Yes sorry, as I said I know little about politics and have never really been interested in it. You are right greed is definitely not aligned to the Dhamma.
I hope I am not misquoting him, but I remember a comment by Ajahn Brahmali in one of his talks where he mentioned rebirth and the teaching that generosity leads to a prosperous rebirth. If I remember correctly, he said that he thought this was why people like Buffett and Gates were both so wealthy and generous. But please forgive me if I have misquoted him; and I hope in this case Ajahn Brahmali will correct me. I remember this hit me, because it went against the conventional idea that very wealthy people are just very greedy 
Another element that I found interesting was a lecture by Robert Shiller in which he said that capitalism allowed people to become wealthy, with the aim of doing good to society later in life. He stressed the importance of philantropy and gave examples such as A Carnegy.
In our days, we may also think of Ray Dalio as a good example, sharing his experience and doing a lot to help with education.
Anyway please forgive me if I went off topic or if I misquoted Ajahn; I will now be silent.
70 replies to the question in the 14 hours since your post… Before beginning to read, I bow to your prescience, Friend!
A lot of people already do that, if you truly care to listen
Buddhism teaches us that every human being has craving for sensual pleasures as his root motivation.
Capitalism succeeds because it harnesses this craving for the benefit of both Labor and Owner.
Marxism fails because the very same craving turns one man against his brother.
Despite what we so dearly wish, people are inherently unequal in talent, ability, work ethic, views etc. and one will always be more successful in a particular environment than another. That does not mean one is better than another…which is why the Buddha teaches mutual respect of Ruler Vs Ruled, Labor Vs Owner.
In the end, we need to depend on each others talents to be successful as a group, don’t we? So it makes sense to look out for each other, while doing our very best to make ourselves happy!
Ergo… the centre. Would that be Social democrat? I’m not too good at Politics 
. But I find that the UK type system works well, whether modified for Australia or for the UAE.
It is when Oppression of the majority populace by the minority Elite rears its head that problems begin. This is as true of unrestricted Capitalism as of unrestricted Socialism. For the system to function effectively, Restraint is necessary- whether the self imposed ethical restraint of the benevolent King or the law based restraint of the democratically elected President.
Greetings!
Having come upon this further example of cage match topic titles, I would like to remind everyone to please keep posts polite and on-topic. Having a focused topic will go a long way toward helping our fellows succeed at those endeavors.
Utilizing private messages for lengthy conversations between two members is encouraged.
Thank you for the feedback!
I change the title from “vs.” to “and” - which I think better reflects my prompt: to explore both the differences and the similarities - not the differences alone.
I think the title I had before was biased in favor of differences as opposed to open-mindedly exploring both.
Ever a welcome reminder! 
I think this discussion is more political than about early buddhism. It ends up in conflict and resentment rather than harmony and good-will. Is this Buddhist ?
Do you think you are adding to the conflict and resentment by taking a pious and judgemental position here and implying that people are not Buddhist for having a political conversation? 
The thread might not be the best thread ever, or handled in the best way by the interlocutors, but Buddhists should not be afraid to discuss any topic, however they should do so skillfully. Easier said than done! As to the guidelines for the site, the moderators who are responsible for that have already spoken.
I’m sorry if it sounds pious and judgemental. However I am not talking about people but about the topic of this forum and the content of the discussion as well as behaviors .
About behaviors there is right speech and pisuna vaca. It this in line ?
Are the messages about Communism vs. Capitalism, without any mention of buddhist texts within the forum topic ?
Yes, it is correct to say this forum topic has no any connections with EBTs or Early Buddhism.
Hi @animitto,
I can appreciate your perspective that the thread leans heavily on political discussion, which tends to get heated and prickly. Hence, my reminder above.
As for the thread being inappropriate for the forum, the Watercooler category has a bit of a winding history. Initially, it was intended to give a little vent to the otherwise very serious nature of the rest of the forum discussion: the kind of goofy stuff one would chat about around the watercooler of one’s Buddhist oriented office. It has since broadened to a degree that can sometimes, in my opinion, be difficult to moderate. For instance, this thread might be better in the Discussion category so that it can be anchored firmly in the EBTs. It’s all a work in progress.
I can understand perfectly how difficult it is. I hope my message is more viewed as a help than any criticism of your highly difficult and demanding task. Thank you Nadine.
The purpose of the thread was to explore the intersections between a particular political philosophy and early Buddhism.
Both of your messages seems to have been predicted in the very first comment on this thread by @JimInBC
You bumped up his prediction accuracy from 50% to 75%.
Now it is up to harmful online verbal actors and the moderators to bump him up to a solid 100%.
Honestly, if you are able to cite buddhist texts to support your position on this topic, that would be very much welcome.
Sorry that I don’t make your job any easier. 
Ohhhhh, thank you for letting me know.
I didn’t think to do that.
Will keep that in mind for future topics that I am wanting answers for that are based on the ETBs.
Good prediction. I think you missed only one predictable point:
- Bhante Sujato will nail amazing and balanced post that doesn’t belong to any extreme, but let us see the problem from deeper and essential perspective.
Which he already did in first post he written in this thread 
But it was pretty predictable as well 
Thank you Bhante Sujato for being awesome.
With Metta 
lol, touche. If that was his 4th prediction, he would have hit 
Politics functions through negotiating the realm of possibilities hence often defined as “the art of the possible”. The realm of possibilities is the realm of change, and within that realm choice functions.
Progressives choose to trust change, while conservatives choose to trust the old and resist change. If change is to be trusted, then the significance of the conditioned is acknowledged which makes the progressive vulnerable to it. If change is not trusted, then the significance of the conditioned is denied which makes the conservative equally vulnerable to it.
This is why, even though not a politician but a philosopher, Kierkegaard’s view seems to be closer to Buddhism than both conservatism and progressivism, playfully elaborating on the nature of choice:
Marry, and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way . . . Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Hang yourself, and you will regret it. Do not hang yourself, and you will also regret it. Whether you hang yourself or not, you will regret it either way. That, gentlemen, is the essence of the wisdom of life
I agree relatively with this assessment.
But I think that progressives misplace their trust when they favor harmful, unbeneficial changes and the conservatives misplace their trust when they disfavor harmless, beneficial changes.
Changes are not inherent bad or good.
I think Kierkegaard’s view is actually not in accordance with Buddhism because I think the Buddha discourages harmful choices and encourages beneficial choices.
Therefore, I think the Buddha would claim that harmful choices/actions should be regretted whereas beneficial choices/actions should not be regretted.
I think that it would be foolish to regret beneficial choices and not regret harmful choices.
I think that it would be wise to regret harmful choices and not regret beneficial choices.
What do you think?
I think different presentations lead to different conclusions. In AN 10.2, the Buddha asserted virtue, none regret, joy, rapture, tranquility, non-sensual pleasure, concentration, knowing things as they really are, dispassion and liberation and denied choice/volition to have any role for going from the near shore to the far shore.
The above does not mean he equated all choices.
How do you mean? Like kamma, etc. is not necessary? 
The kamma that is necessary for liberation is neither white nor black eliminating the two. The two are anicca dukkha and anatta and within them choice functions.