Buddhist economics
- This topic has 19 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I came to this article with a jaded eye. I have lived in a predominantly Buddhist country and see little influence it has on the economics that prevails.
I know of very wealthy Buddhist wats and abbots, endowed by the wealthy and the powerful, and i have lived alongside the poverty-stricken village wats. Inequality is endemic in the distribution of wealth in the Buddhist religion.
They are to me the reflection of medieval Christianity with the riches of cathedrals and bishops and the poverty of itinerant monk-preachers.
The "socialism" of the sangha is similar to the "communism" of the monastic Christian orders life.
We can forget about the flowery analysis of Buddhist theology and need only look at the actual manifestation of reality.
The final paragraph of the article is very pertinent, imho.
Quote:Economics as we have come to understand it assumes scarcity, which in turn presumes a certain behavior, a system of social activity, or maybe we should say, sociopathy. But let us assume abundance. Does economics still apply? Scarcity confines, abundance liberates. Religions thrive in scarcity. Abundance presumes another way of being, but what does this being consist of? Are these speculations absurd?"Forget the flowery analysis of theology and look at the actual manifestion of reality" – a very sensible, you might even say "Buddhist", way of looking at things Alan. No doubt "Buddhist economics" as it manifests in reality is a complete disaster. You might say the same for "socialist economics" – or socialist political practice even….
Or even the failure of capitalist economics to live up to its goals, Stuart, which would be another comparison. Or should that be the failure of Protestant work ethic, to maintain the religious angle. (Or before then, the sterile fruits of Early Church Communism?)like all religious ideas we can pix and mix whatever we wish from Buddhism but, as i say, witnessing the daily application of the Theravada school (and occasionally engaging is some of its rituals at family events), i'm not so easily swayed by those who claim adherence to its tenets from afar.If i was, then i think i would have to reconsider my response to all the other religions' ideals and not to their actual social practice. Sift the wheat from the chaff…and if i did that…who knows, i'd probably come up with my own unique and distinct religion bu maybe the Bahai faith beat me to that even. I'm not really sure that Buddhism ever tried to put into practice its "economic system" outside the sangha and the monasteries. I do recollect that some Christian communities in history endeavoured to do that (Peasants Revolts) and some still do, (the Amish?) . But in regards to Buddhist history, my ignorance is revealed.Perhaps you can offer some reading links to movements in the past that tried to change the economies of the regions that Buddhism prevailed. I can only recollect negative examples, such as Tibetan theological feudalistic hierarchy (or whatever manifestation occurred under Lamaist version of Buddhism.)
Isn't Bob Andrews a Budda or is it bugga?
My ignorance of Buddhist history is just as complete as yours Alan, so can't help you I'm afraid! My point was not to defend Buddhism or attack socialism, merely to point out an inconsistency in your thinking. If you judge Buddhist economics or Buddhist anything by what people or societies who call themselves Buddhist actually do, then that is fair enough, but it's not a standard you apply to your own ideas.
I certainly am a very inconsistent thinker, Stuart. Never had that academic training to be disciplined in my thought processes. I often recognise contradictions in what i write. I'm not sure though if the analogy is a correct one though.Part of my case is that those purporting to be socialists define it differently from myself. What they described as socialism and what they meant did in fact accord with the reality, more or less.However, when it comes to creating paradise on Earth, whether Moses, Messiah, Mohammed, or the Buddha, their followers all failed to translate religion into a just economic society.
As an aside, alan, I think that it's worth having a look at Buddhist-inspired physics, too.In my opinion, this view of 'reality' is far closer to Marx's ideas about our creative production of our 'nature', than is the Engels-inspired 'Materialism' of 19th century bourgeois physics, which pretends to 'Know Reality In Itself', to the omission of human conscious 'theory and practice', which is socio-historical, and changes, as does its social product 'nature-for-us'.
Buddhist-inspired physicsWho inspired who and how exactly. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_scienceI venture that most religions or at least many of their devotees would say their theology has contributed to scientific knowledge and can make big generalisations of influence. But i'm not the one you should be discussing this with. I'm a scientific numpty. I got lot with Shrodingers cat.LBird or Dave B would be more rewarding
I found this link useful in stimulating my thought about comparing and contrasting Marx's and Buddhist epistemological approaches, "An Analysis of Madhyamaka Particle Physics":http://www.tibet.org/dan/madhyamika/index.html#ch
Apologies. I thought message #7 was from Stuart.But as it was from you LBird, i was correct in message #8 that you would be better discussing the topic with Stuart
alanjjohnstone wrote:Apologies. I thought message #7 was from Stuart.But as it was from you LBird, i was correct in message #8 that you would be better discussing the topic with StuartMy posts were for any comrade who's interested in exploring the connections (and divergences) between Marx and Buddhism, whether economics or epistemology.As for stuartw2112, they share the same 'materialism' as the SPGB, so they won't be interested in any ideas that question that faith, just as you aren't, alan.It's ironic, as I've said before, that religious thinkers today are far ahead of the 19th century 'materialism' that the SPGB espouses, given the supposed dislike of religion by the SPGB.Anyway, if there's any taste for a discussion, we can start a new thread. I only mentioned it because of your exploration of Buddist economics, as there are wider links between Marx and Buddhism (as I've said, the latter is closer to the former than is 'Religious Materialism').
Hi again Alan,Your thinking doesn't strike me as any more inconsistent than my own or anyone else's! The force of the point I am making was first brought home to me in a debate between the SPGB and the Adam Smith Institute. For me, the ASI won that debate because neither the SPGB speaker, nor anyone in the audience, would deal with the ASI's forceful point, which was, basically, that you can't compare apples with oranges. EITHER you can compare socialism and capitalism as ideal philosophic constructs of what societies should be like OR you can compare actually existing or historical societies that call or think of themselves as socialist or capitalist. But you can't compare an ideal socialist system with an actually existing capitalist one. The former is bound to come out smelling of roses in comparison with the latter since the former can magic away the difficulties that are inevitable when abstract ideas face an infinitely complex reality.The SPGB missed a trick in that debate since Marx's great triumph in Capital was precisely to show that an ideal capitalism working perfectly would still give rise to the problems we see in reality. Marx might have been wrong about that, but that was the tack to take with the ASI.LBird: I probably broadly agree with you, at least on the limitations of "materialism" and on the similarites between Marxian/Hegelian thought and that that tends to get thought of as mystical, eg Buddhism.Cheers
stuartw2112 wrote:LBird: I probably broadly agree with you, at least on the limitations of "materialism" and on the similarites between Marxian/Hegelian thought and that that tends to get thought of as mystical, eg Buddhism.Bloody hell! Agreement all round, today!And the sun is shining.
I'm not being self-depreciating out of modesty, Stuart.As you point out in your example of the debate the SPGB missed an opportunity and that is my problem. Too often i miss the real argument because i'm not an original thinker…(as i keep saying, a proficient copy and paste artist )- and end up concentrating on a secondary, side-issue.But i'd like you take up LBirds invite and set up a new thread on Marxism and Buddhism, and i'm sure DaveB can bring in early Christianity.I tried that book link. LBird…lost.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'm not being self-depreciating out of modesty, Stuart.As you point out in your example of the debate the SPGB missed an opportunity and that is my problem. Too often i miss the real argument because i'm not an original thinker…(as i keep saying, a proficient copy and paste artist )- and end up concentrating on a secondary, side-issue.For Marx, alan, the main issue was 'social production' (ie., humanity and its own creativity and creation), not the 'side-issue' of 'matter'.My simple advice is to focus on 'the real argument', because it doesn't require 'original' thought on your part, just your willingness to balance the arguments that you're hearing, in relation to any socialism that you'd wish to be a part of.
ajj wrote:But i'd like you take up LBirds invite and set up a new thread on Marxism and Buddhism, and i'm sure DaveB can bring in early Christianity.I'm all for it, alan, but I think that we'd fall at the first hurdle – a definition of 'Marxism'.I define 'Marxism' as 'Idealism-Materialism' (or, 'theory and practice'; or, 'social productionism'), which is in line with Marx's usage, but not with Engels' confused writings.Once that is accepted, then we'd explore Marx's views about the ideology that taught him the value of 'the active side'. That is, the value of (some of) 'Idealism', and so potentially, some of Buddhism.
ajj wrote:I tried that book link. LBird…lost.Yeah, it was meant more for those who do claim to have some active curiosity about epistemology, alan – I know that you've admitted in the past that you're bewildered by these issues.But… not so bewildered that you take Engels' claims for 'Materialism' without too much criticism!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.