Thanks to capitalism:
The question is, thanks to capitalism underpinned by right-wing or left-wing policies? 
From the perspective of hegelian dialetics, we may be very well seeing the consequences of a wholesome synthesis. As per our conversation above, this wholesome synthesis manifests for example, in the way Chinese communist leadership came up with its creative solution of market socialism…
I am yet to see something similar happening in the less flexible right-wing end of the ideology spectrum!
If you want my honest opinion I think its a mix of both. I think the right and the left both need each other to reach conclusions about what is best for society, which is why liberal democracy is what i fervently support. Hearing the different perspectives with open, honest and free debate means we can find the best solution to a problem be that from the right or the left.
It wasn’t a creative solution. Its idea of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is merely an attempt by the CPC to save face and to further legitimise its grip on power as it turned away from socialist economics and embraced capitalism. As for the right, the first welfare state in the world was brought in by a Conservative as a creative solution to poverty and the threat of a socialist revolution.
I just think that the way polarization takes place is not so much in our control, it is a dependently originated phenomena, natural and impersonal.
What has arisen so far as synthesis of what was triggered by Marx is a world in which you have liberal democracies on one end of the spectrum and a massive communist state on the other.
But worry not, this synthesis itself will eventually have to face its own antithesis and a new synthesis will take shape. Hence is the process.
I think you don’t appreciate the implications of the monopoly of the state in Chinese’s financial system and how it is fundamental in their own narrative of primary stage of socialism… and, of course, how that underpins the uniqueness of the Chinese success in fulfilling its people`s needs in terms of most of the basic nutrients as described by the Buddha in SN12.11
Well, dependent origination has nothing to do with the materialist dialectic of the Marxists. To me the best society is one that is capitalist but with regulations and some measure of welfare (I also support universal healthcare through the NHS in my own country) mixed with a liberal democracy where every man, woman and child is free. Call that a synthesis if you like, but its still capitalist at its core. Its also, in my opinion, the best society that we humans can come up with.
They aren’t in the “primary stage of socialism”. China is essentially using the NEP of Lenin. Even Lenin recognised that it was capitalism.
Dependent origination has everything to do with everything!
“Mendicants, there are these four fuels.
They maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.
What four?
Solid food, whether coarse or fine; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.
These are the four fuels that maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.What is the source, origin, birthplace, and root of these four fuels?
Craving. And what is the source, origin, birthplace, and root of craving?
Feeling. And what is the source of feeling?
Contact. And what is the source of contact?
The six sense fields. And what is the source of the six sense fields?
Name and form. And what is the source of name and form? Consciousness.
And what is the source of consciousness?
Choices. And what is the source of choices?
Ignorance.And so, ignorance is a condition for choices.
Choices are a condition for consciousness. …
That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.
When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …
That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
As in, dependent origination is not dialectical materialism and does not support such a worldview.
In theory, by fully understanding dependent origination one would let go of all points of views or perspectives irrelevant to the only task that matters: realizing for oneself the end of suffering.
In theory, by fully understanding dependent origination one would let go of all points of views or perspectives irrelevant to the only task that matters: realizing for oneself the end of suffering.
Oh, well, I agree there.
I have grown amused of people who say communism or socialism are evil because they are too materialistic and not sufficiently aligned with the Dhamma, only to immediately turn around and say that the only answer for Buddhists is to fully embrace Capitalism. That’s not what the Dhamma teaches. That’s what oligarchs want people to believe, because as long as they believe that they won’t threaten their supremacy. I once thought Buddhists would be better than that. I was wrong.
1 Like
The Buddha didn’t preach against private property and business. He taught how to have ethical relations between workers and their employers. One of his chief lay followers was a wealthy banker called Anāthapiṇḍika. The Buddha never once critisied him for being rich, or for engaging with what we would call today finance capitalism.
"In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir :
(i) by assigning them work according to their ability, (ii) by supplying them with food and with wages, (iii) by tending them in sickness, (iv) by sharing with them any delicacies, (v) by granting them leave at times.
"The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their master show their compassion to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they uphold his good name and fame.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
The Buddha also taught us not to take what is not given. Taking private property is just that. Its theft and so a violation of the precepts.
So, all in all (and ignoring the materialism and violence of Marxism) I see little support for Communism in the Dhamma. I do, however, see support for regulated capitalism and some measure of welfare.
I think the problem of the dialogue here is that you are reducing left-wing thinking to a very narrow frame of Marxism and not allowing and/or acknowledging that left wing thinking has evolved a lot since Marx.
And that evolution is a consequence of the flexible framework on which left wing ideology takes shape…
I am specifically discussing Marxism. I am not conflating leftism entirely with Marxism.
Sure. Understood. I am not stuck at or with Marxism, but trying to discuss the left wing thinking which was one way or the other shaped , triggered by Marxism and the Hegelian dialectical model it stems from.
For example, a lot of what I have said in the last few posts has no relevance for the UK Labour Party.
Well, not all left wing thinking is rooted in Marxism and plenty of people on the left hate communism. For example, Clement Attlee gave the UK the NHS and the welfare state. He hated communists yet he was of the left. He was a social-democrat. Since the split in the socialist international between social-democracts and communists in the 20th Century they have never really liked each other much. I think its perfectly possible to be a social-democrat and a Buddhist. Less so for Marxist Communism.
Also, another amusing thing is what I would call reductio ad Stalinum, something that seems to feel like a savvy answer to any skepticism towards cheerleading for the status quo.
1 Like