In celebration of capitalism

When we say “sociaism” in the sense of different than capitalism, or frame our post in such a way that what we are proposing is somehow in opposition to capitalism - then it means the person is speaking about communism.

When the person is a lover of capitalism, has no problem with capitalism, totally supports capitalism - only that it likes social democracy more than liberalism, etc. - that person is a capitalist. Such a capitalist person should not frame his post like he is somehow opposed to capitalism, since that will make him be understood by other people as being a communist, or making a case for communism being better of a system than capitalism.

Seems like a good question for it’s own thread.

2 Likes

I am not sure anyone here has claimed to be opposed to capitalism and in favor of communism. Some say capitalism needs to be regulated. Some call that socialism.

3 Likes

There is no problem is using the term “socialist” for social democracy. The confusion arises when a person seems to be critical of capitalism and make it look like he is proposing an alternative to capitalism. That’s what will make people think he is a communist. A social democrat would never speak in that way about capitalism or frame things in that way, since he himself is a convinced capitalist.

All of the world’s most developed economies are mixed economies, containing historically conditioned mixtures of private property institutions and redistributive institutions, market-driven private enterprises and socialized public enterprises, loose regulations on some economic behavior and tight regulations on other economic behavior, decentralized private investment and more centralized public investment.

Most real world political questions are about different ways of adjusting the mixture.

4 Likes

All of world countries except very few are capitalist. Nobody claimed they are “pure capitalist” or “anarho capitalist”. They are simply capitalist. I don’t see why you would call them “mixed economies” like being “capitalism mixed with something else”. They are capitalist 100%, no matter how left or right leaning they are.

Capitalism is a system. No matter how left a capitalist country might be, that country is still capitalist and operating under the capitalist free market system. Do not confuse “capitalism” (the system) with “liberalism/right wing”.

If it is a mixture of anything, then it is a mixture of liberalism and socialism, not a mixture of capitalism and something else.

Many of the countries in the world, including some of the most developed, have active socialist parties and long socialist traditions that have had a deep impact and left a stamp on the institutions of those countries. It doesn’t make much sense to think of them as 100% capitalist. For example, the UK, by most measures a very capitalist country, has socialized health care.

More striking is the degree of socialization in the Nordic economies:

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/28/nordic-socialism-is-realer-than-you-think/

2 Likes

i don’t think any of us here are communists? so there is no need to talk about it. No one is defending it - we are mostly talking about other kinds of socialism. Do you know anything about non-communist forms of socialism? would you like to enlighten us as to the problems associated with other forms of socialist theory and practice.

There are also alternatives to capitalism and socialism. We could have an economic system that rewarded people for creating social, environmental, cultural and economic initiatives that are of benefit to everyone. Those who serve the interests of others in the community, help to lift the standard of living and the quality of life for disadvantaged citizens and, help to preserve or regenerate damaged ecosystems could climb the ladder of success through their good works. Those who are totally self-serving and who damage the environment or exploit others should not be helped to increase their status and power in a world that is imperilled through greed, hatred and, ignorance - to serve the interests of powerful individuals and global corporations. That makes no sense at all!

2 Likes

What an interesting discussion which has given me much food for thought. I have never been to college, so little of my knowledge came from academia. So please continue to illuminate me. To my way of thinking capitalism and socialism are economic systems and democracy and communism are political theory. Capitalism is a top down management pyramid wherein the meanest dog rises to the top. Socialism is a horizontally arranged system based on the concept that the collective is supported by the individual. Communism and democracy might be workable political systems but for the inherent flaws of human consciousness. I consider myself an anarchist in the sense that I believe the creation of structures, i.e. the state, state controlled morals and ethics, institution which result in classism and other defects. are flawed attempts to organize themselves into productive groups. Your turn.

3 Likes

Then why did you name the thread: In celebration of capitalism?

some interesting quotes:

Socialism assumes that the basic nature of people is cooperative. That nature hasn’t yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced people to be competitive. Therefore, a basic tenet of socialism is that the economic system must support this basic human nature for these qualities to emerge .

The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. Therefore, those within society who are competitive, not cooperative, will always seek to overthrow and disrupt it for their own gain.

A second related criticism is that it doesn’t reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. Therefore, it won’t be as innovative as a capitalistic society.

The thread’s title evidentially proved an effective springboard into an interesting set of reflections and seems perfectly fine to me.

To remind of the original framing though, the inquiry set out to explore the “Buddha’s wisdom regarding this subject”. Obviously, some broader consideration is relevant (and naturally very fascinating), but it would be good to anchor things around the Dhamma (an abundance on general socio-economic theory can be found and investigated elsewhere :slight_smile: ).

4 Likes

There are just 2 types of systems, capitalism and communism. In a capitalist society, you can redistribute more or less of the wealth created by the free market. That is why the system is 100% capitalist, cause the system is free market. There is no such things as 94% capitalist. It’s either capitalist or communist. (or in some rare cases it might be feudal)

Social democracy is a form of socialism of course, one that does not oppose capitalism even the slightest, one that does not intent to change the capitalist free market system. They want to maintain capitalism, only thing they want to change is the % of wealth (created by the free market) that is being redistributed.

There are also alternatives to capitalism and socialism. We could have an economic system that rewarded people for creating social, environmental, cultural and economic initiatives that are of benefit to everyone. Those who serve the interests of others in the community, help to lift the standard of living and the quality of life for disadvantaged citizens and, help to preserve or regenerate damaged ecosystems could climb the ladder of success through their good works.

That’s exactly what free market capitalism is. And thank god we have it.

Those who are totally self-serving and who damage the environment or exploit others should not be helped to increase their status and power in a world that is imperilled through greed, hatred and, ignorance - to serve the interests of powerful individuals and global corporations. That makes no sense at all!

I totally agree, we should have a meritocracy, not a dictatorial communist system that only rewards the obedient and corrupt. When you have a dictatorship in place (communism can only be done through dictatorship) there will be corruption down to the smallest level. Also, you have no rights and no power. If you disturb the wrong guy, that guy might get you fired, get you out of your home (since the state decides where you should live and you own nothing), could get you in the labor camp, etc.

In a communist society, there are haves and haves not, only difference is that instead of rising through producing something good for society, you rise to the top through having powerful relatives, through being extremelly obedient, etc. And the problem is, these “haves” from a communist society are much more powerful and than any bilionaire from USA. A random policeman could totally destroy your life in communism if he has a problem with you. A random policeman or, god forbid, local politician, can literally kill you, take everything you have, send you to the labor camp, etc. and all you can do is complain to the sky.

The real difference between communism and capitalism is that there is no middle class in communism. Even today in my country, we have like 10% middle class. Society is split perfectly in 2 - the invulnerable people in power (politicians + police + their relatives) and the “plebs” at the bottom. A doctor or a teacher still used to make as much as a janitor in Romania just a couple of years ago. In communism, you have exactly the kind of social structure that those who first started communism wanted to avoid.

The goal of basic human rights, individual freedoms, good standard of living etc. promoted by capitalism are exactly what we should be supporting as Buddhist.

Ahem…

:anjal:

4 Likes

Money to householders (and most monks, at least indirectly) is a fact of life. Use it, but don’t be abused by it. It can be skilfully utilized:

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to him: "There are these five benefits that can be obtained from wealth. Which five?

"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones — using the wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow [sounds like a sort of capitalism], righteous wealth righteously gained — provides himself with pleasure & satisfaction, and maintains that pleasure rightly. He provides his mother & father with pleasure & satisfaction, and maintains that pleasure rightly. He provides his children, his wife, his slaves, servants, & assistants with pleasure & satisfaction, and maintains that pleasure rightly. This is the first benefit that can be obtained from wealth.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones — using the wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained — provides his friends & associates with pleasure & satisfaction, and maintains that pleasure rightly. This is the second benefit that can be obtained from wealth.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones — using the wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained — wards off calamities coming from fire, flood, kings, thieves, or hateful heirs, and keeps himself safe. This is the third benefit that can be obtained from wealth.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones — using the wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained — performs the five oblations: to relatives, guests, the dead, kings, & devas. This is the fourth benefit that can be obtained from wealth.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones — using the wealth earned through his fforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained — institutes offerings of supreme aim, heavenly, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven, given to brahmans & contemplatives who abstain from intoxication & heedlessness, who endure all things with patience & humility, each taming himself, each restraining himself, each taking himself to Unbinding. This is the fifth benefit that can be obtained from wealth.

“If it so happens that, when a disciple of the noble ones obtains these five benefits from wealth, his wealth goes to depletion, the thought occurs to him, ‘Even though my wealth has gone to depletion, I have obtained the five benefits that can be obtained from wealth,’ and he feels no remorse. If it so happens that, when a disciple of the noble ones obtains these five benefits from wealth, his wealth increases, the thought occurs to him, ‘I have obtained the five benefits that can be obtained from wealth, and my wealth has increased,’ and he feels no remorse. So he feels no remorse in either case.” AN5.41

with metta

3 Likes

:anjal::anjal::anjal::anjal::anjal::anjal::anjal:

If someone is against righteous wealth righteously gained, then he should also be against:

  • righteous beauty righteously gained
  • righteous health righteously gained
  • righteous intelligence righteously gained
  • etc. etc. etc.

I see no point in trying to equalize these things, not even in theory. Socialism is bad even in theory, let alone in practice. What we should be striving towards is building an EFFICIENT society, that is built in such a way that it produces the maximum amount of benefits from the limited resources that is has to work with. And that is why USA is standing at 60.000$ GDP per capita and communist countries never passed the 2000$ gdp per capita mark. That’s why poor people are fat in USA.

1 Like

But not the sort of capitalism which lets individuals consume so much they become wealthy and parasitic on society. Even in the Buddha’s time the ruler kings would impose taxation, so there was some central control. The king was the judge and controlled the army (defences). Families looked after their elderly. Wealthy people and kings would set up food distribution, water fountains etc for the poor, King Dharmasoka the Buddhist king, even more so.

I’m not advocating a return to a monarchy - I think these were people who somehow became the sole beneficiaries of out-of-control capitalism gone wrong thousands of years ago, when the rich-poor divide ended up favouring them over the rest of the population. Maybe some Trump echoes there. :laughing: A step beyond that, they convince everyone they are Gods (re: Egyptian culture). So there has to be a mechanism to cap wealth accumulation, and I believe(I’m not certain) that a good flow of wealth (rather than accumulating in one place) means a healthy economy?

I might add a society that values goodness over wealth probably wont go to the problems extreme capitalism brings, but harnesses it for its benefits. The balance is hard to find.

with metta

1 Like

It is also interesting to note that socialism, the social democratic one, is also based on greed and envy. At least that is the case of my country. The nr 1 argument for voting for the socialist is “rising my pension” or “rising my salary” if one is a state-payed worker. It is a form of bribes for votes. Sometimes this bribing gets really out of hand and causes macroeconomical problems.

In my country, there is no puritanism that makes people have a problem with voting for their pension or being openly greedy, sacrificing their childrens future (throught cutting investment) for their momentary pension gains. Remember people raised in communism are extremelly corrupt and take pride in “being smart” or “looking for my own stomach”, there is not a trace of puritanism in ex-communist countries, most are not even slightly ashamed of “voting with their bellies”.But in english-speeking countries we see people actually trying to rationalize their greed, saying it’s actually out of compassion. Yea, compassion for yourself.

Socialism always was and always will be based mainly on envy and greed, sometimes rationalized into compassion.