Middle Way Politics

[Grigoris]

What you are saying makes total sense. I was coming from what I was taught.

Unfortunately, we often get taught the dumbest things!

[reddust]

What you are saying makes total sense. I was coming from what I was taught.

Unfortunately, we often get taught the dumbest things!

That's why I am a political atheist.

[anjali]

That's why I am a political atheist.

You have no view on how people in community should live well together?

[reddust]

That's why I am a political atheist.

You have no view on how people in community should live well together?

Not with today's political structure. I guess middle way politics would have diversity included in it's model.

To form a healthy system we will have to drop our old conditioning, I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's like a person leaving an abusive relationship, if they don't figure out why they fell into an abusive relationship and stayed, they will end up in another abusive relationship. The governmental and political systems we have had in our past have been very abusive. This makes our current systems look like heaven here in the West. Except we are being farmed like an industrial livestock operation....mooooo Oh look the cows are getting sick from eating corn, let's give them some drugs.

What I've seen from the system I was born into, the family does not work very well. Husband, wife, children. It is fragile and easily broken...it's a very new family structure from what I've read. This structure is breaking down fast and new models based on economic needs are coming on strong as our economy changes and more people are left with very little resources. People are banding together again, like in the past, pooling their resources. The older family structures seemed to be more stable but allowed less personal freedoms from what I've read. That is very foreign to Americans. In the past healthy communities could defend themselves against those who wanted to abuse their labor, natural resources and crafts without proper payment.

Now the criminals have nuclear weapons, who can say no to a bully who can nuke you? Bio weapons, which were used in the past, American natives were given the pox through contaminated blankets as an example. The ruling class has built better bio weapons grown in our food, put in our water and medicine. Economic weapons like fiat currency and trading laws. Political weapons divide and conquer through using gender, race, religion, and class. Propaganda through education and mass media. It's very hard for individuals to fight this huge structure. But it has it's weakness, it's huge, slow, and stupid.

The community I grew up in had it's own hydro electrical energy from dams, it's own communication system, rich resources for farming and timber harvest. I grew up in a sustainable community, it wasn't perfect but those who wanted to work could make a good living. I would like to see communities become more independent regarding energy, food production, industry, and communication like the town I grew up in. The Federal government grew in power our say, the ability to manage our health, ability to travel freely, property rights, common lands, family, energy, education has been slowly eroded. I think for a healthy community from the family up to our largest forms of government diversity and independence is very important. Most natural systems that are healthy are very diverse in nature.

When family wasn't so broken up, tribes, clans, strong connected communities were more difficult to control and manage. I used to have a vivid dream where my children and I, their kids and extended relatives could live in a large house. We would work the land and sell our crafts and labors in our local markets. My family have always had small businesses and we did very well in the past. That's only a dream now...

How would the group be managed? I've read up on different leadership models and visited communities that are setting up structure like this here in Oregon. I don't know if our current political system will put up with this if it threatens their hold on control and power. I am right in the middle of my detox and I am still feeling kind of slow. I will post some more on this later.

[kirtu]

The Greek word democracy (δημοκρατία) and the Latin term Republic (republica) define the same entity: a democracy, a republic.

Outdated etymologies will get us no where
(which could be utopia!) - democracy in Athens and in Novgorad were direct and non-universal. Novgorad was close to being universal for it's time. However both Switzerland and Iceland showed that direct participatory democracy would in fact work. Unfortunately neither of the world's two democracies have taken it any further as yet and opted for universal direct democracy.

In other places, representatives are elected to theoretically represent the people's interests. This is also the case in Iceland and Switzerland now as well. Vermont is one of the few places where direct democracy still exists (on US soil ironically but hopefully) and in many small communities around the world.

Of course you know this already.

You cannot, for example, have a democratic monarchy (δηομκρατική μοναρχία). It is either a monarchy or a democracy. Of course there are different types of democracy (representative to direct), like there are different types of monarchy (absolute to constitutional) too.

Shhh .... don't tell the Dutch, or the Swedes or Luxembourgers or the Norwegians.

In countries with heads of state with minimal powers a monarchy works fine. It has nothing (or little) to do with the powers of government.

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Vermont is one of the few places where direct democracy still exists (on US soil ironically but hopefully) and in many small communities around the world.

Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Main actually. The town meeting system is deeply ingrained in New England. For example, in my town, we all vote directly on the budget, etc. Then there is a board of selectman charged with carrying out the agendas the town votes on.

[Malcolm]

You missed Republican Democracy, which is what we have in the US. Capitalism, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it is not a political system.

cf here for the full twenty-something page discussion.

Republican Democracy? You do know that the word Republic is just the Latin term for the Greek word Democracy, right?

As for capitalism not being a political system, I seems that only capitalists would like to believe that one! They would like to have us believe that capitalism is just the natural method/law by which exchange functions.

Capitalism was a term coined by Marx. Prior to Marx, no one ever called themselves a "Capitalist". After Marx, people used the term to describe the economic system we still have at present. But it is not and never was a coherent political system. People started calling Smith's thought "Capitalism" because it was his economic thought and policy suggestions in Wealth of Nations that Marx was largely critiquing.

An argument may be made that political and economic systems are mutually dependent, and it is certainly true that as the US is a product of the Scottish Enlightenment, its political values upon which our style of democracy was founded include such items as ownership of private property, "free" markets, etc. These are enshrined in the BIll of Rights, the fifth amendment of which reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is of course why Americans by and large are hostile to socialism and communism, because both systems suggest that people do not have a right to private property.
But this we are having this discussion in another thread.

[Grigoris]

Shhh .... don't tell the Dutch, or the Swedes or Luxembourgers or the Norwegians.

Constitutional Monarchy is the correct term for these systems. The etymology I outlined is not outdated. Just because most Americans are unaware of the etymology does not make it outdated.

[Grigoris]

Capitalism was a term coined by Marx. Prior to Marx, no one ever called themselves a "Capitalist".

A rose by any other name...

But it is not and never was a coherent political system.

No political-economic system ever is.

[Malcolm]

Again, I am talking about personal conduct, not political parties.

Dude, your opening question was:

What would a middle way politics look like, one informed by the Buddha's teachings rather than those of secular authors?

A meritocracy is not (necessarily) about political parties.

I never said that I was talking about a meritocracy either.

Here is what I am talking about:

You are a Buddhist: you have political choice a, b and c. What is your criteria for making a choice? How do your choices square with your practice as a Buddhist? How will your choices inform those around you? Etc.

There is no Buddhist "political theory". In absence of such a theory, how do we conduct ourselves in our political lives (we all have them, even the "apolitical") in accordance with Buddha's teachings?

[Grigoris]

Here is what I am talking about:

You are a Buddhist: you have political choice a, b and c. What is your criteria for making a choice? How do your choices square with your practice as a Buddhist? How will your choices inform those around you? Etc.

There is no Buddhist "political theory". In absence of such a theory, how do we conduct ourselves in our political lives (we all have them, even the "apolitical") in accordance with Buddha's teachings?

If we are limited in what political choice we can make then I guess the best we can do is choose the one we believe/feel will cause the least harm and the most benefit for the greatest number of sentient beings. I would say that anything that accords with the Noble Eightfold path would be the safest bet under most circumstances.

[Malcolm]

Here is what I am talking about:

You are a Buddhist: you have political choice a, b and c. What is your criteria for making a choice? How do your choices square with your practice as a Buddhist? How will your choices inform those around you? Etc.

There is no Buddhist "political theory". In absence of such a theory, how do we conduct ourselves in our political lives (we all have them, even the "apolitical") in accordance with Buddha's teachings?

If we are limited in what political choice we can make then I guess the best we can do is choose the one we believe/feel will cause the least harm and the most benefit for the greatest number of sentient beings. I would say that anything that accords with the Noble Eightfold path would be the safest bet under most circumstances.

We are always limited in what political choices we can make, to a certain extent.

Secondly, we all have various political convictions, how do these square with the Buddha's teachings. More importantly, is it important that they do?

[seeker242]

The key teaching of the Buddha is the Madhyama Pratipad, the middle way.

What would a middle way politics look like, one informed by the Buddha's teachings rather than those of secular authors?

The same as the politics of Thich Nhat Hanh! A perfect example there IMO.

[Grigoris]

We are always limited in what political choices we can make, to a certain extent.

I agree, but that may not stop us from being utopian in outlook.

Secondly, we all have various political convictions, how do these square with the Buddha's teachings. More importantly, is it important that they do?

If we wish to identify as Buddhists then it is probably (for the sake of consistency and to avoid being labelled hypocrites) important for our political beliefs to square with the Buddhas teachings. Now, the thing is, that in most circumstances, it seems that we square the Buddhas teachings with our political convictions instead of vice versa. We want to make the Buddha a capitalist, or a socialist, or an anarchist, or an authoritarian in order to justify our preferences.

Like I said in the (currently locked) "Was Nagarjuna a misogynist?" thread, it might well be that a truly Dharmic social/political reality may not satisfy liberal values at all. Who knows?

[Malcolm]

We want to make the Buddha a capitalist, or a socialist, or an anarchist, or an authoritarian in order to justify our preferences.

Yes, and this is a problem. Buddha could not have been a capitalist, but he clearly approved of markets and trade; he could not have been a socialist, but he clearly set up temporary propertyless communes that eventually became permanent. He was not by any means an anarchist, since hierarchy clearly established in his sangha with monks, novices and lay people. And he was not an authoritarian since he recommended humanitarian values to rulers.

Like I said in the (currently locked) "Was Nagarjuna a misogynist?" thread, it might well be that a truly Dharmic social/political reality may not satisfy liberal values at all. Who knows?[/quote]

We can only find out by trying to live with others according to our Buddhist values and see how they play out politically. These online forums are in fact an example of just that. And if history shows anything, it shows we still have some maturity to develop in our interactions with one another, myself included.

[Virgo]

I'd like to say more on these topics but past couple of days time has been limited.

Is there anything we can learn from the Tibetan government of the past perhaps?


Kevin

[Adamantine]

reboot: let's not go down that path again:

[kirtu]

There is no Buddhist "political theory". In absence of such a theory, how do we conduct ourselves in our political lives (we all have them, even the "apolitical") in accordance with Buddha's teachings?

We don't let people freeze to death, starve, die from lack of access to health care, become legally enslaved or marginalized or ostracized due to race, ethnicity, age or other factors. We share access to resources, etc. That's a start.

Kirt

[anjali]

We don't let people freeze to death, starve, die from lack of access to health care, become legally enslaved or marginalized or ostracized due to race, ethnicity, age or other factors. We share access to resources, etc. That's a start.

Kirt

The Buddha identified three areas within moral conduct that would be relevant to a Buddhist politics: right speech, right action and right livelihood. Unfortunately, there probably isn't enough specificity to practically apply those principles to governance.

I've often thought that, within the five precepts, not stealing is more radical that most people might think. Not taking what is not freely given, can be applied at all levels of society. This principle inherently acknowledges the notion of ownership. It becomes an interesting question of what a society decides can be owned, and, if something is stolen, how the crime should be dealt with (punishment, leniency, rehabilitation, etc). As far as I can tell, Buddhism doesn't address any of these kinds of day-to-day issues of a functioning society. Obviously the Buddha understood state-craft and what was required to run the government of his time.He interacted with the kings of his day and helped adjudicate various problems when requested. But as far as his teaching goes, he wasn't a social philosopher. The only social structure he built was the monastic sangha. Perhaps some analysis of his approach to developing the sangha would give some ideas of his general approach to governance?

[kirtu]

There is no Buddhist "political theory".

There is: Nagarjuna's Precious Garland.

Kirt