Why wouldn’t someone point out how every country that went communist ended up in beggary and tyranny? They literally had walls to keep people in, to keep the workers from escaping to freedom in the capitalist west. Also, I have not relied on Stalin in this thread. Enver Hoxha is right up there too.
If I may just give an opinion on this debate (as someone who has never really been interested in politics), I have found some remarks by Bertrand Russell on the subject quite interesting (I remember that as a young student I did not find Russell very cool, but as time went on my attitude changed a bit like Mark Twain’s attitude toward his father changed with time, as reflected by what he said here “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” 
Anyway, Russell simply said ‘If a philosophy is to bring happiness it is to be inspired by kindly feelings’. I like that simple statement! And it seems quite Buddhist to me. 
He went on to note that Marx was not motivated by kindness towards the proletariat, but by envy towards the bourgeois. As such his philosophy cannot be conducive to happiness and a good society.
His comments can be found also on videos on Youtube.
5 Likes
Marx had a lot of bad traits. Apart from his lavish praise of violence he was also anti-Semitic and homophobic:
1 Like
And now we have ad hominem…
Funny enough, it is a very strong trait in right wing capitalism to worship billionaires for their prosperity and wealth, many of which are as controversial in their personal matters and traits as the poor old uncle Marx…
Time to mute the topic…
1 Like
An Ad Hom would be if I said Marxism was invalid because he was an anti-semitic. As I made no such argument there is no said logical fallacy.
One of the 4 immeasurables is rejoicing in the prosperity of others. Once again, this shows that Communism is not compatible with the Dhamma.
Would you agree however that as Russell noted, the motivation (sankappa) from which a system of thought is born is important? After all we are inspired by the Buddha because we feel that he was motivated by our wellbeing.
So if what drives a philosophy is envy, the whole system of thought is perhaps dubious.
Perhaps because talking about this is not always an appropriate answer to the observation it seeks to bring an answer to?
Also, I have not relied on Stalin in this thread. Enver Hoxha is right up there too.
No one said you had. Reductio ad Stalinum doesn’t necessarily imply that someone acutally uses the word “Stalin”. It rather implies that someone answers skepticism towards Capitalism with how horrible communism has been in many countries, which generally is a strawman argument that doesn’t actually provide any meaningful answer to said skepticism.
I suppose reductio ad Stalinum is a form of whataboutism, a rhetorical device ironically linked to the Russian communist party’s propaganda techniques during the cold war.
1 Like
Perhaps because talking about this is more often than not an inappropriate answer to the observation it seeks to bring an answer to?
I don’t see how.
No one said you had. Reductio ad Stalinum doesn’t necessarily imply that someone acutally uses the word “Stalin”. It rather implies that someone answers skepticism towards Capitalism with how horrible communism has been in many countries, which generally is a strawman argument that doesn’t actually provide any meaningful answer to said criticism.
I suppose reductio ad Stalinum is a form of whataboutism, a rhetorical device ironically linked to the Russian communist party’s propaganda techniques during the cold war.
If someone is criticising capitalism and lamenting how awful it is then they need to propose a better system. Pointing out the vast horror show that was Marxist Communism is very pertinent to that discussion.
If you want to put forward some ideas as to what exactly should replace capitalism I am all ears.
The same could be said for greed which to most of right wing thinking is deemed to be good, right?
As per SN12.11 and dependent origination as a whole, at the root of it all is ignorance.
Hence my original stance that as unawakened beings, we are all on the same boat.
It may be good to try to bring the thread back to the OP.
Or, if we want to remain marginally off-topic at least list to what extent the existing alternatives to left wing thinking may or not be more aligned to right thought/attitude aspect of the eightfold path. What do you think?
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.
2 Likes
70 replies to the question in the 14 hours since your post… Before beginning to read, I bow to your prescience, Friend!
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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! 
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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 ?
2 Likes
Yes, it is correct to say this forum topic has no any connections with EBTs or Early Buddhism.