Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, but we're talking about Supply Side Buddha here.

The Asian equivalent of "Supply Side Jesus"?

 

[apogee]

Well, duh. Of course it's nothing special for some people; but it's just as clear that those others who are only 'scraping by' feel differently about it.

We’ll make a socialist of you yet..

 

[Vanellus]

Been busy for a while and I see this thread has moved on - now I know how Mary Shelley's eponymous hero felt.

On Adam Smith - well I know he also wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments as well as The Wealth of Nations Taken together you get a philosophy quite different from Milton Friedman

It's reasonable to say Keynes and Marx are also major figures in economic theory - and that connecting Marx's ideology with Stalin's death lists is spurious, For many Russians (even now) Communism was a progressive change from Czarism. Under the Czars Russia suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. Under Communism Russia (as the USSR) won.

 

[gaara4158]

And of course they can less afford to pay those lower taxes than the wealthier among us can afford to pay higher ones.

Ah, so you do agree that some people can afford to pay taxes and others not so much. What then is your objection to structuring tax brackets progressively?
Further, you seem to be aware of some injustice incumbent in the practice of extracting some of the excess value of a worker’s labor away from his wages and toward some other purpose. You may be surprised to learn that this is how corporations turn a profit. If you think this is unfair, you’re already a socialist.

Is this all theoretical to you? People who are barely scraping by are barely scraping by! By definition, they do not have excess funds to waste.

Hear, hear! If taxation is theft then so is profit.

 

[FireDragon76]

Been busy for a while and I see this thread has moved on - now I know how Mary Shelley's eponymous hero felt.

On Adam Smith - well I know he also wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments as well as The Wealth of Nations Taken together you get a philosophy quite different from Milton Friedman

It's reasonable to say Keynes and Marx are also major figures in economic theory - and that connecting Marx's ideology with Stalin's death lists is spurious, For many Russians (even now) Communism was a progressive change from Czarism. Under the Czars Russia suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Germany. Under Communism Russia (as the USSR) won.

Marx was actually working from classical economics going back to Adam Smith. After Marx's death, Anglo-American economists "discovered" the subjective theory of value, lest they be "tainted" by his theories.

 

[ananda]

Buddhist ethics are not based on karma. They are based on reciprocity and manifesting virtues such as compassion and kindness. The kind of view of karma you are presenting is more like Hindu superstition.

In the Kucchivikara-vatthu the Buddha did not stop to ask if the monk who was sick wouldn't benefit from awakening to the karmic roots of his dysentery, he simply acted out of compassion. The other monks would not help the monk because they didn't see how the sick monk benefited them, but the Buddha rebuked them:

Strawman.

Of course we should practice compassion, and I agree that is wholly encouraged in Buddhism - in the personal sphere.

But, you were talking about the political sphere; that was what I was addressing:

You won't find any support for political libertarianism in the Buddhadharma. It rests on a wrong view of the self, as I pointed out earlier.

 

[FireDragon76]

Strawman.

Of course we should practice compassion, and I agree that is wholly encouraged in Buddhism - in the personal sphere.

But, you were talking about the political sphere; that was what I was addressing:

That's dualistic. The personal is political. Morality should be as relevant in the political sphere as the personal sphere.

 

[ananda]

That's dualistic. The personal is political. Morality should be as relevant in the political sphere as the personal sphere.

Dualism is fully recognized in the kind of Buddhism that I follow. The personal is not the same as the political.

 

[Albion]

Ah, so you do agree that some people can afford to pay taxes and others not so much. What then is your objection to structuring tax brackets progressively?

I didn't direct my comments at "progressive" taxation.

What I said is that it's a mistake when anyone says that taxes are no big deal for anyone, and especially not in the case of the poor.

For one thing, you are talking only about federal income taxes, while forgetting about state income taxes, state excise taxes, city taxes, gasoline taxes, utility taxes, sales taxes and on and on, most of which the poor pay at basically the same rate as the wealthy.

And for another, it's only the wealthy who can be in the highest tax bracket BUT YET avoid it with numerous tax shelters, write-offs, and so on that are available only to them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dualism is fully recognized in the kind of Buddhism that I follow. The personal is not the same as the political.

Bhikku Bodhi's scholasticism represents some of the worst impulses in religion, to spend more time expounding the ideas of others rather than exploring for oneself.

The personal and the political are both spheres of human activity and both need to embrace the same moral principles. Egocentrism in one sphere doesn't suddenly become moral just because it is a separate sphere.

 

[ananda]

Bhikku Bodhi's scholasticism represents some of the worst impulses in religion,

IMO monks who focus on Dhamma-study should not be disparaged (Cunda Sutta) ...

to spend more time expounding the ideas of others rather than exploring for oneself.

How do you know he doesn't explore for himself?

The personal and the political are both spheres of human activity and both need to embrace the same moral principles. Egocentrism in one sphere doesn't suddenly become moral just because it is a separate sphere.

What comes freely from the personal are acts that come from voluntary willingness freely given and freely accepted (or rejected).

That cannot always be said of the political sphere, which is based on force towards individuals imposed by the will of other individuals. Thus, different principles apply.

 

[FireDragon76]

IMO monks who focus on Dhamma-study should not be disparaged (Cunda Sutta) ...

The way you are describing using Buddhism is misguided, not that different from the way any other religious ideologue uses religion. It is a way to avoid honest engagement with the world.

"Supply Side Buddha" is an apt analogy.

What comes freely from the personal are acts that come from voluntary willingness freely given and freely accepted (or rejected).

That sounds more like Milton Friedman than Ashoka.

 

[ananda]

The way you are describing using Buddhism is misguided, not that different from the way any other religious ideologue uses religion. It is a way to avoid honest engagement with the world.

"Supply Side Buddha" is an apt analogy.

That sounds more like Milton Friedman than Ashoka.

Ashoka <> Buddha.

 

[gaara4158]

What I said is that it's a mistake when anyone says that taxes are no big deal for anyone, and especially not in the case of the poor.

No one ever says that, so you can rest easy.

For one thing, you are talking only about federal income taxes, while forgetting about state income taxes, state excise taxes, city taxes, gasoline taxes, utility taxes, sales taxes and on and on, most of which the poor pay at basically the same rate as the wealthy.

And for another, it's only the wealthy who can be in the highest tax bracket BUT YET avoid it with numerous tax shelters, write-offs, and so on that are available only to them.

Beautifully said. I assume you recognize this is unjust. Poor paying taxes, rich evading them, that’s wrong. Now, let’s see if you can agree to the final step: the poor are the ones creating value for the rich, who control the flow of capital and therefore give them the least amount they can get away with and enrich themselves with the rest. That’s wrong too, right?

 

[MIDutch]

That's dualistic. The personal is political. Morality should be as relevant in the political sphere as the personal sphere.

One would hope, as a citizen of any country on this planet Earth, that morality would be an overriding guiding principle of political governance.

Otherwise, no matter how much good karma the citizens accrue, you could still end up with Hitler's Germany late 1930s.

Of course, to some people, that may not be relevant, since compassion, in their opinion, should be anathema to government.

 

[Albion]

Beautifully said.

Thank you.

 

[gaara4158]

Thank you.

Where we agree, we agree. You’re clearly very class-conscious. I have to wonder why, then, you won’t address the rest of my response to you.

 

[pitabread]

And for another, it's only the wealthy who can be in the highest tax bracket BUT YET avoid it with numerous tax shelters, write-offs, and so on that are available only to them.

Indeed. So what should be done about that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Socialism (by it's true definition), should be a "scare word".

If the question is whether or not both sides have "redefined" the term for political purposes, then I'd say yes.

Many on the left have redefined it to mean "What Denmark has"
Many on the right have used the term to describe anything that involves any form of social safety net.

Socialist states have led to some very poor outcomes, and is ultimately, a garbage ideology.

The problem is that in the contemporary context (for both the left and right), when they use the word "socialism" it's often in attempts to describe something that isn't actually socialism.

In reality, the 'socialism' debates in the US are largely centered around what degree of a mixed economy people are comfortable with.

The moment we adopted public services like fire departments, a military, police forces, and social security, we were no longer laissez faire capitalists, and adding a few additional services to that list wouldn't make us "socialists" by any stretch of the term.

 

[Albion]

Indeed. So what should be done about that?

Reform, of course. But the Pelosi-controlled House of Representatives would never vote against its majority's best interests like that.