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.
Maybe the idea is that Buddhism offers a different “model” from capitalism that could be communitarian??? (This probably falls under “engaged Buddhism” - all these terms!!!)
Well greed is usually put in the domain of morality. “It’s bad to be greedy.” So if a capitalist isn’t greedy ergo capitalism isn’t necessarily bad. I’m not sure that’s an appropriate framework to consider “greed” from within Buddhism. Is all.
I think it’s the moral character of people which makes capitalism good or bad. Say you have a man who starts a phone repair shop. He works hard at making the business work. He makes profit. Some of that profit he gives to charity, another part he pays to himself to sustain him and his family and another portion he uses to grow the business by buying another shop. In doing so he creates jobs and employs people, gives them holiday and sick leave and pays them a fair wage. Where is the immorality there?
The problem is that systems other than capitalism end up becoming totalitarian. Capitalism has been shown to be modifiable to address its short comings. State control of the economy is a step away from a dictatorship.
My concern is that changing the meaning of the term “capitalism” to support an argument just leads to confusion. I feel you are clinging to capitalism being a perjorative term, whereas it is a useful descriptive term. Then one can go on to talk about problems in Capitalism, sure. But to try to change the meaning of the word capitalism to support using it as a negative term muddies conversations and analysis, IMHO.
What do you think about what the Fed is doing with interest rates to bring down inflation. It’s a form of centralized control, is it not. Or at least the attempt. Everyone is, after all, hooked in through their credit cards, mortgages, lines of credit, etc. And, this centralized control is affecting the stock market dramatically, but, so far, not inflation. And… yeh, no, capitalism most definitely works in totalitarian systems.
My assessment is that greed isn’t entirely a moral issue in Buddhism.