Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Peace, Land, Bread!"
ajani_mgo
Veteran
What does Buddhism say about Communism, about the equal sharing of wealth? Or does it adopt a neutral stance?
0
Comments
I think that "Buddhism" has nothing to say about Communism or Capitalism. Although many of us consider that "Market Capitalism" is uncompassionate, this is a personal view.
Indeed, I am not sure that we can say that "Buddhism" has anything to say about any particular politico-economic system, as there is no single central "Vatican" from which such a comment could come.
It clearly states that Communism is a very commonly miss-spelled word, that equal sharing of wealth is nice if you can do it, and Buddhism is always neutral, except when it's not.
I know this to be true, because I just made it up.
Today is Federica's weirdo-day. You have been warned. :crazy:
This site talks about the so-called perfect Buddhist economic system model:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/pryor.htm
I kinda disagree with the impractical way of wealth distribution to improve spiritual needs... A little old thinking out here...
It is not Communism that has occupied Tibet, it is the Chinese Government through its army.
It was like, he as the ruler, wanted no violence at all, yet his people set up guerillas to fight the Chinese, and he was like, dammit, I want no violence.
I don't think the Chinese will ever want to give up Tibet. Not because they don't want to, they can't. Tibet was virtually untouched and unheard by the rest of the world before the Chinese occupation. The Dalai Lama said that they lost the only chance to save Tibet when it did not apply to join the League of Nations, or the UN. Even if the Tibetans claim to, Tibet actually cannot be considered an independent state, even if you ignore the Chinese invasion. If Tibet was to be independent now, I think anarchy would sure occur, and how the Tibetans would react I don't know... Yet I don't know if I interpreted the text correctly, so forgive me if I'm wrong, my friends. Tibet was more of a seperatist state than a real independent state. The Dalai Lama's own site makes Tibet's independence sound impossible, only if the Chinese offer restoration of HHDL's powers FIRST before independence, which well, the Chinese surely will not want to risk such a situation.
Anyway nowadays I believe with the opening up of China and the fall of the Big Four( or something like that,I haven't covered this chapter in my history syllabus, next year perhaps) I hope one day some one will bring up the issue of Tibet again and the Chinese'd compromise.
could you please explain that, are you saying youre a comrade?
Welcome, commu-buddhist. I'm sure that such a blunt statement will provoke quite some response!
In fact, of course, 'spiritual enlightenment' (whatever you or I may mean by that) is, we are told, a possibility in any situation. But I do believe that the awakened person is more likely than not to believe in and strive for social justice and equality. A sense of responsibility arises when we are fully seized of an understanding of inter-being, interdependency.
As to whether any particular politico-economic system will bring this about is quite another matter.
I dont mean any insult to the members of this site.
I would have to say that, in principle, I "could" agree with your statement. Communism does seem to be a good "state" in which to live.
Unfortunately, it is my opinion that Communism will never work while one of the main ingredients in the mixture are humans.
I think the inequality and ability for tyrant governments under the guise of Communism has already shown itself.
George Orwell made a great point about Communism - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
I believe Communism will never work while there is greed, jealousy, lack of restraint, the ugliness of "power", etc. that is so typical of the human condition.
But, it is an interesting thought!
-bf
I took no offence. My statement was simply an observation. In fact, I think we are probably very close in ideal, you and I.
BF,
What you say about Communism is just as true of Capitalism or Theocracy: each system will tend towards the imperial model which does appear to be the 'default' regime of choice in phallocratic societies.
True.
But look at the 20th century's bastion of Communism and the same for Capitalism...
Where would you have rather lived between the two choices?
-bf
P.S. What's up with all the weiner references? We do have smaller societies in the US (governers and such) and we don't look at states as either being phallocratic or vagomatic...
Sometimes, my friend, a hot dog is just a hot dog...
I did like the term Vagomatic though.
I've heard of some women's organizations that are sick and tired of things like "seminars" - too male. Too demeaning to women. So, they've started to hold "ovularies" instead.
Sheesh!
-bf