Buddhist Anarchism

Alleviating worldly suffering along the way.

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby LastLegend » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:00 pm

Zhen Li wrote:
Nemo wrote:I honestly think the story behind Zhen Li's beliefs would be infinitely more interesting than debunked Austrian praxeology.

Stage 1: Became interested in Marxism based upon the appeal of the goal appearing to be justified.
Stage 2: Decided to base my views on a logical analysis and proceeded to read the Collected Works of Marx and Engels.
Stage 3: Found that transition to Socially Direct Labour isn't explained properly by Marx, found that the Maoist model of experimentation made some sense.
Stage 4: Moral disenchantment with communism through a deeper understanding of the bloody history, and my inability to find anyone who was a pacifist or wasn't bloodthirsty in communist parties. Reduced to intellectual Marxianism.
Stage 5: Found the price-value equation to be nonsense, thus discredited the labour theory of value. Found that Marx stopped advocating historical materialism due to it's lack of empirical concordance. Found that experimentation makes no sense if historical materialism makes no sense.
Stage 6: Conditionally accepted notion of social democracy - improve conditions through government action. Was liberal/social democrat.
Stage 7: Found economically social democracy doesn't work. Was libertarian - also liked the morality in libertarianism.
Stage 8: Found that libertarianism can't work due to inherent problems with democracy. Discovered Carlyle and neo-camerialist formalism and became a reactionary dinosaur. :thumbsup:


I have arrived at stage 9 by simply ignoring all of them. :lol:
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Linjii
―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma
must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:02 pm

Zhen Li wrote:
Nemo wrote:I honestly think the story behind Zhen Li's beliefs would be infinitely more interesting than debunked Austrian praxeology.

Stage 1: Became interested in Marxism based upon the appeal of the goal appearing to be justified.
Stage 2: Decided to base my views on a logical analysis and proceeded to read the Collected Works of Marx and Engels.
Stage 3: Found that transition to Socially Direct Labour isn't explained properly by Marx, found that the Maoist model of experimentation made some sense.
Stage 4: Moral disenchantment with communism through a deeper understanding of the bloody history, and my inability to find anyone who was a pacifist or wasn't bloodthirsty in communist parties. Reduced to intellectual Marxianism.
Stage 5: Found the price-value equation to be nonsense, thus discredited the labour theory of value. Found that Marx stopped advocating historical materialism due to it's lack of empirical concordance. Found that experimentation makes no sense if historical materialism makes no sense.
Stage 6: Conditionally accepted notion of social democracy - improve conditions through government action. Was liberal/social democrat.
Stage 7: Found economically social democracy doesn't work. Was libertarian - also liked the morality in libertarianism.
Stage 8: Found that libertarianism can't work due to inherent problems with democracy. Discovered Carlyle and neo-camerialist formalism and became a reactionary dinosaur. :thumbsup:


Stage nine: abandoned political theories as useless and took up learning Buddhist primary languages and used all that intellectual talent for study and practice...
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby reddust » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:[

Stage nine: abandoned political theories as useless and took up learning Buddhist primary languages and used all that intellectual talent for study and practice...


He has an amazing mind, I agree! Believe or not I came the same conclusion with this thread. Although I still feel kindly towards the anarchist philosophy. :namaste:
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living
User avatar
reddust
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Zhen Li » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:22 pm

Malcolm wrote:Stage nine: abandoned political theories as useless and took up learning Buddhist primary languages and used all that intellectual talent for study and practice...

Well, I started learning primary languages in stage 7 because it doesn't take much time to figure this stuff out - it takes a lot of time to write about it... and many espressos... :coffee:

More or less, being a reactionary is abandoning politics. It is saying that all politics is useless, and the natural orders and functions of the world should take over because they're more efficient and yield better results. That includes having a monarch - since people whose focus in life is something other than governing, don't have the capacity to figure out what economic policy is best. As Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." How you select the monarch and how the state is arranged, structurally, etc. are all questions which I can address, but here I am speaking more generally.

Note that in Aggañña Suttanta, it is the monarch who gives order and structure to society - they are the fountain head of the order from which the bhikkhu emerges. The bhikkhu is then honoured by the king, and thus recognised as superior to the king. Under a Buddhist worldview, democracy doesn't make any sense -- people are guided by greed, anger, and ignorance. Only very few people can escape this cycle. The king is the great elect, Mahasammata - he is chosen for having the best qualities, for having been seen as the best potential governor (note that the karma which results in one being born as a king is usually close to that which results in birth as a Buddha - particularly in the case of a cakkavatti, who is just someone who has the capacity to be a Buddha). This doesn't imply hereditary monarchy - which I don't advocate - but a model similar to the principles behind electing a CEO. A CEO is elected by shareholders because he is usually someone who has been seen in the past to have performed in such a way that they can maximise the value of the shares of the shareholders - they are paid a wage according to the value of their labour according to how well they are seen to be capable of fulfilling this capacity. Similarly, the king must maximise the value of the shares of the kingdom's shareholders, which is defined by the value of the real estate. This is what you call neo-cameralism (a kind of mercantilism practised by Frederick the Great's Prussia - the principles of Misesian economics are held to be valid within the mercantilist framework, but it treats the kingdom as a firm, rather than as illegitimate first order property.). Fundamentally, the best way to ensure the success of such a model, is to uphold the principles of morality as expressed in the 5 precepts, on a national level, and to exercise what the Suttas call "dandaniti," the duty of kings to uphold order and maintain a safe kingdom.

The value of the real estate is directly related to how clean the environment is. The value of wasteland or slums is lower than that of green fields and ancient forests - the value of which increases over time, like that of wine. In this sense, I think that deep ecology is probably most compatible with neo-cameralism.
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby LastLegend » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:35 pm

Regarding politics and solving human problems, I would like to post these nonsensical lines:

“Mastery of the world is achieved
by letting things take their natural course.
If you interfere with the way of Nature,
you can never master the world.”
Tao Te Ching quotes, Verse 48

Tao Te #43 ~ Non Action
(Wu Wei)
Ф

The softest water breaks the hardest stone
carves the block with no effort

that which lacks substance
can enter where there is no space

thus there is strength in non-action

Teaching without words
power of wu wei
beyond the understanding
of the majority


The more rules you make, the more thieves are created.
The world can be ruled by letting things run their course; it cannot be ruled by interfering.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Linjii
―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma
must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Zhen Li » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:43 pm

:bow:
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:38 am

Zhen Li wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Stage nine: abandoned political theories as useless and took up learning Buddhist primary languages and used all that intellectual talent for study and practice...

Well, I started learning primary languages in stage 7 because it doesn't take much time to figure this stuff out - it takes a lot of time to write about it... and many espressos... :coffee:

More or less, being a reactionary is abandoning politics. It is saying that all politics is useless, and the natural orders and functions of the world should take over because they're more efficient and yield better results. That includes having a monarch


Mahasammata means, i.e., "Elected by the majority".

Certainly you are not going to argue with Āryadeva that the power of the king depends on the consent of the people.

That just lands you smack dab in the lap of democracy again.

As Churchill quipped “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby tellyontellyon » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:44 pm

Zhen Li,

You see, this is what I mean about you. You quote very selectively from a book you call "In defence of Terrorism", when it's correct title is "Terrorism and Communism". This book is actually a rejection of terrorism as we understand it.

Here is a full copy for others to read if anyone is even slightly interested:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/

You also, typically, fail to mention that this leaflet was written in the middle of the fledgling workers state being viciously attacked by about two dozen foreign (capitalist) powers in order to crush it by provoking and taking part in a brutal civil war. This including countries like the UK, the US, Japan etc. etc. This was hardly democratic and peaceful behaviour. It was murder.

You are right that the Bolsheviks were not pacifists, but name the government that is, or can be?
Do you think Tibet had no army until the Chinese turned up? Thailand? Laos? Sri Lanka? Everybody peacefully getting along?
I don't advocate violence, but self-defence may in certain circumstances be different (though that is certainly open for debate!. As is considered here: http://isme.tamu.edu/ISME07/Meadors07.html )

At the end of the day, capitalism leads to great economic disparity between rich and poor: the have nots and the have lots!
This disparity is maintained by force.

Its 2014, a hundered years ago the first world war started in Europe. This senseless slaughter was driven by expansionist capitalist thirst for power and dominance; access to new markets and raw materials. The russian revolution was in part a response to and an attempt to stop that slaughter. There were many factors that led to the tragedy of the USSR and the degeneration of the Bolshevik party under the most brutal of circumstances. Even the Dalai Lama doesn't lay this at the door of Marx. I believe the Dalai Lama has great wisdom and compassion and should not be brushed aside so easily.

The world is facing an environmental crisis that threatens the life of everybody on this planet. There will be food shortages. Mineral shorteges. Fuel shortages. Communities will be displaced by changing weather patterns and rising seas.
I have no faith whatsoever in capitalism to solve this, I only see the powerful grabbing all they can. I see war and famine. We must find a new way to live together on this planet and it will not be capitalism... even the Taoists may feel the need to act. :yinyang:

The US spends trillions on its military budget. All the big capitalist powers are dependent on the massive arms trade. It is lovely to have beautiful ideas about a better world. But when you ask the super-rich and powerful to give up their wealth and power voluntarily in order to create a better world what do you think they will do? If the UK decided not to buy new Trident nuclear weapon systems from the U.S. they could easily reverse all the massive public spending and job cuts that are ongoing. They could build social housing for everybody who needs a home, they could give everybody a job! The free market will not, can not, do that.

Here is a poem (a first hand account) in remebrance of those who suffered through the Great War:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB4cdRgIcB8
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
tellyontellyon
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Zhen Li » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:59 pm

Malcolm wrote:Mahasammata means, i.e., "Elected by the majority".

No it doesn't.
PTS P-E Dictionary Def.:
Sammata [pp. of sammannati] 1. considered as m i.39; s ii.15; iv.127; d iii.89 (dhamma˚); vin iv.161, 295. -- 2. honoured, revered m ii.213; j i.49; v.79; sādhusammata considered, revered, as good d i.47; s iv.398. -- 3. authorized, selected, agreed upon d iii.93 (mahājana˚) vin i.111; iii.150.

I don't think we need to do a philological study here, it's pretty clear to anyone that "majority" isn't in the word.
Malcolm wrote:Certainly you are not going to argue with Āryadeva that the power of the king depends on the consent of the people.

I'd like a quote or reference.

And in certain regards I don't disagree. I can explain a bit more when I have some time. I might even be willing to go further than Āryadeva, who may have a slim definition of "the people." But I'll be convinced when I can see the Sanskrit for myself.
That just lands you smack dab in the lap of democracy again.

No it doesn't. There are many nuances about democracy as it exists today that don't exist in monarchy. For one, the king is elected by those who have a real stake in the value of the kingdom, not everyone you can find (definitely no baby suffrage here). For another, the king has absolute authority. I can elaborate when I have some more time.

I'll reply to tellyontellyon later too.
:anjali:
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:07 pm

tellyontellyon wrote:Even the Dalai Lama doesn't lay this at the door of Marx. I believe the Dalai Lama has great wisdom and compassion and should not be brushed aside so easily.

The world is facing an environmental crisis that threatens the life of everybody on this planet. There will be food shortages. Mineral shorteges. Fuel shortages. Communities will be displaced by changing weather patterns and rising seas.
I have no faith whatsoever in capitalism to solve this, I only see the powerful grabbing all they can. I see war and famine. We must find a new way to live together on this planet and it will not be capitalism... even the Taoists may feel the need to act. :yinyang:


It is not capitalism per se that is the problem. The problem lies in how corporations are structured, as well as neo-liberal globalization.

Of course the state capitalism of the Stalinists and the CCP just turns the State into a corporation.

In fact, there is very little difference in the structure of totalitarian states whether right or left.

Totalitarianism is a scourge, whether it is in the form of a Marxist regime or a Fascist corporatist regime.

All you guys squabbling about the relative merits of worldly political systems need to step back and understand that as followers of Buddhadharma, it is not our job to solve samsara for anyone but ourselves. We cannot solve samsara for anyone else.

We can add our voice, and we can witness, but we are not going to change the behavior of worldlings.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:31 pm

Zhen Li wrote: 3. authorized, selected, agreed upon d iii.93 (mahājana˚) vin i.111; iii.150.


This is the sense of the term.

I don't think we need to do a philological study here, it's pretty clear to anyone that "majority" isn't in the word.


Mahā...


Malcolm wrote:Certainly you are not going to argue with Āryadeva that the power of the king depends on the consent of the people.

I'd like a quote or reference.


You can find this in his Catuḥśataka, v. 77

    Societies servant, paid with a sixth part,
    Why are you so arrogant?
    Your becoming the agent of actions
    depends on being placed in control.

And:

    Those who act at others insistence,
    Are called fools on this earth.
    There is no one else at all
    So dependent on others as you.

He also says, v. 88:

    The sensible do not acquire kingship.
    Since fools have no compassion,
    These merciless rulers of men,
    though protectors, are irreligious.

As far as enlightened rulership goes, he opines that while once it may have been possible, it is no longer possible, v. 90 states:

    Virtuous rulers of the past
    Protected the people like children.
    Through the practices of this time of strife,
    It is now like a waste without wildlife.

(Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas, Snow Lion, 1994).

I certainly think that history has certainly demonstrated that rulers, especially sovereign monarchs, are in general completely incompetent. The ideal of the wise, awakened kings is a myth, like the unicorn.

That just lands you smack dab in the lap of democracy again.

No it doesn't. There are many nuances about democracy as it exists today that don't exist in monarchy. For one, the king is elected by those who have a real stake in the value of the kingdom, not everyone you can find (definitely no baby suffrage here).


Athenian Democracy for example, was the province of an elite, a practice initially followed by the framers of the constitution who were unwilling or unable to fully implement the Seven Nations model of direct democracy they had encountered and admired. This also likely had to do with a conflict created by culturally embedded European notions of property rights inherited from the Romans as opposed to First Nation ideas about usufruct rights.

For another, the king has absolute authority. I can elaborate when I have some more time.


Not from a Buddhist point of view. See the above.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby tellyontellyon » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:00 pm

It is not capitalism per se that is the problem. The problem lies in how corporations are structured, as well as neo-liberal globalization.


But, the nature of capitalist competition itself leads to monopolies, globalisation, hierarchy, a growing disparity between rich and poor. All of this Marx predicted.

Wheter you agree with anything else he says it appears he was right about that. Even if you don't think marxism is the solution, I don't think capitalism can be either. Just look.

If you think capitalism can be fixed... ok how? What do you think could be done that could solve this? Keynes is a step in the right direction. It was tried in Europe ... and is being torn to pieces before our eyes. Global capitalism continues to become more powerful everywhere.

I'm all for reforms of capitalism, but eventually all that gets torn down. At least that is Marx's prediction... what do we see?

Honestly, I wish capitalism could be fixed in the long term, life would be easier, but I don't believe it can.
:namaste:
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
tellyontellyon
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:39 pm

tellyontellyon wrote:
It is not capitalism per se that is the problem. The problem lies in how corporations are structured, as well as neo-liberal globalization.


But, the nature of capitalist competition itself leads to monopolies, globalisation, hierarchy, a growing disparity between rich and poor. All of this Marx predicted.



Marx considered capitalism progressive. One of the glaring failures of Marx's theories was his failure to perceive that the industrial capitalist mode of production itself was and is the core of the problem. But not all capitalist enterprise suffers from that because not all capitalist enterprise is necessarily industrial.

Competition, even in capitalism, is not necessarily a negative thing, either. For example, my point of view is "anti-capitalist", but not universally so. A certain amount of capitalism in an economy is necessary, it keeps people invigorated. Even the Buddha supported the notion of profitable investing.

Wheter you agree with anything else he says it appears he was right about that. Even if you don't think marxism is the solution, I don't think capitalism can be either. Just look.


Marxism has been an utter failure as a solution. Its primary successes all occurred prior to WWI.

If you think capitalism can be fixed... ok how? What do you think could be done that could solve this? Keynes is a step in the right direction. It was tried in Europe ... and is being torn to pieces before our eyes. Global capitalism continues to become more powerful everywhere.


It is not a question of fixing capitalism. We already have the means to control it, we simply need to be diligent about making sure that capitalism is properly regulated in ensure the healthy competition upon which it is based. For example, Obama administration's claim that this or that bank is too big to fail is utter nonsense. On the other hand, we need to guarantee small banks.

The fact of the matter is that we already have the means and understanding the balance the social good against the excesses of capitalism. The pity is that you Marxists spend all your time reading Marx, but he is really just tearing a page out of Smith and trying to merge that with Hegel. Marx is a remarkably unoriginal thinker, with a journalists mentality. You should read Smith, thoroughly. His concept of capitalism is really well thought out and socially as well as environmentally sound in many respects. He in fact would be horrified at the modern corporatocracies we are spawning today. He writes very scathingly of those who speculate in the stock market.

However, Smith's views are also unduly enthusiastic about the newly forming industrial economy, and he too, like Marx later, fails to see that the very means of production themselves drive economic forms of life and therefore, drives politics.

The Luddites understood this quite well, and revolted because of the destruction of cottage industries (which in part arose because of the shuttering of the commons on the 16th and 17th centuries, forced a lot of subsistence level farmers in the British Isles into the trades) that occurred as a result of the burgeoning textile mills.

One of the main points of Deep Ecological thinking is that how we make things is as important as what we make. Centralized production leads to centralized economies. Industrial production is summum bonum of centralized production.

If we want to change our politics, we must change our economy. If we want to change our economy, we must change how we manufacture what we need. If we want to change how we manufacture goods, we must in the end change ourselves.

The Marxist solution is bankrupt precisely because it proposes that all we need to change is our politics and policies, and then everything else will fall into place. This sadly, is the great shortcoming of the Green Parties, who have become little more than a retread of the old left, ala Social Ecology (Murray Bookchin), attempting to foster change at the policy level, rather than at the root, how we manufacture and produce what we use and eat.

I'm all for reforms of capitalism, but eventually all that gets torn down. At least that is Marx's prediction... what do we see?


If I were you, I would be more worried about the rise of Islam as a global political force.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby tellyontellyon » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:58 pm

Hiya Malcolm.

Well, it does seem that capitalism is inherently unstable and leads to crises. Those crises' also seem to be affecting the whole world. Globalisation, the power of corporations seems to be expanding, and overides democracy and morality and common sense. As one stock market trader said, "Goldman Sachs Rules The World". Another way of saying that is "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA
I think if we want to change how we produce things and use the planets resources, then we can not leave our economic system in the hands of such people. You can't control what you don't own... so ownership needs to be collective.. (at least when it comes to the important/big things). That does not mean owning everything or every small/medium business.

~~

Marx didn't only talk about industrial capitalism, he understood financial capitalism.
Here's a leaflet:
It's pretty short... for marx.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... ce-profit/

~~~

Again, people confuse what happened in the Bonapartist Soviet Union with what genuine Marxists today stand for.
This document gives Trotsky's view from 1937.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... linism.htm

~~~

Not quite sure why you are having a pop at Islam? All the muslims I have ever met were decent peaceful people. Don't believe everything (or anything) you hear on Fox News.
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
tellyontellyon
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby treehuggingoctopus » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:18 pm

:good:
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Nemo » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:25 pm

IIRC in Smith's time they hung speculators and there were no limited liability corporations except for public projects. Capitalism is a revolutionary force in of itself and needs regulation. A pragmatic balance of power between socialism and capitalism looks like the best economic policy so far. More important is where policy is on the totalitarian/libertarian scale. A more libertarian society seems to have better lives for the 99%. Too much liberty often turns to a short period of anarchy. With the number of predatory people slinking around you very quickly get Somalia or Afghanistan.

So far there is no system where smart people get everything they want.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:04 pm

tellyontellyon wrote:Hiya Malcolm.

Well, it does seem that capitalism is inherently unstable and leads to crises.


Marxist economies are not stable either. Since Marxist economies are predicated upon industrial capitalist means of production, they will be inherently unstable as well.

The problem again is how things scale. low level local capitalism is fine and healthy. What you are talking about is over centralized concentration of wealth. Well, that can happen just as easily in a Marxist workers paradise as a capitalist dystopia.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:06 pm

tellyontellyon wrote:Not quite sure why you are having a pop at Islam? All the muslims I have ever met were decent peaceful people. Don't believe everything (or anything) you hear on Fox News.


I don't pay attention to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I watch the Daily Show for my infotainment, and not very regularly.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:25 pm

tellyontellyon wrote:Hiya Malcolm.

Well, it does seem that capitalism is inherently unstable and leads to crises. Those crises' also seem to be affecting the whole world. Globalisation, the power of corporations seems to be expanding, and overides democracy and morality and common sense. As one stock market trader said, "Goldman Sachs Rules The World". Another way of saying that is "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA
I think if we want to change how we produce things and use the planets resources, then we can not leave our economic system in the hands of such people. You can't control what you don't own... so ownership needs to be collective.. (at least when it comes to the important/big things). That does not mean owning everything or every small/medium business.

~~

Marx didn't only talk about industrial capitalism, he understood financial capitalism.
Here's a leaflet:
It's pretty short... for marx.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... ce-profit/

~~~

Again, people confuse what happened in the Bonapartist Soviet Union with what genuine Marxists today stand for.
This document gives Trotsky's view from 1937.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... linism.htm



Marx says nothing about banks and stock markets not already enunciated by Smith, et al.

Trotsky advocated terrorism. How can you admire such people?

Marx and Communism advocate violence and terrorism as valid means to end. This is repugnant.

No Buddhist should advocate Marxism in a real sense. Supporting the goals of Marxism without condemning its explicit advocacy of violent revolution is supporting that violence itself and bears all the karmic consequences of belonging to an army.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Postby tellyontellyon » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:45 pm

I'm not some marxist scholar, but I'm pretty sure that a democratically planned economy along socialist lines would not be:
.... predicated upon industrial capitalist means of production.


I'm sure there would be industry, but what it made, and how it made things, and how much it made, would be based on peoples needs and rational discussion. That means the cost to the environment and the lives of every being on this plannet could be taken into account... not just given lip service by the bods on Wall St.
Look at this tragedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCK3suuQohY
and Dow are still not taking responsibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmAkbxNk8c

Marxism does not advocate terrorism. I have already answered that.

If you think Marxism and Buddhism are incompatible, please write to the Dalai Lama and tell him. I await his response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhvlnC-oKEw

Anyway, I've posted enough on this thread. I've said everything I can say and posted links to everything else. I'm not here to proselytize. I've just thrown some ideas into the pot that you may or may not like to think or read more about.
:namaste:
Last edited by tellyontellyon on Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Don't you know that a midnight hour comes when everyone has to take off his mask? Do you think life always lets itself be trifled with? Do you think you can sneak off a little before midnight to escape this?”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
tellyontellyon
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Engaged Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>