[LICraig]

"from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

In my view, this concept has no chance of ever being successfully implemented in any culture that values material goods. I believe that if you prevent a man from working to his own benefit - as opposed to the benefit of "the community" - his motivation to better himself and his environment will be significantly muted. Some of the concepts of Marxism sound good and plausible but stealing from the rich and giving the stolen goods to the poor is still, in my view, stealing.

On the whole, I believe we humans are compassionate enough to help our fellows in need if we are able, without a third party in between to take from one and decide who to give it to - and those in a position to decide who gets it have at least as many foibles as the rest of us and may well not be fair about their choices.

[rhybrisee]

Buddhism certainly does not need slogans.

neither philosophycal entanglements; neither fear and/or believing in supranatural powerfull entities, nor beautiful idealisms about humankind that set us far from the understanding of reality and daily life facts... it is just needed the deep understanding of the nature of dukkha.

I can't see any kind of similarity between the oeuvre of Mark and Engels and the teachings of the historical Buddha exposed in the Pali Canon. The former talks about a tiny piece of an economic reality and the old debate about economy in accordance to humankind v.s. humankind in accordance to economy, until the later is about mind and the way it leads us to suffering. The deep understanding and realization of the Four Noble Truths are not in dependence of an economical model.

I don't know if Buddha taught: "Monks, to be contemplatives is in dependence of a Socialist system..."

[ddwayspd]

Until everybody agrees no decision can be taken. But this results are just observed at a village scale and with that level of participation. An assembly can take several weeks of discussions until the total agreement is reached. There seems to be that behind this successfull examples there's an ancient culture of participation.

I don't get what you say. First you said all economic systems are bound to fail because they are "imposed". So if there are 100 people and 99 agree on something while 1 disagrees according to you the idea fails no matter how bright it is? Capitalism is "imposed", socialism is "imposed" even democracy is "imposed" for some people because there is a minority who doesn't agree. So all these systems are bound to fail... It sounds like aggressive pessimism

[Lgcjqxlw]

In my view, this concept has no chance of ever being successfully implemented in any culture that values material goods. I believe that if you prevent a man from working to his own benefit - as opposed to the benefit of "the community" - his motivation to better himself and his environment will be significantly muted.

I have never seen anywhere a Marxist text or book saying that a man should not work towards his benefit. Marxism is not about "mutual sacrifice of each others wealth". It is about an economic theory which promote the well being of the masses.

Capitalism promotes private ownership of the means of production. As a result, the people who own the goods, equipment, venture capital etc establish their own businesses where the majority of the population become their waged employees. Although capitalist systems impose necessary rules and regulations, it is not a secret that in most parts of the world these waged employees are highly exploited. Specifically in third world countries. 90% of the world's resources get into the hands of a privileged minority. Sooner or later, they eventually control the government, the quality of the products etc. Economically strong countries control the economically weak countries. If you have been awake about the political situation in the world today you will see that it is not that hard for a strong country to invade an economically weak country for economic benefits such as oil. There are vivid examples everywhere. IMO capitalism has become a total failure in your own terms "in a culture that values material goods".

Some of the concepts of Marxism sound good and plausible but stealing from the rich and giving the stolen goods to the poor is still, in my view, stealing.

That's the theory of Robin Hood

On the whole, I believe we humans are compassionate enough to help our fellows in need if we are able, without a third party in between to take from one and decide who to give it to .....

As a whole your post displays a total lack of understanding of what Marxism is. You seem to think that Marxism is about taking from the rich and giving it to the poor just like Robin Hood did. In simple terms a communist society is not something people established. Communism is a system that naturally evolves in a socialist economic system. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" is not some kind of a "slogan" or a useless catchy line. It is a natural state that a socialist society converts to at its maturity. I suggest you read a bit more although I am not sure if all the books out will give you an accurate picture.

[brulpcoersero]

So if there are 100 people and 99 agree on something while 1 disagrees according to you the idea fails no matter how bright it is?

Yes. this is the way an assembly works in Mayan culture. Until there is one who do not agree the project is not taken. That is why I wrote:

An assembly can take several weeks of discussions until the total agreement is reached.

This is the custom of that kind of ancient cultures.

Capitalism is "imposed", socialism is "imposed" even democracy is "imposed" for some people because there is a minority who doesn't agree.

Yes. It is imposed to a minority but there is more about this. Imposition is not just when a minority does not agree. When we talk about imposition, at least in cultural anthropology, we are talking about a lack of participation in the design of an economic or any kind of development project. In the case I was commenting with you, participation is very intense, debate is very intense. There is an assembly of the elders, and an assembly of women an men. Both take part in the debates. No body even gets angry but at least everybody has to reach a total agreement. This has been a great experience. I really don't know if this is democracy. Is the way Mayan villagers take care of the decisions about their own developments.

So all these systems are bound to fail...

At some degree, yes; while democracy is limited to only vote in electoral events.

It sounds like aggressive pessimism

I don't know why you have found this like that?

[ssiikmuz]

neither philosophycal entanglements; neither fear and/or believing in supranatural powerfull entities, nor beautiful idealisms about humankind that set us far from the understanding of reality and daily life facts... it is just needed the deep understanding of the nature of dukkha.

For personal liberation, yes. But the Buddha himself has in numerous occasions talked to his disciples about "how to be a good wife to the husband", "how to rule the country fairly" etc. He did not ask them to contemplate on the nature of dukkha. He taught them according to the mundane (worldly) dhamma.

[zawhmqswly]

I don't know why you have found this like that?

errr, because you say all systems are bound to fail and seem to fancy a system where "a decision cannot be implemented even if 1 person disagrees." It maybe practical in a small village but imagine a country with millions of people. So basically in such a situation, everything is bound to fail

[VYholden]

It maybe practical in a small village but imagine a country with millions of people. So basically in such a situation, everything is bound to fail

Yes, I commented about that here:

But this results are just observed at a village scale and with that level of participation.

But also this works well in countries of millions of people when this systems are taken at regional level. At the south eastern part of Mexico many municipalities and towns are working in this way and results are just great. In such places they do not worry about communism, socialism or capitalism but about whole participation in the development proyects for education, agriculture, minery, forestry, ect... We have called this Regional Development Systems and as in the case of the Mayan assambly, they are giving very good results in terms of performance. Also some of this ideas were shared with the Indian country who has had great experiences with Regional Development Systems.

[wJswn5l3]

seem to fancy a system where "a decision cannot be implemented even if 1 person disagrees."

No it is not fancy. It is the way development has been taken at least in many regions of Mexico. And is working well. Everybody in a town, in a municpality, has to agree. Yes... it takes a huge amout of time but people is very enthusiastic about their own developments. Millons of people are reached region by region, town by town, municipality by municipality.

[drlifeech]

But the Buddha himself has in numerous occasions talked to his disciples about "how to be a good wife to the husband", "how to rule the country fairly" etc.

If you know a sutta where this is entangled with any sort of "ism", please quote it Deshy. As far as I know he has taught just concrete guidelines not economical ideals and "isms".

[UpperMan]

Just because a country failed to instill some economic theory right does not mean it is useless.

IMO capitalism has become a total failure

Can this be the case of a failure because it fail in how it was set to practice?

[paralelogram]

If you know a sutta where this is entangled with any sort of "ism", please quote it Deshy. As far as I know he has taught just concrete guidelines not economical ideals and "isms".

A set of concrete guidelines cannot be called an "ism"?
The four noble truths outline Buddhism.

I answered according to your comment. My point is, discussions about economic theories do not necessarily have to refer to "qualities of dukkha". The Buddha did not talk about the four noble truths when he had to advise a king on how to rule

[ZanazaKar]

Can this be the case of a failure because it fail in how it was set to practice?

Yes. Capitalism could work well if the people handling the means of production are generous, compassionate, follow the rules, do not misuse power, are not driven merely by profit optimization etc.

[Jeffery]

A set of concrete guidelines cannot be called an "ism"?

Well right. The suffix "ism" is usually used to denote an ideology or doctrine. If the teachings of the historical Buddha are understood as an ideology or doctrine, yes. But I don't think the intention of the Buddha was to develop an ideology. This can be a good topic to analyze, don't you think?

[horaAppagob]

Yes. Capitalism could work well if the people handling the means of production are generous, compassionate, follow the rules, do not misuse power, are not driven merely by profit optimization etc.

Yes, true Deshy.

[Nikkkola]

Well right. The suffix "ism" is usually used to denote an ideology or doctrine.

Ok... if you say so

If the teachings of the historical Buddha are understood as an ideology or doctrine, yes.

Noone said so. You are the one implying so by saying the suffix denotes an ideology.

Good luck with your analysis.

[DoterrFor]

A set of concrete guidelines cannot be called an "ism"?

I think not necesarly. Sometimes "ism" denotes an ideology or a doctrine that is beyond the scope of an instruction or a guideline. To follow a guideline do not necesarly means to hold an ideal or an "-ism".

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:

-ism

▶suffix
forming nouns.
1 denoting an action or its result: baptism.
■ denoting a state or quality: barbarism.

2 denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement: Anglicanism.
■ denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination: racism.

3 denoting a peculiarity in language: colloquialism.
4 denoting a pathological condition: alcoholism.
– origin from Fr. -isme, via L. from Gk -ismos, -isma. Just as an example:

"Housefather, there are these four kinds of bliss to be won by the householder: ...the bliss of ownership, the bliss of wealth, the bliss of debtlessness, the bliss of blamelessness.

"... A man has wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by strength of arm, won by sweat, lawful and lawfully gotten. At the thought: 'Wealth is mine acquired by energetic striving...,' bliss comes to him, satisfaction comes to him. This, housefather, is called, 'the bliss of ownership.'

"... A man by means of wealth acquired by energetic striving... both enjoys his wealth and does meritorious deeds therewith. At the thought: 'By means of wealth acquired... I both enjoy my wealth and do meritorious deeds,' bliss comes to him, satisfaction comes to him. This, housefather, is called 'the bliss of wealth.'

"... A man owes no debt great or small to anyone. At the thought: 'I owe no debt, great or small, to anyone,' bliss comes to him, satisfaction comes to him. This, householder, is called 'the bliss of debtlessness.'

"... The noble disciple is blessed with blameless action of body, blameless action of speech, blameless action of mind. At the thought: 'I am blessed with blameless action of body, speech, and mind,' bliss comes to him, satisfaction comes to him. This is called 'the bliss of blamelessness.'

"Such, housefather, are the four kinds of bliss to be won by the householder..."

— AN 4.62 Now, returning to the original discussion: to say that Buddhism is about, near or similar to Communism we have to find in the teachings of the historical Buddha, and not in the different Buddh-isms, a consistent theoretical framework for an economical ideology and I think that the teachings of the historical Buddha do not have that purpose.

In the example of AN 4.62: Is there a kind of economical doctrine, a political ideology or a philosophical system? If this teaching is, it could be great to expose the reasons behind this idea, so to see in them an "ism" in the sense of an economic ideal-ism or doctrine. Also, it can happen that the teachings of the historical buddha are by themselves a economical doctrine and nothing to do with Socialisms, communisms and capitalisms.

I think that the case of AN 4.62 (and maybe in other similar teachings) has more to do with the conditions for a Right Livelihood in accordance to the Fourth Noble Truth than a political/economical ideal-ism. For a Right Livelihood there is no need to practice any sort of economical doctrine. Just to follow the teaching, clearly exposed by the historical Buddha; the handy and practical man of bone and flesh.

[megasprut]

Yes. Communism could work well if the people handling the means of production are generous, compassionate, follow the rules, do not misuse power, are not driven merely by profit optimization etc.

I wouldn't disagree with this but where are you going to find such a group of people?

[TpDoctorOneTp]

but where are you going to find such a group of people?

This is the problem with ideal-isms. Idealisms are ideas rooted in ideas far away from the deep understanding of human condition. When work is done with the development process by itself, away from any sort of "ism", results are better than working with the "change the world..." perspective.
When people participate and is empowered within their own concept of development, grounded in tangible aspects, it does not matter if there is a capital-ist or a social-ist approach. They are all involved in the design and it can be held by a private or single owner or held by the community. Both will be successful and this approach is beyond the old debate of economical ideal-isms.