Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm curious about what the Buddha taught regarding the issue of choice, the choice to be kind and charitable, and the choice to be materialistic or selfish. Paving your own way.

I'm also curious about the what the Buddha talk regarding work ethic, the understanding that no one is responsible for you but yourself, and laziness is not a virtue. Paving your own way.

I thought these were values the Buddha taught, I had a assumed, but correct me if I'm wrong.

There was a thread of mine in ED about the compatibility of altruism and capitalism, or Buddhism and libertarianism/fiscal conservatism in case you missed it. I was expressing my observation that people in general did not believe the two were compatible or at least, could co-exist, particularly from capitalists. There are numerous articles you can find on the Internet that talk about how Buddhism is "bad for business" I did receive that sentiment in the thread, particularly from an Ayn Randian (not my choice of philosophy) who called me an enemy to capitalism.

Out of curiosity I posted the same topic in a Buddhist forum, and while some held that Buddhism and capitalism can coexist and wouldn't clash, it was heart wrenching to see the majority bash it as a system that exploits people and creates poverty, choosing instead to embrace socialism.

I know one other Buddhist/Libertarian, we share the belief that Buddhism is a personal philosophy, that one has to make the choice to give up their worldly attachments and seek enlightenment, not hold the populace hostage to our beliefs (legislating morality). Buddhism and Libertarianism both advocate non-violence, and while I don't need to mix them, one being personal and the other being economic/political, they have not clashed as of yet.

Now I would like your input. At this point my argument is as refined as it will ever be.

I think Socialism has somethings in common with Buddhism, though. Mainly the spread of wealth and genorosity are common in their doctrines.

Both Socialism and Buddhism were originally inteded to bring down the caste systems.

The kind of Socialism that they have in Denmark where not a single person is homeless is what Marx probably had in mind. Would Buddha not approve of that?

Actually, the Marxist view of Socialism is a state which is ran by the working class, rather than bosses, owners and other such bureaucracy. The economics is also different than it would be under just mixed/state capitalism. So, arguably, Socialism hasn't really existed in full. Of course, one of the oldest and the most left-wing variants of socialism, Anarchy, wishes to abolish states and hierarchies as well.

The ideal is essentially a cooperative economy with no one having special authority over anyone else. That's not so bad.... just the methods people come up with to getting things that way... you wanna watch out for. sweatdrop

One cannot look at the negative side of capitalism without acknowledging its power and efficiency (and vice versa). While capitalism has changed the world in profound and far-reaching ways, it's done so by exploiting almost every natural resource we can think of from human dignity, to forests (that we need to breathe), water (that we need to drink), and land (that we need to grow food and live on). 90% of the world's fisheries have been fished out, and yet 24 000 people die every day from starvation.

I think capitalism, and every form of social construct has a lot to learn from Buddhism, just as Buddhism has a lot to learn from the way non-Buddhists prefer to organize themselves.

We have to understand that while the capitalist engine has done a lot to harm, there are countless millions of people who like what they've gained, and convincing them to curb their consumption because it literally kills is going to take something massive and creative. Or just too real, too visceral.

There are actually disagreements on where to draw the line for "private property". The first association which comes to mind with "property", however, is land. This one is essential because land ownership has always been a means which upper classes have exploited people. Either by making them slaves and working the land, making them pay rent or taxes, or walling it off and making it difficult for people to move around freely without fear of legal or financial punishment.

Some anarchist systems I've been looking at, like parecon, makes a distinction between "property" and "possessions" in that things you have and you use are your possessions. Property is where your ownership may be used to generate capitol/profit just by virtue of having it. ("Capitalism" in this sense refers to an economic system which produces profit through private investment and ownership.)

As for "free market", progressives tend to use this phrase almost as a euphemism, because to them it sounds like a get-rich scheme. The attack isn't on the idea of people freely trading with each other voluntarily... so much as the lopsided tendency for these markets to favor those whom are already wealthy and looking to get even more wealthy. The Left sometimes prefers to use "fair market" to stress this point.
....actually, since you seem to be into linguistics.... I've found some of George Lakoff's insights to be helpful in figuring out the ways different political/economic factions use language.


You have to remember that in America, things are much better than they are in most countries. Also, the way our media and political groups interact skews the way we understand the greater world.... and often with a strong bias towards one way of thinking.

When the whole bourgeois/proletariat thing came about in Marxism almost a century ago, the people they had in mind were more like the illegal immigrants coming over to America to pick our fruits and vegetables. Or like the factory workers in Third World nations which do the same work as Americans, often in worse conditions, yet receive only a fraction of the pay as an American would receive in America. Indeed, corporations prefer this, since what they don't have to pay to workers, they keep as profit.
Some theories have even take the idea that America, and much of the First World has in a sense, become an upper class it is own right, while Second and Third world nations are being offered low-level work.... often while their nations are deeply in dept to the same nations supporting these corporations.
***

I feel like I've talked too much.... but on another note....

When I was first studying Buddhism, and took a lot of interest in the Dalai Lama, I noticed he often made comments to the effect that he liked to be considered "half-Marxist, half-Buddhist." A concept that confused me, because I knew of the awful things Communist China is doing to Tibet. Though as I met friendly communists here, and read more about it on my own, it started to make more sense... and now, in my own way, I'd like to think of myself as "half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

I suppose my point is, as helpful as the advice and opinions of others may be in navigating this world.... there is no better cure for ignorance than taking the time to learn and experience these things on your own.

As always, feel free to judge the above as complete nonsense.

It's not a bad idea to relax our dependence on imports and foreign oil, it's not a bad idea to start stock-piling gold and precious metals either, or putting some gold/silver currency into circulation, considering the declining value of the Federal Reserve Note...