AN7.7
Then Ugga the government minister went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing! Migāra of Rohaṇa is so rich, so very wealthy.”
“But Ugga, how rich is he?”
“He has a hundred thousand gold coins, not to mention the silver!”
“Well, Ugga, that is wealth, I can’t deny it. But fire, water, rulers, thieves, and unloved heirs all take a share of that wealth. There are these seven kinds of wealth that they can’t take a share of. What seven? The wealth of faith, ethical conduct, conscience, prudence, learning, generosity, and wisdom.
This makes me wonder why capitalism didn’t develop in Buddhist countries but did in Islamic countries and later in Christian countries in Europe though?
Like, why does high capitalism need Buddhism when it is thriving in many places with very little Buddhism?
Just to be clear, I have split the topic because it is interesting in its own respect (with 7 posts, already, when the topic was separated) and because it is different from the original thread that it was posted in, about Jack Kornfield. In this way, the two discussions may proceed more clearly.
Of course, everyone is free to contribute to each discussion as much or as little as they feel (within reason and rules).
Thanks for doing that. I totally gotcha. I’m just not interested in people stressing at me, because the material is complex, controversial (obviously) and/or think I am representing my opinion, what have you, with the posting.
I would say that this is because capitalism, as we know it, developed from Graeco Roman politics! The political philosophy to dominator cultures such as Rome and Greece was that the world was made for man to rule and conquer. Capitalism is just the economic model of a political philosophy which revolves around Oppression, Submission, Domination.
It never developed in historically Buddhist countries because the Buddha Dhamma developed in an entirely different political sphere. Not to say Indian kingdoms and other regions didn’t also have problems politically, but they were much different than what had been developed.
Capitalism doesn’t need Buddhism-but it wants it. For the same reason Rome wanted Christianity, and made the symbol of the church the cross. A constant subtle reminder of Rome’s power and authority. The general idea is to distort it into something beneficial to itself, thus taking out any power it had as a dual power structure which is a threat to it’s core philosophy of Kyriarchy.
I don’t think there is anything inherent to Capitalism that makes it incompatible with the Dhamma, or with being a Buddhist. As for McMindfulness, well Buddhism doesn’t have a monopoly on sati. Even when the Buddha was alive other ascetics were teaching and practicing forms of mindfulness.
I would also say that the problem with McMindfulness is not an issue of different traditions having Sati-the problem is that McMindfulness is purposefully distorted mindfulness by intention designed not to help the individual grow. If anything, it’s set up so as to send the individual consistently two steps back.
It would be all well and good if there was sati just being taught to the public, but the issue is that what McMindfulness proprietors proclaim to give is set up to cause failure to the individual in order to keep it’s market value high.
Hi. I attempted to point out how the term ‘capitalism’ seemed to arise as part of the European Industrial Revolution, which was characterized by an unethical unfair exploitation of labor & largely equates to what is now called ‘neoliberalism’. Wiki says:
Neoliberalism capitalism seems unable to conform with Buddhist principles, as detailed in DN 31 & DN 26. In other words, the Western Keynesian approach seemed closer to Buddhist principles:
My impression is White Western Capitalists represent one extreme; and White Western Marxists represent another extreme; where as The Buddha taught dhamma in the middle.
My personal opinion is that much of the Buddha’s attitude to rulers, government, the caste system, the roles and responsibilities of employers/employees, generosity, personal responsibility, freedom of association etc. fit in best with Libertarianism. However, its not easy to pigeonhole such a multifaceted Teaching as the Buddha’s!
Free-market theories of economics date back at least to the Scotsman Adam Smith in the latter half of the eighteenth century. In his Wealth of Nations, Smith claimed that free trade among the members of a society inevitably leads to an outcome that is good for the society as a whole, even though each individual pursues only his own selfish gain. After all, as he noted, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”
If an individual can profit by manufacturing some product or supplying some service, Smith reasoned, he will do so. And his very ability to turn that profit proves that other members of the society must want those goods or services. In this way, the full spectrum of society’s needs will be met through the pursuit of individual self-interest. Such a free-market economy should work smoothly and efficiently without any global management, as if guided and organized by Smith’s famous invisible hand.
Today, Smith’s metaphor stands at the very center of Western economic thinking. And for more than a century, an army of theoretical economists in the so-called neoclassical tradition has worked diligently to prove that it is indeed true—that individual greed really must translate into collective good. To make their case, they generally begin by assuming that economic agents are not only greedy but also perfectly rational.
One might question if, in light of the Buddha’s teaching, greed is actually an appropriate foundation for organizing human activity
Keynesian theory has been one of the main theoretical models governing capitalist economies. It was a response to the Great Depression, which existing theories weren’t addressing. By focusing on aggregate demand, it saw certain types of government interventions - spending bills, job programs - as a way to increase employment and therefore demand. It used these in conjunction with monetarist policies (changing the interest rates to adjust the supply of money). In response to inflation and slowing growth, Keynesian economics fell out of favor in many countries in the 70’s. We saw the rise of the Monetarists (advising that governments can adjust interest rates, but shouldn’t try to increase demand with government spending).
Both theories have existed within capitalist thought for decades. Should governments focus only on money supply or should they focus on aggregate demand?
Not an exact mapping, but like asking, “Do you like your Capitalism as it existed under Thatcher in the UK or as it exists in Sweden?” Very different approaches to capitalism, but still both ultimately capitalism.
I’d recommend Thomas Piketty’s book Capital. His perspective is coming from the Left - he believes a more regulated capitalism works better. So I admit his arguments are ones I personally agree with. But it is a wonderful history whether or not you agree with his conclusions.
Again, my last post here, the above seems to be clinging to a word. There are other words to use instead of “capitalism”. Just as “Buddhism” is the worship or respect for Buddha; “capitalism” is obviously the worship or respect for “capital” above other things.
