With respect, I think that is an extremely crude way of looking at it. Economic systems are composed of economic subsystems, networked together by other economic subsystems, composed of other networked subsystems, etc. The production of some kinds of goods and services might be organized on capitalist principles - that is, carried out by privately owned enterprises with contract labor and privately owned capital, and then distributed via market mechanisms and free voluntary exchange - while other kinds of goods and services might be produced and distributed according to socialistic principles, perhaps with a single monopsony customer establishing its own price, and distributing the goods on the basis of need, rather than market demand, or with a single government-owned producer, etc. In the actual modern world, this is how things work. We have a mixture.
I think the Buddha’s approach to socioeconomic matters was not to focus on economic institutions and systems, but on individuals and what behaviors are wholesome for them, and most conducive to peace and true freedom of the heart. He taught that true happiness lies in a direction whose pursuit requires earnest and dedicated striving to move against the current of the ordinary flow of samsaric, worldly existence.
There is little evidence that the Buddha thought it was possible to produce some utopia in the human realm. He thought misery was inherent in the craving, attachment-ridden and dissatisfied nature of human existence. But certainly he recognized some ways of living are conducive to less unhappiness, and more peace and joy, than other ways of living.
Whether a social system that permits a lot of personal liberty in economic decision-making is conducive to a relatively wholesome society depends in part on what other behavioral norms and ideals the people inhabiting that system have internalized. In my own country, the United States, we have a chaotically fragmented commercial and mass popular culture that in many ways actively promotes a lot of “lowest human denominator” tendencies: greed, gluttony, promiscuous sexual licentiousness, a taste for violence and aggression, impulsiveness, exploitation and dominance of others, and general manic, time-managed hustle that fragments personal time to such a degree that people have little opportunity to reflect. It is not surprising that a system that permits people a high level of entrepreneurial “freedom” in the pursuit of what they might presently imagine to be happiness, and that frantically creates products and messages whose effect is to maximize the role of monkey-like cravings and addictions among human beings, would result in a cycle of escalating unhappiness, and some very sad and sick outcomes.
The Buddha’s notion of freedom bears little resemblance to modernist, enlightenment-based conceptions ego-driven personal “liberty” in the pursuit of happiness. This latter conception fetishizes the sheer number of personal “choices” one is faced with, especially commercial and lifestyle choices, and thinks the frequent exercise of this choice-making activity in making selections from an abundance of options is the “pursuit of happiness.” But the Buddha was the tamer of gods and men. His conception of freedom was that of a complete liberation of the heart that can only happen by submitting oneself to an exacting and disciplined training regimen, and simplifying one’s social and economic life, and the choices involved in it, down to a bare sustaining minimum in order to be able to cultivate high degrees of stillness, mindfulness and concentration.
In this discussion it is worthwhile sparring a thought to see if we are discussing like with like. Buddhist freedom and the freedom to run after one’s cravings are different. We can’t compare the financial system amongst the monks and hope to come up with a meaningful model for modern lay society. We would to compare lay society during the Buddha’s time and how he critiqued it to gain understanding of what elements he thought was acceptable. Highwaymen were present for example and he never excused stealing. Wealth was gained honestly. He praised public services (parks, fountains etc). Poverty was present as were riches. He encouraged giving, to anyone and said the good karma would see it given back to them for hundreds of lifetimes. Morality was linked to wealth in his teachings. He even said that if the kings and courtiers go on to keep the five precepts it would trickle down. This would in turn make a country wealthy. I wonder if some western countries are wealthy because they obey laws better and their legal and systems of justice work better - flashback to UK MPs resigning after cheating a few hundred pounds on expense returns! It’s a joke in Sri Lankan terms at least.
With metta
well said! An image from a book by Milan Kundera comes to mind, according to which each individual would be (in this utopia) like a notes of a Bach sonata in a perfectly harmonious world (and of course is not allowed to disagree with this vision of the world).
I would like to share the following here, from my personal experience. I have never been very interested in money and wealth management, but I became significantly more so after I spent time in Buddhist monasteries, particularly as a way of gaining the freedom to spend more time alone and practicing; as well as a way to provide for others. At the same time I lost considerable interest in working and the idea of being useful to society through my work. Here are a few reasons why:
-the quote of the monk in the original post is in agreement with what a nun once told me about Eckhart Tolle (‘the poor guy has to survive and since he is not a monastic he has the right to charge for his teachings’. I gathered that she thought there was nothing wrong with Tolle’s amassing a considerable wealth (indeed she thought he is enlightened).
-Another monk told me that Berlusconi must have made some great kamma in the past to be so wealthy (ok, I am not sure I agree with this one…)
-much more seriously, Ajahn Brahm (I hope I don’t mis-represent him, and I apologize in advance if I do) teaches that ‘doing nothing’ is better than doing things (which includes working). He also mentioned once in an interview, in the context of a discussion on self-worth, that he did not like the question of self-worth but preferred to speak of self-love. Self-worth was connected to society valuing people who work and are successful, as long as they are useful to it - but then they stop being valued when they are old and no longer useful. In this context, I have formed the idea that it’s better to be able to find a away to support oneself (for example by being a passive investor) whilst being able to spend a lot of time in isolation without duties and meditating. This now seems to be a more skilful way to live a life rather than trying to be useful to society by working hard. If this is so, wealth and the outer freedom it provides is a necessary condition (unless you are willing and able to become a monastic). This outer freedom would not be possible in a socialist society.
-The bit about passive investment is in agreement with what does an ex-monk I know, who as a layman is trying to build his wealth through passive investment (though he does it in bitcoin and I wouldn’t do that. He does not seem apologetic as a layman about wanting to become very rich and ‘making the big bucks’)
People like Kundera were probably thinking of centrally planned command economies that attempted to direct, control and centrally organize almost all aspects of human economic behavior. Those attempts were a manifest failure. But socialist methods of organization come in many different varieties and have been combined in different ways, sometimes very successfully, with market methods.
Nothing is perfect. Classical liberal capitalist ideology is based on the equally naive idea that if everybody is just left free to produce whatever goods and services they want, to exchange those products in markets for other goods based solely on ability to pay the price, and to accumulate as much capital as they prefer, things will all work out for the best. But that hasn’t turned out to well either. Human beings are delusional, impulsive, greedy, irascible and potentially very violent animals, and when left to pursue their wants without regulation, often generate some hells on earth, both for themselves and others.
American society, which in its modern form is often obsessed with personal liberty, an adolescent repudiation of nearly all regulation of behavior and bonds of communal solidarity, and a ceaseless cravings for acquisitions, is now manifesting grotesque pathologies as a result. There have been 11 school shootings in less than a month. They tend to be ignored, since we have all grown to expect routine barbarism as part of the background noise of everyday life here, and because they are overshadowed by even more horrible mass shootings. Many communities in the country have been destroyed by drug and alcohol addiction, on top of the economic devastation that attends the free movement of capital and production in search of private profit. Public investment, and long term private investment, have dwindled dramatically as the commitment to other people and real progress has been replaced by an ethos of narrowly individualistic pursuits. And of course, much of our early 21st century financial system turned out to be an interconnected pile of fraudulent rackets.
The Buddha offered a more austere spiritual and moral framework that, if widely adopted, would help to temper the bestial impulses in human beings by reorienting people toward the reduction of craving and repudiation of acquisitions rather than the celebration of greed, power and personal aggrandizement. But we’re pretty far from the widespread adoption of that kind of attitude at the present moment.
I understand your confusion. The title referred to the celebratory tone of the article I referenced.
of course I agree that capitalism is based on a huge number of delusions (though I think the ‘invisible hand’ theory works better than having technocrats controlling everything - so I find that capitalism is the worst of all systems - except for all others). What I am saying is that it gives you the possibility to extricate yourself from society, once you have accumulated enough so that you no longer have to be part of an absurd system. Someone mentioned the Bogleheads in another thread: many of the people on those and other investing forums just want to make enough money so that they are financially independent and then are able to walk away from their job if they find it absurd. This gives one the possibility (though of course it certainly doesn’t ensure) that one can devote one’s life to more worthy things. For example meditation.
I find that in more socialist societies individuals have much less (or no) freedom to extricate themselves from society, even if they find it absurd.
Also worth considering in light of this conversation is DN26 which talks about the rise and fall of society based on moral values
Nice. Likewise AN8.38 seems fairly relevant which takes up the concern of the social with respect to an individual’s role in it (I guess quite along the lines of one of DKervick’s points). A further (to DN31) model of a good citizen and his broader sociao-economic duties:
“Bhikkhus, when a good person is born in a family, it is for the good, welfare, and happiness of many people. It is for the good, welfare, and happiness of (1) his mother and father, (2) his wife and children, (3) his slaves, workers, and servants, (4) his friends and companions, (5) his departed ancestors, (6) the king, (7) the deities, and (8) ascetics and brahmins. Just as a great rain cloud, nurturing all the crops, appears for the good, welfare, and happiness of many people, so too, when a good person is born in a family, it is for the good, welfare, and happiness of many people. It is for the good, welfare, and happiness of his mother and father
… ascetics and brahmins.”
To me it is a picture of distributed wealth (amongst other things).
Well, when I consider such possibilities, I am left with the question of how it is exactly that my personal income is being generated without the necessity of any labor input on my own part. It must be derived from the labor of others.
By the way, you might find this satirical webpage entertaining. Bitcoin seems to have lost a great deal of value lately, and I think some of that has to do with the fact that its fundamental nature as a ponzi scheme has become more apparent to people, and a number of high-profile financial experts finally decided to call it out.
Let’s keep this framed within the OP and the forum’s goals of buddhadhamma and the EBTs. You guys have a thread in the Watercooler and much more of the internet to discuss investing
That would have been me that mentioned Bogleheads 
Well said Stef. I agree with your view. I don’t see anything in the Canon which indicates a capitalist system in and of itself is wrong, and like @DKervick said, that isn’t really the point of the dhamma to advocate types of government.
well because some of us have worked hard for all their life and perhaps they have given enough to society and deserve to stop and devote themselves e.g. to solitary practice. I spent vassa in a Monastery some time ago and I realised it was the first time in my whole life I had done nothing for such a long time in row. It was also one of the happiest times of my life. In today society it’s easy to feel guilty if you are not always working and useful to others. Spending vassa in a monastery I felt I had the right to stop and there was nothing wrong with it. If one works hard enough so that their savings and investments are enough to provide for their family and themselves for the rest of their lives, why shouldn’t they have the right to stop?
Or should one be alway at the service of society?
If you are a monk you also devote yourself chiefly to your own practice for your own liberation (and not to serving society), and you depend on the labour of others, because of their generosity or perhaps their investing for future lives by making good kamma, whatever.
yep it was you 
This thread should have been in the ‘cooler’ from the outset. Capitalism is not a concept that existed in the Buddha’s day - not as we find it in the modern world.
Nothing like the debacle of late capitalism was anywhere to be seen in that little pocket of iron-age culture 2600 years ago. If we want to talk about relevance to the early teachings - as a guideline for discussion - we might need to leave modern capitalism out of the picture?
There is no resemblance between the culture and economic system of the Buddha’s world and the modern global hegemony of multinational corporations and the damage and injustice they contribute to - in a big way - with their tax avoidance and the economic race to the bottom they create.
What to speak of the damage they do in overturning environmental protection laws and suppressing the organisation of the labour force - particularly in their economic ‘free-trade zones’ in the developing world with their sweat shops etc.
The Buddha never witnessed or had to respond to these enormous social and environmental challenges. That’s our responsibility?
It is a bit odd to entertain the notion that the Buddha would have found late-capitalism perfectly in line with his Dhamma insight when it comes to the healthy interaction of human beings and the natural world. A world he loved dearly that we are in the process of destroying.
The dominant global economic system is inextricably involved in this natural carnage and, as a consequence, there may be no viable future for humanity - what to speak of Buddhism. This is fact not ideology - of the left or right.
It’s science that tells us about mass-extinction, habitat loss, pollution etc. It would be insane to ignore the impact of the global capitalist system on the environment.
The Buddha clearly discouraged greed and selfishness.
To the extent that any ideology (capitalism or otherwise) tries to paint those in positive terms, it is contrary to the Dhamma to that extent. If those are built in at the core of the ideological system, then surely the system as a whole needs to be significantly altered if it ever hopes to paint itself as Dhamma-friendly.
Not to be confused with working to support oneself and others, with wholesome intentions.
with metta
Rest assured, it is not, at least as far as I am concerned, and I doubt it is by anyone else here