Buddhism and Capitalism.

[Zenny]

Personally speaking I find buddhism and in fact any true spirituality to be diametrically opposed to any sort of capitalism.
Capitalism extols consumption and the profit motive,AKA Greed.
Whilst buddhism rejects greed and Instead focuses on true happiness.
Why are many buddhists still in favour of capitalism? Is the ruling class ideology still obscuring their thinking process?

[JohnK]

Is the ruling class ideology still obscuring their thinking process?

Per Buddhism, greed is not limited to a ruling class.

[Zenny]

Is the ruling class ideology still obscuring their thinking process?

Per Buddhism, greed is not limited to a ruling class.

I do agree. The ruling class is not the only greedy class. All the classes aspire to greed,except the spiritually minded.
My point is the ideology of greed/capitalism is promoted most heavily by the ruling class.
And why do buddhists still condone this system?

[DNS]

There have been several previous topics on this, mostly in the News and Lounge sections, which we no longer have here.
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=31097

Here is a topic over at DWE:
https://www.dharmawheel.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=356

[Ceisiwr]

There is nothing wrong in starting a business to better yourself and your family, investing profits into that business and making it grow which in turn gives employment to people. Capitalism with some measure of regulation is the best thing for poor people. The opposite never ends very well. Far from it. The suttas give advice on how to have ethical capitalism. They never recommend abolishing trade for profit.

[SDC]

Personally speaking I find buddhism and in fact any true spirituality to be diametrically opposed to any sort of capitalism.
Capitalism extols consumption and the profit motive,AKA Greed.
Whilst buddhism rejects greed and Instead focuses on true happiness.
Why are many buddhists still in favour of capitalism? Is the ruling class ideology still obscuring their thinking process?

There are quite a few suttas where the Buddha encourages those who do pursue wealth to do it legitimately and to be generous, and he said those who do so are worthy of praise on certain grounds. It seems these descriptions do not limit the pursuit to any particular economic system. The Buddha says directly that it is possible to enjoy wealth without being infatuated by it.

IMO it is a question of simplicity. If a layperson wants a true simple life they should ordain or be frequently asking of themselves why they want simplicity but still want remain in the world. In the case of a successful worldly person who earned their wealth legitimately and who shares it and is not infatuated by it, they are more free than a layperson who is harbors aversion to the wealthy and is infatuated and passionate about their own resolve to live simple. Not that there aren’t treacherous wealthy people nor praiseworthy people of simple means, but my point is that economic status does not imply one’s level of development. A simple person who has raging aversion to wealth is the same as wealthy person who has raging aversion to poverty. Both are ordinary lay people, full of ill will and undeveloped in Dhamma.

Also would help to know your definition of true happiness, although I think I’ve gathered up quite a large spectrum.

EDIT - Did not see Johnk’s post until after

[Zenny]

There is nothing wrong in starting a business to better yourself and your family, investing profits into that business and making it grow which in turn gives employment to people. Capitalism with some measure of regulation is the best thing for poor people. The opposite never ends very well. Far from it. The sutta give advice on how to have ethical capitalism. They never recommend abolishing trade for profit.

Of course,small businesses can be great for independence and employment. But I'm talking about Capitalism. With monopolies,corporations,multi nationals,governments who are corrupt and tax
unnecessarily,bankers,the obscenely rich who own the majority of the resources,cartels,oligipolies etc,etc.
No way Buddha would condone those. And of course,I reject socialism as well,which is just disguised capitalism.
Small business is wholly different from capitalism as we see it.
So,what would Buddha say?

[Ceisiwr]

In five ways should workers and servants as the lower direction be respected by an employer: by allocating work according to aptitude, providing wages and food, looking after the sick, sharing special treats, and giving reasonable time off work.

“And, workers and servants so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: being willing to start early and finish late when necessary, taking only what is given, doing work well, and promoting a good reputation.

https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/kelly-sawyer-yareham

[Ceisiwr]

There is nothing wrong in starting a business to better yourself and your family, investing profits into that business and making it grow which in turn gives employment to people. Capitalism with some measure of regulation is the best thing for poor people. The opposite never ends very well. Far from it. The sutta give advice on how to have ethical capitalism. They never recommend abolishing trade for profit.

Of course,small businesses can be great for independence and employment. But I'm talking about Capitalism. With monopolies,corporations,multi nationals,governments who are corrupt and tax
unnecessarily,bankers,the obscenely rich who own the majority of the resources,cartels,oligipolies etc,etc.
No way Buddha would condone those. And of course,I reject socialism as well,which is just disguised capitalism.
Small business is wholly different from capitalism as we see it.
So,what would Buddha say?

I’m a Tory. I’m a paid up member of the Conservative Party. I like some measure of welfare, charity and free markets, or as free as possible (also monarchy, but that’s a different topic). I don’t like monopolies, corruption or not paying taxes. No decent Tory does either. Multinationals are fine if they behave ethically. This is possible on their own, but mostly it will require some government regulation. The G8 have just signed an historic deal to make sure transnational corporations pay tax where they should. This is good IMO. I’m glad you haven’t fallen for socialism. This too is good.

[Zenny]

Personally speaking I find buddhism and in fact any true spirituality to be diametrically opposed to any sort of capitalism.
Capitalism extols consumption and the profit motive,AKA Greed.
Whilst buddhism rejects greed and Instead focuses on true happiness.
Why are many buddhists still in favour of capitalism? Is the ruling class ideology still obscuring their thinking process?

There are quite a few suttas where the Buddha encourages those who do pursue wealth to do it legitimately and to be generous, and he said those who do so are worthy of praise on certain grounds. It seems these descriptions do not limit the pursuit to any particular economic system. The Buddha says directly that it is possible to enjoy wealth without being infatuated by it.

IMO it is a question of simplicity. If a layperson wants a true simple life they should ordain or be frequently asking of themselves why they want simplicity but still want remain in the world. In the case of a successful worldly person who earned their wealth legitimately and who shares it and is not infatuated by it, they are more free than a layperson who is harbors aversion to the wealthy and is infatuated and passionate about their own resolve to live simple. Not that there aren’t treacherous wealthy people nor praiseworthy people of simple means, but my point is that economic status does not imply one’s level of development. A simple person who has raging aversion to wealth is the same as wealthy person who has raging aversion to poverty. Both are ordinary lay people, full of ill will and undeveloped in Dhamma.

Also would help to know your definition of true happiness, although I think I’ve gathered up quite a large spectrum.

EDIT - Did not see Johnk’s post until after

I agree that wealth is not bad per se. And obsession with avoiding wealth may not be healthy long term.
But my point is capitalism is run by the obscenely wealthy. This social elite social class is blameworthy. And I'm sure Buddha would wholly condemn their wealth and the manner of its accrual.
Right livelihood and right honesty is a not a characteristic of this group. To say nothing of military wars for business resources.

[Dweller]

Capitalism plus "giving money to penniless" could be in line with suttas.

If I'm not mistaken, there were a lot of bankers, friends of Anathapindika, at the inauguration of Jetavana, where Buddha gave large part of his discourses.

[Zenny]

There is nothing wrong in starting a business to better yourself and your family, investing profits into that business and making it grow which in turn gives employment to people. Capitalism with some measure of regulation is the best thing for poor people. The opposite never ends very well. Far from it. The sutta give advice on how to have ethical capitalism. They never recommend abolishing trade for profit.

Of course,small businesses can be great for independence and employment. But I'm talking about Capitalism. With monopolies,corporations,multi nationals,governments who are corrupt and tax
unnecessarily,bankers,the obscenely rich who own the majority of the resources,cartels,oligipolies etc,etc.
No way Buddha would condone those. And of course,I reject socialism as well,which is just disguised capitalism.
Small business is wholly different from capitalism as we see it.
So,what would Buddha say?

I’m a Tory. I’m a paid up member of the Conservative Party. I like some measure of welfare, charity and free markets, or as free as possible (also monarchy, but that’s a different topic). I don’t like monopolies, corruption or not paying taxes. No decent Tory does either. Multinationals are fine if they behave ethically. This is possible on their own, but mostly it will require some government regulation. The G8 have just signed an historic deal to make sure transnational corporations pay tax where they should. This is good IMO. I’m glad you haven’t fallen for socialism. This too is good.

My commiserations on Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummins!!!
The Conservative and Labour Party are both hopelessly corrupt.
Just look at the current fiasco. Look how many times boris has been caught lying,even before being PM.
What is your opinion on the wealth of the Queen and the elite of the world,whilst others have not even a paid for house?
I'm sure Buddha would never be a tory fan,nor a fan of any crony capitalist.
Yours is exactly the buddhism I'm talking about in my OP.
A spirituality that condones obscene wealth inequality and dishonest business practices. What gives?

[Zenny]

Capitalism plus "giving money to penniless" could be in line with suttas.

If I'm not mistaken, there were a lot of bankers, friends of Anathapindika, at the inauguration of Jetavana, where Buddha gave large part of his discourses.

Could be???
Ask yourself,why are people penniless in a world of mega rich oligarchs?

[Zenny]

In five ways should workers and servants as the lower direction be respected by an employer: by allocating work according to aptitude, providing wages and food, looking after the sick, sharing special treats, and giving reasonable time off work.

“And, workers and servants so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: being willing to start early and finish late when necessary, taking only what is given, doing work well, and promoting a good reputation.

https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/kelly-sawyer-yareham

Was the Buddha talking about modern big business practices here? Or are all the big businesses ethical in their practices? Because I don't recognise employers treating factory workers as this sutta suggests!

[SDC]

I agree that wealth is not bad per se. And obsession with avoiding wealth may not be healthy long term.
But my point is capitalism is run by the obscenely wealthy. This social elite social class is blameworthy. And I'm sure Buddha would wholly condemn their wealth and the manner of its accrual.
Right livelihood and right honesty is a not a characteristic of this group. To say nothing of military wars for business resources.

Take the tenth type of “pleasure seeker” as an example:

…Now, consider the pleasure seeker who seeks wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means, and who makes themselves happy and pleased, and shares it and makes merit. And they enjoy that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape. They may be praised on four grounds. They seek for wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means. This is the first ground for praise. They make themselves happy and pleased. This is the second ground for praise. They share it and make merit. This is the third ground for praise. They enjoy that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape. This is the fourth ground for praise. This pleasure seeker may be praised on these four grounds.

These are the ten pleasure seekers found in the world. The pleasure seeker who seeks wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means, who makes themselves happy and pleased, and shares it and makes merit, and who uses that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the ten. From a cow comes milk, from milk comes curds, from curds come butter, from butter comes ghee, and from ghee comes cream of ghee. And the cream of ghee is said to be the best of these.

In the same way, the pleasure seeker who seeks wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means, who makes themselves happy and pleased, and shares it and makes merit, and who uses that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the ten.”

If the elite class in a capitalist society were this type, they would be worthy of praise on those grounds. Now this certainly wouldn’t buy them right view, but it would not be blameworthy in and of itself. But those with wealth do not always meet this criteria and are indeed blameworthy. Though the blame it seems sits with the individual, not through the secondary perspective focused on the system they have failed to maintain basic virtue through engaging with. The failure of the individual to be decent would plague the lay world of simplicity in the same manner. Every class is susceptible to their biggest fish becoming dangerous in their lust for power and control.