Buddhist Anarchism

Discuss the application of the Dharma to situations of social, political, environmental and economic suffering and injustice.
User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:10 am

Grigoris wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:If you know about that stuff, why on earth would you find it odd that they get mentioned in the same sentence? They are part of the same intellectual milieu, unless you start talking about right wing forms of anarchism.
It is quite common for Anarchists to identify as "neither left nor right" because classically left and right wingers were both statists. The thing that distinugished left wingers from right wingers is how they utilised the state and to what end. Anarchists, on the other hand, are anti-statist. So they are neither right-wing nor left-wing.

Anarchists are classically differentiated based on whether they are social/communal or individualist in their outlook.
If I had to pick an anarchist ideology I closely resemble it would be post left anarchism.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:18 am

Grigoris wrote:
Joka wrote:Nationalism can be reformed like anything else and doesn't have to be so discriminating. I believe all people have a right to autonomy and self determination.
Sorry dude, but you cannot be an Anarchist and a Nationalist at the same time. Nationalism stands firmly on centralised states and a militarised social/political system, these are the anathema of Anarchism.

cf the Spanish Revolution.

Anarchism is inherently anti-Fascist.

Trying to wed Nationalism and Anarchism does not make you an unorthodox Anarchist. It makes you deluded.
Like I said before, nationalism has many problems and isn't perfect. I wouldn't even describe myself as a staunch nationalist either. For me nationalism is the lesser evil in comparison to globalism or the emergence of global government which would end up being a superstate nightmare if ever implemented. Better to stick with the devil you know.

If anything I'm a localist in that I believe in local autonomy but that's never going to happen with existence of political government groups of all stripes existing.

I also believe human beings are inherently tribal and this tribalism as far as I know will not dissipate anytime soon. Will respond more in this thread later tonight when I get off work.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:36 am

Grigoris wrote:
Joka wrote:...and is divisive to its core instead of bringing people of all backgrounds together. It is the opposite of genuine authentic unmitigated multiculturalism or multiracialism.
Sounds like you are describing Nationalism here, and yet... strangely enough... it seems you are talking about Marxism...
For me a lot of Marxism is racially and culturally divisive concerning its analysis of both race or culture.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:39 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:If you know about that stuff, why on earth would you find it odd that they get mentioned in the same sentence? They are part of the same intellectual milieu, unless you start talking about right wing forms of anarchism.
It is quite common for Anarchists to identify as "neither left nor right" because classically left and right wingers were both statists. The thing that distinugished left wingers from right wingers is how they utilised the state and to what end. Anarchists, on the other hand, are anti-statist. So they are neither right-wing nor left-wing.
IDK about that, Bakunin is hard to describe as "neither left nor right", unless one is just wanting to do so as some kind of posturing. For that matter, technically most Communists (even the total kooks) are also "non statists", it's just that their predictions worked out so terribly wrong in that realm heh.
Anarchists are classically differentiated based on whether they are social/communal or individualist in their outlook.
Fair enough, but that is a bit of a slippery thing, many of the 'individualist' type anarchists ended up predictably going far right, and those that are collectivist ended up with something akin to socialism simply with a greater distrust of the state apparatus, and a grave doubt about the dictatorship of the proletariat. So really, one can reject the left/right paradigm as being inaccurate or limiting, but I have never accepted the Anarchist claim that they have somehow totally transcended it.
I believe in a balance between collectivism and individualism. Either taken to extreme causes many problems.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:45 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Joka wrote:...and is divisive to its core instead of bringing people of all backgrounds together. It is the opposite of genuine authentic unmitigated multiculturalism or multiracialism.
Sounds like you are describing Nationalism here, and yet... strangely enough... it seems you are talking about Marxism...

He's regurgitating a right-wing talking point that accuses a nefarious cabal of "cultural Marxists" of trying to destroy western civilization through identity movements, it was actually made up by some right wing thinkers and bears no relevance on an actual critique of Marxism.
No, that would imply that I am a political conservative. I don't know how many times I have to state that I have no conservative political affiliations in this thread before people start listening to me.

If anything Marxists and communists are useful tools of the global elite. That would include capitalists also in this dynamic. The people at the top of the pyramid of global power have no ideological loyalties and are not shy in utilizing ideologues against each other to fit their own needs. For them the world is a global chess board.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 7831
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:50 am

Joka wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Joka wrote:...and is divisive to its core instead of bringing people of all backgrounds together. It is the opposite of genuine authentic unmitigated multiculturalism or multiracialism.
Sounds like you are describing Nationalism here, and yet... strangely enough... it seems you are talking about Marxism...
For me a lot of Marxism is racially and culturally divisive concerning its analysis of both race or culture.

The ultimate analysis of Marxism based on class conflict, not race or culture.

Do you actually know anything about Marxism? Where do you get your ideas about Marxism from?
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 7831
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:55 am

Joka wrote:
No, that would imply that I am a political conservative. I don't know how many times I have to state that I have no conservative political affiliations in this thread before people start listening to me.
People are just responding to what you are writing, which so far is really vague... so repeated pronouncements about 'who you are' don't affect that much.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:56 am

This is an era of political extremism and the reality is that there is only two political contenders of the world right now that unfortunately overshadows all other viewpoints. One side of the spectrum you have extreme capitalism which taken to its logical conclusion ends up as a sort of corporatist fascist system and on the other you have extreme socialism of the Marxist communist variety which ends up as a totalitarian socialist state. Both employ tyranny and the threat of violence. It all benefits the financial oligarchical elite at the top who play ideologues of both sides of the spectrum against each other.

There really is no political groups in between in the world right now although there are many who will claim that they are. The only people who reject this two sided paradigm of course are anarchists which make up a very small minority of the world. This is the sad state of global affairs right now.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 7831
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:02 am

Joka wrote:This is an era of political extremism and the reality is that there is only two political contenders of the world right now that unfortunately overshadows all other viewpoints. One side of the spectrum you have extreme capitalism which taken to its logical conclusion ends up as a sort of corporatist fascist system and on the other you have extreme socialism of the Marxist communist variety which ends up as a totalitarian socialist state. Both employ tyranny and the threat of violence. It all benefits the financial oligarchical elite at the top who play ideologues of both sides of the spectrum against each other.
This is a vague, poorly laid out idea of history and of the current political prospects, with a terrible understanding of how political agency works.. and it's based on what.. just your opinion? So far you haven't been able to even correctly identify what Marxism is, why should someone take your word for it?
There really is no political groups in between in the world right now although there are many who will claim that they are. The only people who reject this two sided paradigm of course are anarchists which make up a very small minority of the world. This is the sad state of global affairs right now.
What a claim, and one which is disproved simply by observation of different political factions. Really this all reads like a John Birch pamphlet updated for the information age.. i'm finding it hard to take seriously.

So that said, I'm taking my leave..please try to actually respond to people's questions though, rather than just papering opinions over the conversation, I'm not going to let a thread go on endlessly that is mainly just you trying to tell people "how it is" without responding to their questions.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:13 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Joka wrote:This is an era of political extremism and the reality is that there is only two political contenders of the world right now that unfortunately overshadows all other viewpoints. One side of the spectrum you have extreme capitalism which taken to its logical conclusion ends up as a sort of corporatist fascist system and on the other you have extreme socialism of the Marxist communist variety which ends up as a totalitarian socialist state. Both employ tyranny and the threat of violence. It all benefits the financial oligarchical elite at the top who play ideologues of both sides of the spectrum against each other.
This is a vague, poorly laid out idea of history and of the current political prospects, and it's based on what.. just your opinion? So far you haven't been able to even correctly identify what Marxism is, why should someone take your word for it?
There really is no political groups in between in the world right now although there are many who will claim that they are. The only people who reject this two sided paradigm of course are anarchists which make up a very small minority of the world. This is the sad state of global affairs right now.
Kind of crazy claim, and one which is disproved simply by observation of different political factions. Really this all reads like a John Birch pamphlet updated for the information age..hard to take seriously.
What other different political factions are not connected to that two sided global paradigm I described? John Birch, really?! Yes, I know what that group is. Unlike a lot of people I actually read and study all viewpoints including my opposition to get a more grounded view of the world.

Yes, it's all based upon my opinion. Obviously what I am stating is not a dissertation. Obfuscation comes in many guises especially when one makes a person explain themselves with loaded questions on every stated issue that they know the other person doesn't have time to extrapolate on. I am very familiar with these sorts of games, ruses, and tactics. I'm not a simpleton.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:22 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Joka wrote:
Grigoris wrote:Sounds like you are describing Nationalism here, and yet... strangely enough... it seems you are talking about Marxism...
For me a lot of Marxism is racially and culturally divisive concerning its analysis of both race or culture.

The ultimate analysis of Marxism based on class conflict, not race or culture.

Do you actually know anything about Marxism? Where do you get your ideas about Marxism from?
I know from being an ex-communist myself. Yes, class conflict that here in the west placates itself on race and culture through political divisiveness.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:28 am

All conversations revolve around opinions. :)

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:48 am

tellyontellyon wrote:When the Dalai Lama was asked he put it like this:

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

HHDL: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Marxism and communism fails because of the inevitable corruption of the political vanguard and once the prevailing ruling class is destroyed this vanguard or organization of the proletariat becomes the new ruling class. Once more what is sad and a testament of the corruptible influences of human nature is that the proletarian vanguard once achieving power turns on all other non-inner party proletarians viciously.

K Tsomo
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:16 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by K Tsomo » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:55 am

What do all these posts have to do with a Mahayana or Vajrayana discussion?
Why do you put so much effort into turning everyone off?
Why are you here after all? You look like you put your horse before your wagon.

"Better to stick with the devil you know". What is this supposed to mean?

muni
Posts: 4434
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by muni » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:57 am

When one meditates, are they not connecting to nature its primordial connection to everything in totality?
Much of the problems human beings face are self-inflicted within the constrained realms of civilization because of turning our backs on nature.
Yes, turning our back to nature and we go to live in our story-minds, which produce for each and every one a different perceived world. And so there are different political groups.
And so interconnection or interdependence (finding back the primordial) without ideas of selves is hidden. The welfare for each of us living in our story-mind, is a bit different. In one thing we may mostly all agree somehow: our desires must be fulfilled.
And even this desire is not the same for all. No way to do good by "self with its desires, fears and hopes". An easy example: using racism, which seems to arise by fear for unknown, to protect "the self".

Finding back nature, which is not separating in movie-boxes with our desires, what politics can use to respond to or make promesses by.
It is possible some systems respond more with care for all the people.

And there are certainly everywhere those who are not so selfcentered, know the happiness coming from wishing others to be happy.
May all beings have happiness and the cause of happiness.
May they be free of suffering and the cause of suffering.
May they never be disassociated from the supreme happiness which is without suffering.
May they remain in the boundless equanimity, free from both attachment to close ones and rejection of others.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Vasana » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:24 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Vasana wrote:Nature is also spontaneously-ordered, self-organizing, self-mitigating, with self-emergent forms of order that arise from the very depths of and on the edge of chaos.
Thing is that the spontaneous order of nature is not necessarily non-hierarchical. ie Anarchist.

Or, to put it more correctly: it does not seem to us to be non-hierarchical, since we are habituated to seeing everything in terms of hierarchies.

Food chains, for example, will have the largest predator at the top. But the reality is that the largest predator will ultimately be eaten by the smallest microbe. So who is at the "top" of the food chain and who is at the "bottom" now?
Yep good point. Hierarchies can be horizontal as well as vertical. Decentralized as well as centralized.

Globally speaking, human hierarchies of capital and resource are obviously vertical, centralized and generally non-symbiotic due to the engineering of 'artificial scarcity'. Undecided if 'late-stage capitalism' falls into the Parasitic-symbiosis category. :thinking:

To me, the bottom line is this and i'd be interested to see if anyone disagrees:

Any social or economic theory or 'ism', no matter how highly esteemed, that fails to factor in the complexities of Earth-Systems is obsolete, just as any present day environmental model that doesn't factor in the complexities of human-systems is obsolete.
'A new scientific paper by a University of Maryland-led international team of distinguished scientists, including five members of the National Academies, argues that there are critical two-way feedbacks missing from current climate models that are used to inform environmental, climate, and economic policies. The most important inadequately-modeled variables are inequality, consumption, and population.

In this research, the authors present extensive evidence of the need for a new paradigm of modeling that incorporates the feedbacks that the Earth System has on humans, and propose a framework for future modeling that would serve as a more realistic guide for policymaking and sustainable development.

[...]
The study explains that the Earth System (e.g., atmosphere, ocean, land, and biosphere) provides the Human System (e.g., humans and their production, distribution, and consumption) not only the sources of its inputs (e.g., water, energy, biomass, and materials) but also the sinks (e.g., atmosphere, oceans, rivers, lakes, and lands) that absorb and process its outputs (e.g., emissions, pollution, and other wastes).

Titled "Modeling Sustainability: Population, Inequality, Consumption, and Bidirectional Coupling of the Earth and Human Systems", the paper describes how the rapid growth in resource use, land-use change, emissions, and pollution has made humanity the dominant driver of change in most of the Earth's natural systems, and how these changes, in turn, have critical feedback effects on humans with costly and serious consequences, including on human health and well-being, economic growth and development, and even human migration and societal conflict. However, the paper argues that these two-way interactions ("bidirectional coupling") are not included in the current models.


https://phys.org/news/2017-02-climate_1.html#jCp
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

pothigai
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:26 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by pothigai » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:10 pm

Joka wrote:
tellyontellyon wrote:When the Dalai Lama was asked he put it like this:

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

HHDL: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Marxism and communism fails because of the inevitable corruption of the political vanguard and once the prevailing ruling class is destroyed this vanguard or organization of the proletariat becomes the new ruling class. Once more what is sad and a testament of the corruptible influences of human nature is that the proletarian vanguard once achieving power turns on all other non-inner party proletarians viciously.
The theory of the necessity of an authoritarian vanguard party is not common to all strains of Marxist political thought, but is particularly associated with Marxism-Leninism. Many Marxists, on the contrary, seek to establish a social order in which the means of production, and all other institutions, are truly democratic.
ہستی اپنی حباب کی سی ہے
یہ نمائش سراب کی سی ہے

hasti apni habaab ki si hai
yeh numaaish saraab ki si hai

Like a bubble is your existence
This display is like an illusion

- Mir Taqi Mir (1725-1810)

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27369
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Malcolm » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:03 pm

Joka wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Joka wrote:
Your type of cultural or racial Marxism is nothing I'm not already acquainted with and is divisive to its core instead of bringing people of all backgrounds together.
Hmmm, let's see, you invoked globalists in combination with corporatism, praised nationalism, and now invoke cultural Marxism. So far this makes three alt-right themes you have repeated here. Just how are your views different than Steve Bannon's? Are you a regular reader of Brietbart? Do you haunt 4chan?
When you want world government over the entire globe I don't care who else uses that terminology that makes a person a globalist. I am not a political conservative and I am in no way affiliated with a conservative party or any political party for that matter.
You can count me as a globalist then, or at least, an internationalist. I suspect we will have a world wide gvt with the next two centuries. Let's hope it is a liberal democratic one, run out of the UN. None of us however, will live to see it. Until then, I hope we will continue to see broad cooperation between nations based on open borders and free trade. In fact, I would like to see Mexico, Canada and the US go one step further than NAFTA, and create something like the EU.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:48 pm

pothigai wrote:
Joka wrote:
tellyontellyon wrote:When the Dalai Lama was asked he put it like this:

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

HHDL: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Marxism and communism fails because of the inevitable corruption of the political vanguard and once the prevailing ruling class is destroyed this vanguard or organization of the proletariat becomes the new ruling class. Once more what is sad and a testament of the corruptible influences of human nature is that the proletarian vanguard once achieving power turns on all other non-inner party proletarians viciously.
The theory of the necessity of an authoritarian vanguard party is not common to all strains of Marxist political thought, but is particularly associated with Marxism-Leninism. Many Marxists, on the contrary, seek to establish a social order in which the means of production, and all other institutions, are truly democratic.
The only genuine democracy that exists is direct democracy. I view representative democracy as a sham or fraudulent version of itself. One only needs to look at the present United States as example for the corruptible nature of what all representative democracies turn into.

I've never seen any communist nation do anything truly democratic. Usually the communist revolution is led by a junta, inner circle vanguard, or a self centered intelligentisia.

User avatar
Joka
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:54 pm

Re: Buddhist Anarchism

Post by Joka » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:52 pm

muni wrote:
When one meditates, are they not connecting to nature its primordial connection to everything in totality?
Much of the problems human beings face are self-inflicted within the constrained realms of civilization because of turning our backs on nature.
Yes, turning our back to nature and we go to live in our story-minds, which produce for each and every one a different perceived world. And so there are different political groups.
And so interconnection or interdependence (finding back the primordial) without ideas of selves is hidden. The welfare for each of us living in our story-mind, is a bit different. In one thing we may mostly all agree somehow: our desires must be fulfilled.
And even this desire is not the same for all. No way to do good by "self with its desires, fears and hopes". An easy example: using racism, which seems to arise by fear for unknown, to protect "the self".

Finding back nature, which is not separating in movie-boxes with our desires, what politics can use to respond to or make promesses by.
It is possible some systems respond more with care for all the people.

And there are certainly everywhere those who are not so selfcentered, know the happiness coming from wishing others to be happy.
I like this example of story mind you're using. Can you articulate or elaborate more on that?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests