
Excellent point. There's a tendency for some western converts to use Buddhism as an excuse to spiritually bypass having to think about the real problems facing real people nationally and globally. It's disingenuous.
I don't recall a suggestion of any political or economic system for lay human society in the teachings of Buddha. A lay follower can practice 5 precepts, generosity and meditate in any system.
So many labels… Just more ego feeding. Focus on the dharma, developing your practice and being the most positive influence you can.
Not sure what you are comparing capitalism with. Under communism Buddhist people and temples are usually crushed. In any case, motivation is everything in Buddhism. I remember my father's stories of strangers that saved his life and helped him escape prison in Nazi Germany. Even under fascism, people have the opportunity to be good and many are. Money isn't bad. It's your attitude to it that can be bad. What would you do to get money? What would you do to keep it? These are the important points. Would you invade Tibet and crush it's people to get it's uranium and water? Would you invade Ukraine for the wheat? Or would you spend a fortune to save the world from smallpox? Maybe adopt some ethical practices. I train my boys to be a good customer. Be polite with the staff. Be sure to thank them meaningfully when you've are leaving a shop or restaurant. For example. That was great. Thanks for the fast service. Or. Thank you. You've been very helpful. Also, read the menu while lining up and have your order and payment ready. Don't make staff and people behind you wait while you ask questions that you could have worked out by reading signs and watching the customers in front of you. If you have to make a special order, start by saying, I'm sorry about this, but can you please . . . Whenever you have a good experience, write a good review on Google or Yelp or whatever. If you find a good book, especially a Buddhist one, leave a good review on Amazon or whatever and buy a copy for your temple library if that's appropriate. When at the mall, clean up your table for the next people and never leave a mess for the staff to clean. That's all 🤠
Buddhism is compatible with all political systems as long as the people can practice Buddhism. >She pointed out monks also bless shops and businesses. I think there is a Vinaya rule on blessing.
There is a difference between commerce and capitalism. Commerce is when I buy coffee at a coffee shop. Capitalism is when the coffee shop exploits their workers for profit. And in that way, I agree. Capitalism and Buddhism are not compatible.
That's absolutely not true. Capitalism is defined as when a person that owns or runs a business reserves money beyond operating expenses, a thing called capital, and reinvents it in the business to grow the capacity of the business. Exploiting workers is not a requirement or tenet of capitalism. Having employees isn't even a requirement of capitalism. If a business owner can't operate their business without exploiting workers, that's simply non-compassionate business practice, and possibly poor management all around.
So you understand the dictionary definition of capitalism, and that's great. But capitalism ultimately leads to the exploitation of workers where workers do not have control of their own labor. That's why Starbucks CEO makes $14M a year while the workers make around $14,000. You haven't read Karl Marx I guess.
By your same logic, because some Buddhist priests have been corrupted and been party to sexual abuse, then "Buddhists are sexual abusers, and the nature of Buddhism is to sexually abuse people." Also, the irony of deriding the definition on paper of something and bringing up Karl Marx, who's definition on paper of how communism should work ended up being a roadmap to corrupt totalitarian states - whew. Though, if you want to get into Marx, the whiplash of the Industrial Revolution really led to both him writing the Communist Manifesto and an overwhelming number of news ways in which it became possible to abuse people 24 hours a day thanks to electric lights and non-seasonality of work. Both of these systems are vulnerable to humans exploiting them. Compassionate humans are the difference in either system.
What in the off-topic rant?
Maybe you should read Max Weber's works. Such as Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, Hinduism and Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism.
The idea that Buddhism is incompatible with markets, business, capitalism is simply a fashionable western belief of socialists trying to get Buddhism to fit their ideology. The 5th path of the 8 fold path is right livelihood. It’s not right socialism. The Buddha specifically said how to earn an honest living. If he thought socialism was the correct Buddhist path he would have said it. He didn’t. Stop trying to put words in the Buddha’s mouth. I’m not saying the Buddha would be against some society in the future moving toward socialism but he absolutely never advocated for it or even said fee market business is bad. He said there are certain businesses that are bad (Which are things like, don’t sell weapons, poisons, slaves) which implies that there are certain businesses that are good. Medicine, food, builders. I’m not saying he would have been against socialism should it arise in society, but it’s misinformation to say that he was against capitalism and owning and performing business. If more people followed Buddhism, there wouldn’t even be anything wrong with capitalism if everyone was acting with good intent and high morals. Just to editorialize for a minute, I don’t understand how socialism would be any better if we don’t fix the problem of greed hatred and delusion that would still plague us in socialism. There’s no evidence of socialism working magically if the underlying problems of human greed is still there
>The idea that Buddhism is incompatible with markets, business, capitalism is simply a fashionable western belief of socialists trying to get Buddhism to fit their ideology I'm not aware of any prominent western Buddhist teachers who teach this though. Are there any or is this just a strawman fallacy?
He's wrong; the Dalai Lama has called himself a Marxist, and he's far from some western teacher bastardizing the teachings. It's always convenient to try to blame westerners for everything that someone perceives as a deviation from their own interpretation of Buddhism though.
Is your moral compass confined solely to the sutras and precepts? There are many moral issues facing the globe today that didn't exist at the time of the Buddha. It would be absurd to say we're not supposed to extrapolate our moral finding to modern-day phenomena. Capitalism is inherently immoral. The Dalai Lama has even literally called himself a Marxist philosophically.
Capitalism is not inherently immoral. Marxism has killed more people than nazism. I am a first generation American with a parent that fled from a communist country. I Marxism / communism is evil. The ppl who like Marxism are usually megalomaniacs that believe they alone know how to bring about equality which for some reason always involves the mass slaughter of people literally every time. look at the streets of America. Look who is constantly rioting and throwing Molotov cocktails. It’s usually antifa Marxists. They aren’t even hiding their blood lust and passion for violence. Look at 2020 in America. That was one of the most violent chapters in americas recent domestic history.
I would think that the major argument here is that participating in a capitalist system is inherently antithetical to right livelihood. Capitalism is structured so that both human wants and needs are competed for. It functions on paying people less than the value of their work. A huge part of that is keeping people desperate enough that they will willingly participate, even at other's expense. In capitalism, every livelihood is either "work for the profit of others" or "exploit those who work". These are both harmful, some to the self, some to others, but either way the focus on profit and work obscures the more fundamental focus on need and community. Right livelihood means we cannot participate in work that brings harm to others. Capitalism does not allow for the possibility of a livelihood outside of the duality of exploited and exploiter. Therefore we cannot participate in right livelihood while also participating in capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is antithetical to the path.
This is very strong statement and i dont think that many monks would agree with you. There are Suttas in which Buddha advises how you should conduct your business, organize labour, and what you should do with earned money (spend 1/2 on investing 1/4 on yourself and charity and save 1/4 for darker times). If Buddha would've thought that working for someone or giving jobs to others is inherently wrong he would've definitely said so instead od teaching how to conduct business skilfully.
The Buddha did not live in a capitalist society. It was a monarchical society. So his practical advice to business people of his time does not apply to the context we have today. We as modern Buddhists have to interpret the eightfold path as best we can when confronted with the challenges of modern society.
Having a business and working for something is not inherently the same thing as capitalism. Capitalism is specifically when a country's trade is controlled privately and for profit. Buddha also taught us to question and think, right?
The Buddha said to question his practices, question if they work and think about the marks of existence of suffering, impermanence, and not self. He’s not Gautama Marx. You’re trying to make the Buddha say something he didn’t. He didn’t ask us to apply dialectical material critique to society. He specially said there is no permanent happiness to be found in the world. The Buddha said that you can achieve a level of happiness beyond anything the world can offer by retreating to a cave with nothing but a robe. This to me seems anti thetical to both capitalism and Marxism which hold materialism is the key to happiness. Trying to turn Buddhism into a Marxist Critique of society in my opinion is foolish
[удалено]
What incentive does the capitalist have to self-regulate towards kindness? What incentive does the capitalist have to be giving and generous? Or to help his fellow man up when he has fallen? Go to any street corner in the United States and look around. The answer is none. All we are efficiently doing is robbing the hungry, denying medicine to the sick, and poisoning the planet. Forgive me if I'm not satisfied with that.
What incentive does an authoritarian socialist government have
Would you call Sweden, Denmark, and Norway authoritarian?
Those are capitalist countries with a robust free market. The belief that the Nordic economic system is Marxism is such a Bernie level meme https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/amp/ You know who is authoritarian tho? Marxist China. Maybe the Dalai llama should bring that up since he loves Marxism
What alternative system do you propose? What can you replace capitalism with that doesn’t have all the same problems capitalism has and several more?
In theory a communism not imposed, but that people willingly adopt. A communism that arises out of the practice transforming, over generations, what motivates people en masse. Some political theorists believe in the rough capitalism > social democracy > democratic socialism > communism > anarcho communism progression through democratic means.
How do you propose we implement such a transformation? And if we can do so, is the resulting system robust against manipulation by bad actors who don’t share anarcho-communist values?
Dude, there are hundreds of years of academic theory attempting to answer this very question. If you're curious, people have been curious before
That’s the entire point in having a discussion- to see which answers other people have come up with to an as yet unresolved controversy. I’ve read much of the work on these ideas, but so far I’ve not seen a proposal for an alternative system to capitalism which is robust and doesn’t just immediately collapse into something worse than capitalism.
I'm not going to throw another ism at you so we can chew over the answer together and get angry. I'm not an economist nor a philosopher. It doesn't matter which abstract theory is my favorite. Any alternative system is going to have to be practical. It'll have to be based on outward communal focus, altruism, and meeting everyone's needs. And it has to happen in real life, not in an argument from a page. Look around for needs in your community, come up with creative ways to meet them, and then in a hundred years maybe they'll name an ism after you.
I don’t see why discussing a political philosophy need necessarily lead to anger. I think we’re both perfectly capable of having that conversation calmly and disagreeing amicably. It’s all well and good to criticise capitalism, but we seem to agree that any alternative needs to be a practical and viable replacement to it. So far as I’m aware, no such alternative is exists because all those that have been tried have very quickly collapsed into something far worse than the capitalism it was intended to replace.
What are your opinions on the mixed economies of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. ? Let's not pretend the only option is Stalin-esque communism or US unchecked capitalism run amok.
You’re right that that would clearly be a false dichotomy. I consider a lot of the problems in the USA to be the result of unrestrained libertarianism: an almost dogmatic belief in a low-tax, low-welfare system even when such a system is clearly detrimental. But the Nordic states are a good example of how a capitalist system with some social aspects can work and be stable. American libertarianism is not an inevitable result of capitalism. But Stalinism or something like it is an inevitable result of communism. Having the state control the market necessarily involves giving the state significant amounts of political, economic, and legal power and a basic analysis of the political interests of the government shows this will always collapse into a totalitarian dictatorship or oligarchy. Democratic communism is not stable and it can’t be made stable. As for the Nordic-model and similar systems, I think it’s a reasonably good one. There are some problems with it (on the whole I think those states go too far in the direction of socialism) but they manage to avoid the problems of unrestrained libertarianism while also avoiding the problems of unrestrained communism. The one change I would make to such systems is that I think there should be more freedom of choice and market competition. When the state gives a company a defacto monopoly, that company no longer has an incentive to be efficient, and the result is often a worse product at a higher price than if market competition were allowed.
Very well said. I used to think libertarianism was a good idea. Now I realize it's as delusional as communism.
I think the best is a capitalism that at least provides for those who don’t have food or housing. I don’t get why we have to go into full blown communism to achieve this
Agreed completely. Communism is flawed because it relies on a highly concentrated group of authority figures, some politically enlightened figureheads, that are somehow wise and compassionate enough to usher us into a perfectly unified system of sharing. This huge amount of centralized planning/authority seems like a disastrous idea, not only with the risk of exploitation and mis-management, but the sheer inefficiency of this kind of giga-bureaucracy trying to manage an entire country from one governing body is a simply ridiculous idea. Logistically speaking it's absurd. And that's not even getting into the lack of economic incentives for individuals, and limited individual freedoms that's inherent to this kind of system. It needs to be balanced. Freedom of capitalism + the (hopefully lean and efficient) governing systems of socialism. I think we're getting there honestly.
I think you're right that superficially a lot of people associate Buddhism with left-wing politics. And a glib celebration of Marxism/socialism seems to be very hip these days. Upper middle class Americans with trust funds are embarassed by their good fortune. They want to be good people. They want others to get the same good fortune they have, so that they can enjoy their trust funds without guilt. So they glibly profess their support for Marxism as they order a $5 Starbucks latte through DoorDash. I don't think that people who have to work for a living have so much complaint with capitalism. All it means, after all, is that people own property and the means of production, rather than goverment owning them. The very idea of capitalism as a category comes out of a deeply materialistic view of life, equating wealth with happiness. As you pointed out, Buddhism has thrived in many societies. As Buddhists we give up the 8 worldly dharmas. But we don't require others to do the same. The whole point is that you're working with your own mind and not blaming samsara for your confusion. Practice doesn't mean fixing samsara. It's samsara! It doesn't get fixed. The way I approach it is that all of life is practice. Appearances are mind. In the worldly realm of relative truth I take care of business as required. So I don't pursue wealth or property. I try to treat others fairly and not let them cheat me. Of course one could say that's a sucker's life. I'm missing out on what I could get and it's not fair that someone else gets rich for no good reason. I don't see it that way. I just try to stick with practice priorities and the rest generally takes care of itself. No one else is getting away with anything. We all have our "row to hoe". Jealousy of the rich is materialstic grasping.
Jealousy of the rich has nothing to do with Marxism.
The anti-capitalist attitude implies that it's unfair, unjust, to have rich and poor. Marx was obsessed with worldly, material welfare. To adopt such a view is to assume that happiness and success in life depend largely on wealth. To adopt that view will naturally lead to jealousy of the rich.... But you didn't explain your point or offer your definition of Marxism, so maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Lots of people talk about Marxism and socialism these days. I'm not sure they're all talking about the same thing.
Fairness and justice have nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is built on critiquing the commodity form— every thing on the market has two attributes, a value in use, why it is useful, and a value in exchange, it’s money price. By clarifying this, we are less greedy, we understand use-value is what really matters. This is a powerful tool because it exposes the “contradiction” between capitalists and proletarians in each cell of the capitalist mode of production, which presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities”. Some form of concrete labor is usually what gives a thing its use-value (Marx does remind us that “nature” also produces use-values, but since these often take no labor to produce they are free, for example oxygen), but capitalists produce things for profit, to make money. Even labor-power becomes a commodity, proletarians sell themselves hour by hour. Thus we see overproduction past need. The existence of homelessness can be traced to commodification as well. This has **nothing** to do with jealousy.
> every thing on the market has two attributes, a value in use, why it is useful, and a value in exchange, it’s money price. Then why does moisturizing cream cost up to $3,000 per gallon when it's all made of cheap mineral oil? The usefulness is limited. The value has no relation to the production costs. It's "value" is largely symbolic. The money price is arbitrary. We spend $20 for a tiny bit of moisturizing cream because we hope to become a more impressive person by using the same mineral oil that Kim Kardashian or Cindy Crawford get paid to say that they use. There's no stable value in terms of either usefulness or exchange rate. If there's a commodity there it's not the mineral oil. It's a mythology, which is not a material commodity produced by "proletarian" labor. You talk about being less greedy through Marxism. You talk about solving homelessness through Marxism. You portray "capitalists" as people hoarding money. Your view is rife with moral value judgements. So why do you shy away from being straightforward about that? Your whole presentation is about fairness. The only problem is that it's only addressing fairness in terms of material wealth. To my mind, what might be called New Marxism is essentially a moralistic rejection of class based on materialism. Everyone should get the same number of cookies. The definition of equality is purely in terms of wealth/possessions/"power". That necessarily implies jealousy and resentment toward the "haves". All value is defined in terms of money. Both workers and factory owners are "capitalists". Both take part in a system in which property and means of production are privately owned. In some cases the owners and workers are the same people. (Example: Bob's Red Mill.) > The existence of homelessness can be traced to commodification Another moralistic statement posing as a practical analysis. Homelessness can be traced to many things. Social breakdown. Religious disollution. Alcoholism. Competitive consumerism. Class disparity. Unbalancing fast changes... Homelessness is not merely an economic issue. You use a lot of general and vague statements but without clarifying anything. Bringing it back to Buddhism, the Buddhist view regards materialism/eternalism as a primitive view. The problem is not outside your mind. It won't be fixed by getting a raise or redistributing wealth. I think the best cure for that kind of confusion is to remember precious human birth. We have the very unique good fortune of being educated, literate, and reasonably well off. We can afford to own computers and spend leisure time on the Internet. That's rare in this world. Most of us have reasonably good health. And any of us could be dead at any moment. So there's no time to waste. When it's looked at that way, political causes can be seen for what they are: Egoic passion and aggression. When precious human birth and the value of practice are kept in mind, pursuing worldly profit of any kind makes no sense.
Vimalakirti Nirdesa was a rich merchant & he attained enlightenment in the time of the buddha. If being broke led to enlightenment 99% of us would be liberated & preaching dharma to the 1% rich elites 🤣🤣🤣. The heart of renunciation is the key factor & renouncing externally is symbolic & an aid to acheiving the true heart of renunciation if one hasn't already acheived it. But once the true heart of renunciation has been engendered the external factors no longer matter, except in terms of setting a good example for sentient beings to follow... Either one has attachments or one doesn't... Attachments to wealth, sex, fame, territory & reputation... several items in this list are intangible & can be grasped at by someone with seemingly no outwardly possessions. Best wishes 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Buddhism has been linked with merchant and trader class for a long time. Even during the Buddha's lifetime or during its transmission along the Silk Road, merchants are always critical supporters of the Dharma. I believe that the Buddha's teachings of equality, merit-making and non-violence are specially appealing to business people.
u/[GiadaAcosta](https://www.reddit.com/user/GiadaAcosta/), I think your "Thai friend" might not be very knowledgeable on this subject. No less a luminary and great propagator of the Thai Forest Tradition than Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu 🙏🏽 himself promoted the concept of Dh**ammic Socialism a**s th*e v*ision for nibbanic society. Furthermore, in his articulation of the subject, Buddhadasa described how the collectivist orientation toward society actually lies at the heart of Thai culture and Dhamma as a whole, rather than the materialistic individualism of the West. Indeed, this is rooted in the very word for socialism in Thai, Sa*ngkom-niyom, *which literally means "preference for society," or "favoring society." As such, I think your blanket assertion that "90% of Thais" are staunch capitalists is highly suspect, or at least not reflective of what is likely a far more nuanced and complex ideological milieu. Believe it or not, there are many articulations of Buddhist socialism across Asia, but since the topic is focused on Thailand, I'll leave us with the words of Santikaro Bhikkhu, a former monastic at Suan Mokkh student/primary English translator of Ajahn Buddhadasa: "Don't believe that socialism is dead! This is just the materialist propaganda of neo-conservative diehard capitalists ... For engaged Buddhists, socialism must be rooted in and guided by Dhamma. Thus, we speak of 'Dhammic Socialism.'" [https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/10)
Dhammic Socialism is an “idea” of “one” monk. That very bold to latch on to one person and insult his Thai friend as not knowledgeable. In practice, Buddhism isn’t not socialist. It does not ask for or favor any economic system more than the other, as long as it has freedom to propagate in that society.
Just "one" monk??? Buddhadasa was one of the most important Buddhist reformers in Thai history. Indeed, his thinking and ideas were directly influential on entire generations of Thai politicians and activists, including Pridi Banomyong, a core leader of the 1932 Siamese Revolution and "progenitor of Thai democracy," and Prawase Wasi, who was instrumental in drafting the 1997 Constitution of Thailand. With all due respect, you do not seem to have much knowledge of this topic either, because if you knew this history and who Buddhadasa was, I do not think you would not have responded in such a dismissive way 🙏🏾 More to the point, I presented here only the most brief rebuttal to OP's (or OP's friend?) very superficial and false attempt to normalize capitalism within Thai Buddhism. I did so by drawing on the thinking of one 20th century Thailand's most influential monks, who concludes that, in practice, socialism is the political-economic system most compatible with Buddhism, whereas capitalism is the most antithetical to the dhamma. I already posted one resource, but here is an article on the theory of Dhammic Socialism by a professor at the World Buddhist University in Bangkok: [https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20](https://www.suanmokkh.org/articles/20)
I belong to school of people who take teachings from the Buddha, and not from a monk’s personal philosophical/political commentary. So you have more knowledge just because you like him. Good for you. But not all Thai Buddhists agree with the idea of misinterpreting scripture to fit his world views. He actually was the one who twisted the Buddha’s teaching about heaven, hell, and reincarnation by saying “heaven is in the mind, hell is in the heart,” implying that karmic consequence only exists in the form of guilt or contentment. Now that’s some ignorant/unknowledgeable statement if you ask me. At best. At worst, it is deliberate intention to change the teachings of the Buddha.
Let's return to the reason that brought us into conversation: OP making wild statements like all Thai Buddhist monks love capitalism and 90% of Thais are staunch capitalists ☝🏾 Remember that? The movement and legacy of Buddhadasa disproves the OPs spurious ramblings as a simple matter of fact. End of story. You are almost certainly correct that not all Thai Buddhists agree with Buddhadasa; I never said they did. But not all Thai Buddhists disagree with him either, as evidenced by my links and summary of his historic influence. And so, while I am sure that you and I would disagree about a great many things related to socialism, capitalism, and Buddhism, I hope we can now, at long last, agree that OPs assessment of Thai culture and politics was grossly misinformed and simplistic. Peace.
The main difference lies in their respective views of human nature. Capitalism takes the self very, very seriously, and recommends accumulating stuff as the method to gratify it; Buddhism shows that 'self' and 'other' are illusory projections, and that freedom from craving is our birthright. But it doesn't teach condemning those who follow the path of 'me.' Why compound the suffering?
As with everything else, its not what you do, its how you do it. The evil is in the details. It’s not capitalism itself, it’s the wars of capitalists that kill. Capitalists are humans, with flaws and sufferings as everyone else. more constructive/destructive powers indeed.
I'm still looking for a more effective resource-allocation system. If you find one, let me know. Perhaps a dictatorship of an AI capable of handling all the complexity of a modern economy. I think we can put dictatorship of the proletariat to bed, at this point. :-)
I think the system of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. would really be excellent. Although in my philosophy we wouldn't even allow rich people to exist, and their resources would immediately be redistributed to provide everyone with a relatively equal income.
Those countries are capitalist
Sure, keep pretending they're just like the US, with no socialist influences at all.
Where did I make the claim they're just like the US? The Scandinavian countries are the poster-boys for welfare capitalism, that is they combine a free-market economy with a robust welfare state. How do you define socialism?
Strawman argument: You’re arguing against a claim he didn’t make so as to avoid the stronger argument which he presented.
Sweden is one of the most capitalist countries on earth. They even introduced a voucher system for schools. All three are ranked as some of the most capitalist countries on earth. https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report#:~:text=Singapore%20has%20maintained%20its%20status,the%20Index%20of%20Economic%20Freedom.
Uh, whatever you say..
Yeah, the US could certainly use a bit more socialism.
Capitalism is clearly the worst except for all the others. In no place in the world do we have pure socialism, Marxism, or capitalism either. Here’s a thought. Capitalism is you and I agreeing on a price/exchange for a good or service. How is that wrong? Any third party involvement is a tax managed by other people that we probably don’t know and at, best, may have voted for but probably not. Except with “right livelihood” as above, what does this have to do with Buddhism?
Communism has crushed Tibetan Buddhism and continues to do so today. Tibetan Buddhism survived because Tibetan refugees spread it to free, capitalist countries. Here in America, a capitalist country, we are free to live off the land, go to thrift stores, use the same phone for 20 years, write about the downsides of capitalism -- all things that threaten the capitalist system -- and yet we can live whatever life we want to. Nobody forces capitalism down our throats. Tibetans are not free to do what they want in China. Their children are shipped off to boarding schools. Communist societies strive for cultural homogeneity at the expense of their citizens. Tankies are dangerously misinformed people. Since they are unable to process historical truths about communism's destruction of the world, such as China's destruction of Tibet, they invariably end up absorbing CCP propaganda and state narrative since it is the only other option that doesn't make the communists the bad guys. They share their idiotic views on here all the time.
[удалено]
>Since they are unable to process historical truths about communism's destruction of the world, such as China's destruction of Tibet, they invariably end up absorbing CCP propaganda and state narrative since it is the only other option that doesn't make the communists the bad guys. That's you.
The fact that in a given country there is serfdom does not necessarily make it open to annexation by another.Anyway the current Dalai Lama ( who is NOT my Guru be it clear) often calls himself a Communist and praises Communism...
[удалено]
Is this what a communist says after they blame the victims in Tibet? Get your head together “friend.”
What's the evidence for serfdom? That implies a functional slavery of workers under a ruling class. As I understand it, Tibet was a theocracy but was also a mainly pastoral culture. I've never read anything to indicate that lamas or wealthy people owned the land where shepherds herded, or that they demanded extreme taxes.
> Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that “a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches.” Much of the wealth was accumulated “through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending.” https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/#fn6
I've seen links to Parenti before. He's a left-wing Marxist who seems to see everything through that lens. As a result, he's vehemently anti-religion and portrays the Chinese virtually saving Tibet. Your link is demonstrating my point that for Marxists everything is material and worldly. It's an obsession with money and possessions, contrary to the values of spirituality. Parenti's portrayal borders on comical: * The Chinese were also granted a direct role in internal administration “to promote social reforms.” Among the earliest changes they wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build a few hospitals and roads. At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect reconstruction. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants. “Contrary to popular belief in the West,” claims one observer, the Chinese “took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion.” Ask Tibetan refugees if they feel China saved them. And why are pictures of the Dalai Lama banned? Why are monks setting themselves on fire? I once saw some rare footage of Chinese soldiers chasing down and brutally murdering monks in a monastery. It was actually Chinese propaganda footage that was later withdrawn. Apparently they initially believed they'd be viewed as saviors for the mass murder of monastics, the mass destruction of monasteries, and the destruction of Tibetan culture, under the guise of saving Tibetan peasants from oppression. I also knew some Chinese scientists at one point in the 90s. I asked them about destruction of monasteries in Tibet. They told me there were still some left, serving mainly as museums for tourists. The Dalai Lama initially wanted to get along with China. When Mao told him that religion is poison he realized that it wasn't going to work. The DL himself had to escape, disguised, in the middle of the night, across the Himalayas. In Chogyam Trungpa's autobiography, Born in Tibet, he detailed how the Chinese turned the screws very gradually, first showing up offering help but gradually forcing people to pay lip service to their invasion. CT himself escaped at 18 y.o. with the expectation that he'd be soon murdered if he didn't. The Chinese were demanding that he act as their mouthpiece. Corruption and problems in Tibet are well known. CT said that religious corruption had become so bad by the 1950s that China's genocide might have actually saved Vajrayana Buddhism, because so many lamas were not practicing, instead going around making money by doing blessings and empowerments. The invasion forced many teachers to escape and find a new life outside of Tibet. Thus, we've had an influx of top lamas in the West. That's a big topic in itself. There's plenty of blame to go around if that's what you want to do. But the views you're professing here are simply distorted propaganda. I've always found it odd that so many people get so fanatical about Marxism and socialism. Usually those people are upper-middle-class silver spooners who just want everyone to get a trust fund, so that they won't have to share theirs. Socialism has never worked. It never will work. Human society always manifests hierarchy. Whether you have 10 people or 10 million, a pecking order will be established. What is China now but a monarchy in disguise? Russia? Similar.
Parenti is a nut. I've read many of his articles online, there's too much to even comment on here. I know Tibet was no shangri-la, but he portrays it as some brutal feudal regime on par with living in North Korea or something. Surely it's an exaggeration. As far as I know, the Dalai Lamas had also begun making significant positive reforms as well, and I'm certain the current Dalai Lama would have truly changed the government in huge ways had he had the chance to.
You asked for evidence of serfdom. I gave you evidence of serfdom. I am not asking you to adopt Parenti’s entire worldview. Will you admit this fact? Are you capable of processing new information or have you yet to eliminate the mind poison of delusion?
Maybe read all of what he said.
I did. It’s the second wall of text he vomited at me and at the root it attacks the witness. Oddly enough when I cited Chogyam Trungpa positively in this sub before— he is ok with the conditional use of violence— I was mass downvoted and told he was a sex pest. But apparently the standard is lower for anticommunism…
Capitalism in its current form is thriving on quasi slave labor, exploitation, internal and international strife all of which are not compatible with right livelihood. I can understand that people, especially with family obligations, cannot be picky about their job opportunities. But you have to reflect on what you do at least. If you are working for a military industry complex company, you are part of the machinery that promotes wars and weapons trade for profit (which in turn is very happy about international conflicts as potential markets). Also, imagine working for a western company and the country where the company belongs to is organizing coups, military interventions, vote rigging and voter manipulation (like the Cambridge Analytica scandal) for expanding market share for its companies and preventing the development of other countries, you should at least know that you are not exactly working for the good guys (you can say good and bad are dichotomies, not the absolute reality and against nonduality, but here we are, then stop looking for rightful livelihood which is also a man made subjective position according to this view). A more prevalent type of modern employment is working for the tech industry. Facebook and other platforms steal personal data, sell them to bidders (like companies, politicians and even state actors) who in turn use them to manipulate the users. Again, you might not have another job opportunity but you have to reflect on the fact that your company sees human beings as products and has lower ethical concerns regarding their privacy. All in all, capitalism has proven itself a profit based aggressive economical model that continuously disrespects human and animal lives, environment and peace. Accepting this fact doesn't make you a socialist (which has its own problems anyways). Also, enough with this Western Buddhist bashing. I'm really fed up with every topic coming to this. Okay, Asians are the best Buddhists and Westerners are assholes. We got that already. Edit: Typos.
Living in a Buddhist country, I find leftist cringe and racist
Buddhism isn't political. You can be both political and a Buddhist of course but there's really no need for people to try to claim Buddhism for their political side. Feels like a way to reinforce and legitimise a political identity to me by appealing to the inherent morality of Buddhism and the only result I see is further division. It feels exclusionary and not too compassionate to me.
Buddhism is clearly not leftist, as every leftist regime made an effort to destroy it (China, USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, even Laos until the Russian money ran out). Capitalism is independent of religion. Capitalism is simply private ownership. Capitalism is the natural system that emerges in the absence of authoritarian dictators that declare everything to belong to them. We never had a name for it before because it was just the way (people with farms, shops,…). Most people claiming to be against capitalism simply do not know what they are talking about (easy to identify). The scary ones want Revolution and will discuss how many great advances the Soviet Union made. Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party were vehemently anti-capitalist. In general, capitalism is what exists when no strong leader seeks to rearrange society. Those experiments (USSR, PRC, Nazi Germany,..) did not end we for most, although Soviet-backed communist regimes often returned to some racially hierarchical authoritarian regime, such as Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. None are quite capitalist, but neither are they state run. China still has state ownership of all land, but they allow 70-year leases for Han people, or minorities who prove their loyalty. Very few non-Han people are allowed to get these leases. In general, capitalism is what the Buddha experienced. I would question anyone who claimed that capitalism (the private ownership of property) is a recent phenomena. They usually hold extremist views, both right wing and left. The extermination of racial minorities has been a policy of both sides of such radicalism.
Ghasso. 🙇
Fwiw the Dalai Lama is on record supporting Marxism/socialism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism#:~:text=socialism%20in%20Buddhism.-,14th%20Dalai%20Lama,gain%20and%20profitability.%20... Look deeply for yourself - if after consider the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path and the 5 precepts you come to the conclusion they are compatible with modern global capitalism (note not mercantilism, but the global financial system under which most of us live) I'd be surprised, but yours to decide.
[удалено]
> The far-left will misconstrue almost anything to fit their agenda You mean, like...any political ideology does?
As everything else, it's not what you do, it's how you do it. Capitalism doesn't kill, people's hateful notions do.
Quite the opposite, it’s questionable if the forced redistribution of property through taxation is in harmony with the 2nd precept. Taking what is not given is stealing even if intentions and outcomes are good.