Hinduism and Socialism

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

What are your opinions of socialism? Do you see it as being compatible with Hinduism? What about other political and governmental philosophies, such as capitalism, communism, fascism, monarchy, etc?

I tend to describe myself as a Democratic Socialist. I know socialism is often associated with atheism, but I've never really understood why. I don't see any contradiction between socialism and religion. I believe in democracy and socialism, and I don't see either as being complete without the other.

Jai Sri Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

I'm a socialist as well. Many countries in Europe are termed socialist democracies. I'm totally with you. In a capitalist ecomomy, one goal is often ant-socialism as the capitalists don't want to share their money. So the propaganda gurus link socialism with communism and Marxism. I've even heard right wing people refer to Canada as communist.

For me, socialism is a way in which we can legalize a somewhat middle ground towards more equality and a less drastic distribution of wealth scale.

Socialism also means different things to different people. Remember the Soviet Socialist Republic? Surely this isn't the same socialism you find in Sweden or the Netherlands.

Theoretically, but not possible, I believe that the best government is a monarchy provided the monarch is a fair monarch. It would cut down on the decision making. Same thing with privately run temples, or any organisation that has a strong and just leader at its helm. You don't have a board of trustees to fight, or a government to take years to make simple decisions. Our maths and institutions with 'heads' make it so they run easier.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

I'm a socialist as well. Many countries in Europe are termed socialist democracies. I'm totally with you. In a capitalist ecomomy, one goal is often ant-socialism as the capitalists don't want to share their money. So the propaganda gurus link socialism with communism and Marxism. I've even heard right wing people refer to Canada as communist.

For me, socialism is a way in which we can legalize a somewhat middle ground towards more equality and a less drastic distribution of wealth scale.

Socialism also means different things to different people. Remember the Soviet Socialist Republic? Surely this isn't the same socialism you find in Sweden or the Netherlands.

Theoretically, but not possible, I believe that the best government is a monarchy provided the monarch is a fair monarch. It would cut down on the decision making. Same thing with privately run temples, or any organisation that has a strong and just leader at its helm. You don't have a board of trustees to fight, or a government to take years to make simple decisions. Our maths and institutions with 'heads' make it so they run easier.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mindji,

It's great to see somebody with the same ideals as me. Here in America, socialism is often automatically equated with evil. A lot of people also think socialism and communism are the same thing, when really they are quite different. Simply put, communism is just socialism taken to the extreme. If I say socialism, people often think of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, even though they weren't socialists. They were evil, totalitarian mass-murderers who hid under the label of socialism. Most communists just view socialism as the stepping stone to communism, the final goal. But I don't agree with communism, as it goes too far and once you get communism you get Stalin and Mao and the USSR. Although IMO one communist who isn't that bad is Fidel Castro.

A monarchy would definitely simplify things and make things more efficient, but as you said, it's not possible. It would just be so hard to have a fair monarch. There have been so many corrupt and evil monarchs throughout history. People tend to be like that when they have so much power. Of course, there have been some fair and righteous monarchs as well. I assume you're talking about an absolute monarchy. A constitutional monarchy wouldn't be that bad.

Jai Sri Krishna

[Philippe*]

Ideally I would prefer a divine anarchy, i.e. a harmonious and spontaneous organization without fixed rules, laws or money in a society of gnostic, enlightened beings. Practically it depends on the situation, time, history. I do not think that democracy is the best for all countries, but I think that it is the best for the country France in which I am living. I consider the French Revolution which put an end to some degenerated monarchy as a great historical event. I have some socialist and ecologist leanings but at the same time I am for a competent enlightened elite wielding power. Education, discipline and maturity of the masses are very important for the success of some socialist ideals.

On the other hand that is true that in Europe socialism is often associated with atheism, philosophical materialism mainly for historical reasons. In the religious field, there is a kind of hubris like in the Greek myth with Prometheus rebelling against the gods to bring the fire of knowledge to the suffering mortal men.

Philippe

[Ramakrishna]

Ideally I would prefer a divine anarchy, i.e. a harmonious and spontaneous organization without fixed rules, laws or money in a society of gnostic, enlightened beings. Practically it depends on the situation, time, history. I do not think that democracy is the best for all countries, but I think that it is the best for the country France in which I am living. I consider the French Revolution which put an end to some degenerated monarchy as a great historical event. I have some socialist and ecologist leanings but at the same time I am for a competent enlightened elite wielding power. Education, discipline and maturity of the masses are very important for the success of some socialist ideals.

On the other hand that is true that in Europe socialism is often associated with atheism, philosophical materialism mainly for historical reasons. In the religious field, there is a kind of hubris like in the Greek myth with Prometheus rebelling against the gods to bring the fire of knowledge to the suffering mortal men.

Philippe

Namaste Philippe,

That's interesting. I have been thinking about that, and I suppose a "divine" anarchy would be ideal. Usually anarchy has a bad connotation, but that is due to human nature. Ideally an anarchy would be great. Gandhiji described himself as a philosophical anarchist. But there is no way that can exist in today's society.

I used to believe that democracy would be best for all countries, but I'm not so sure anymore. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Those countries are failing democracies. But they are young, so I don't know. Why don't you think democracy is best for all countries, and what system of government should those countries have instead?

Jai Sri Krishna

[Philippe*]

Namaste Philippe,

That's interesting. I have been thinking about that, and I suppose a "divine" anarchy would be ideal. Usually anarchy has a bad connotation, but that is due to human nature. Ideally an anarchy would be great. Gandhiji described himself as a philosophical anarchist. But there is no way that can exist in today's society.

I used to believe that democracy would be best for all countries, but I'm not so sure anymore. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Those countries are failing democracies. But they are young, so I don't know. Why don't you think democracy is best for all countries, and what system of government should those countries have instead?

Jai Sri Krishna

Namaste Ramakrishna,

Good examples. It depends on the country : a constitutional monarchy, a democracy with large powers to an aristocracy based on merit/elections, a democracy under the protection of another nation, a hereditary or non-hereditary empire with a cakravartin, enligthened despotism, democracy with a president elected for life or for a long period... There must be a good level of education for the masses, civil servants well paid to decrease corruption, highly educated politicians, initiatives to develop a feeling of unity... it can take generations.

I am not qualified enough and lack of knowledge to propose serious detailed political solutions for the countries mentioned. About Afghanistan, I recently watch a report about bacha bazi, "dancing boys" from PBS's Frontline, I admire the courage of the journalists to expose this problem of horrific abuse of children. We have perverted people everywhere, things similar happened even in Western Europe but usually these people go abroad and take advantage of the misery of other countries. Moreover we can see in this report how low women can be considered and the level of chaos and barbarism presently in this country.

Philippe

[Sahasranama]

Biggest fail of democracy = Nazi Germany.

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Ramakrishna,

Good examples. It depends on the country : a constitutional monarchy, a democracy with large powers to an aristocracy based on merit/elections, a democracy under the protection of another nation, a hereditary or non-hereditary empire with a cakravartin, enligthened despotism, democracy with a president elected for life or for a long period... There must be a good level of education for the masses, civil servants well paid to decrease corruption, highly educated politicians, initiatives to develop a feeling of unity... it can take generations.

I am not qualified enough and lack of knowledge to propose serious detailed political solutions for the countries mentioned. About Afghanistan, I recently watch a report about bacha bazi, "dancing boys" from PBS's Frontline, I admire the courage of the journalists to expose this problem of horrific abuse of children. We have perverted people everywhere, things similar happened even in Western Europe but usually these people go abroad and take advantage of the misery of other countries. Moreover we can see in this report how low women can be considered and the level of chaos and barbarism presently in this country.

Philippe


Biggest fail of democracy = Nazi Germany.

Namaste Philippe, Sahasranama, et al,

You both raise good points. Democracy is not perfect. The election of Hitler is indeed the biggest failure of democracy. But I am still tempted to think that a democracy is the best possible (putting divine anarchy aside) form of government. Democracy is still relatively young. I know it has been around since ancient Greece, but it was really only implemented on very small scales then. Democracy as a form of government for entire countries and widespread masses is still young compared to other types of government such as monarchism and despotism. IMO there always needs to be a large check on power, since due to human nature, leaders tend to abuse power. There is no better check on that power than the people themselves, and that's why I am thinking a democracy is the best form of government.

I was thinking that a constitutional monarchy would be good, but then I think it is sort of a joke when I look at countries like England where the monarch basically only has ceremonial powers. Absolute monarchism is out of the question for me because it would so easily lead to corruption and abuse of power. What do you all think of constitutional monarchism? Eastern Mindji, I am particularly interested in what you think since Canada is both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state.

Jai Sri Krishna

[BryonMorrigan]

I personally, am a Liberal Technocrat...but as I realize that Technocracy (*) is a very distant possibility, so I settle for voting for Socialist and Progressive issues. (Though, what is Socialist and Progressive in the USA is not always the same in other countries...for the record...)

______________________________________________________________

(*) The best description of Technocracy is basically that it is the form of gov't depicted as the gov't of the Federation in the fictional "Star Trek" universe. (Scientific issues are settled primarily by scientists...medical issues are settled primarily by physicians...social issues are settled primarily by social scientists...et cetera.)

[Darji]

I'm a staunch absolute monarchist, with me head of state. But until this happens I'm a Labour Socialist, with a hint of capitalistic ideas (you got to pay for the health care and free schooling somehow).

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Bryon,


I personally, am a Liberal Technocrat...but as I realize that Technocracy (*) is a very distant possibility, so I settle for voting for Socialist and Progressive issues. (Though, what is Socialist and Progressive in the USA is not always the same in other countries...for the record...)

______________________________________________________________

(*) The best description of Technocracy is basically that it is the form of gov't depicted as the gov't of the Federation in the fictional "Star Trek" universe. (Scientific issues are settled primarily by scientists...medical issues are settled primarily by physicians...social issues are settled primarily by social scientists...et cetera.)



I've never heard of technocracy before. It looks very interesting, and it seems like hypothetically it would work out well.


(Though, what is Socialist and Progressive in the USA is not always the same in other countries...for the record...)


You are exactly right about that. A lot of issues that are labeled as "socialist" or "progressive" in the United States are considered very normal in other countries. Universal health care is a "socialist" idea in the United States, even though virtually every industrialized country in the world has it. I want the death penalty to be abolished, and people call me some crazy progressive, despite the fact that the United States is pretty much the only western industrialized nation that still has the death penalty.

I wonder what issues are considered "socialist" and "progressive" in European countries and other countries such as Canada that already have some sort of universal health care and have abolished the barbaric practice of killing its own citizens.

Jai Sri Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

Socialist concepts here in Canada are such things as a tax scale where the more you make, the higher the percentage is. Also a higher tax is sought on large corporations. Tax breaks for child care expenses and less spending on defense (warfare) are also socialist agendas. Even caring more about environmental issues is labeled socialism. (Damn tree hugger hippies.) Except in Alberta, of course where I live. We have a 10% flat tax. Some also make a lot of noise about fiscal conservative as opposed to social conservative.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

Socialist concepts here in Canada are such things as a tax scale where the more you make, the higher the percentage is. Also a higher tax is sought on large corporations. Tax breaks for child care expenses and less spending on defense (warfare) are also socialist agendas. Even caring more about environmental issues is labeled socialism. (Damn tree hugger hippies.) Except in Alberta, of course where I live. We have a 10% flat tax. Some also make a lot of noise about fiscal conservative as opposed to social conservative.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mindji,

Even the United States has a progressive tax. Although tax cuts for the rich that were implemented by George Bush largely offset that. But the system was never really progressive to begin with. In Denmark, the richest people pay around 60% of their income in taxes.

Defense spending in the United States is absolutely ridiculous. It accounts for almost half of all total spending and more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. It is said that the largest air force in the world is the United States Air Force and the second largest air force in the world is the United States Navy!

Protecting the environment is also considered a progressive issue in the United States. A large percentage of the population doesn't even believe in global warming! Some politicians want to tax corporations that emit large amounts of carbon, but they're called socialists who want to increase the size of the government and have it take over our lives. :rolleyes:

Jai Sri Krishna

[Believer]

In the material world, fame and fortune is what drives people to do more than average. When your earnings are involuntarily taken away from you in the form of taxation and distributed to the poor in the name of providing societal equalization, there is less incentive for innovators to take a risk, to cross the threshold of current possibilities and find new ground. Our Indian minds have been "conditioned" by the policies and socialist rhetoric of post partition political leaders, but India made progress only in the last 15 years or so when there was liberalization of economic policies instituted, I believe, by the then Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. All citizens deserve to have their basic needs taken care of. But, let us not kid ourselves, the needs will always outstrip the available resources and some people will be left behind. To dream that a high school graduate flipping hamburgers 40 hours a week should have access to the same health care and other necessities of life, as a person who spent 10-15 of his life earning advanced degrees to better his life, and puts in 60+ hours a week and may be is 'on call' over the week ends too; is a bit unreasonable. We always talk about such and such country being better in terms of social benefits, but given the choice, we choose to live in the capitalist US and not in any other country.

Giving money away voluntarily for charity, as does Warren Buffet and Bill Gates is commendable, but to have it forcibly stolen from you is unjust and counter-productive. Another factor that such thought is discouraged in the US is that when people try to visualize the benefactor of redistribution of wealth through taxation, the face they see is that of an African American or a Hispanic; and that is not palatable to the majority. We can have the utopian dreams where every creature on earth is happy, but somewhere along the line we have to grow up and realize that, that is just wishful thinking. Socialism kept India poor for decades. Only trade and general economic liberalization propelled it to the level of current material prosperity.

Hindu religion, and for that matter any other faith, is meant for spiritual development. Spiritual development essentially reduces the dependence on material necessities. And the spiritualists don't talk of political/economic systems, as their heightened state of awareness transcends the material realm. But as long as we, the average people, are striving more for economic prosperity than for spiritual prosperity; we should be mindful of not linking religion with "material" economic/political systems.

I welcome your comments and being corrected on my thought process!

[Ramakrishna]

In the material world, fame and fortune is what drives people to do more than average. When your earnings are involuntarily taken away from you in the form of taxation and distributed to the poor in the name of providing societal equalization, there is less incentive for innovators to take a risk, to cross the threshold of current possibilities and find new ground. Our Indian minds have been "conditioned" by the policies and socialist rhetoric of post partition political leaders, but India made progress only in the last 15 years or so when there was liberalization of economic policies instituted, I believe, by the then Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. All citizens deserve to have their basic needs taken care of. But, let us not kid ourselves, the needs will always outstrip the available resources and some people will be left behind. To dream that a high school graduate flipping hamburgers 40 hours a week should have access to the same health care and other necessities of life, as a person who spent 10-15 of his life earning advanced degrees to better his life, and puts in 60+ hours a week and may be is 'on call' over the week ends too; is a bit unreasonable. We always talk about such and such country being better in terms of social benefits, but given the choice, we choose to live in the capitalist US and not in any other country.

Giving money away voluntarily for charity, as does Warren Buffet and Bill Gates is commendable, but to have it forcibly stolen from you is unjust and counter-productive. Another factor that such thought is discouraged in the US is that when people try to visualize the benefactor of redistribution of wealth through taxation, the face they see is that of an African American or a Hispanic; and that is not palatable to the majority. We can have the utopian dreams where every creature on earth is happy, but somewhere along the line we have to grow up and realize that, that is just wishful thinking. Socialism kept India poor for decades. Only trade and general economic liberalization propelled it to the level of current material prosperity.

Hindu religion, and for that matter any other faith, is meant for spiritual development. Spiritual development essentially reduces the dependence on material necessities. And the spiritualists don't talk of political/economic systems, as their heightened state of awareness transcends the material realm. But as long as we, the average people, are striving more for economic prosperity than for spiritual prosperity; we should be mindful of not linking religion with "material" economic/political systems.

I welcome your comments and being corrected on my thought process!

Namaste Believer,

I realize that having a classless society where everybody makes the same amount of money regardless of what they do is impossible. I do not want that, either. In a properly run socialist society, there will be certain people who make more money than others. There will still be classes in society. There just won't be mass inequalities like you see in a capitalist system. There won't be a gigantic gap between the upper class and the lower class. There will actually be a middle class, unlike certain capitalist countries where at times there is just the rich upper class and then the poor lower class.

I don't view taxes as "forcibly stealing" from the citizens. I view taxes as the citizens giving money back to the government which helps them. Ideally, there shouldn't be any taxes, as people should be doing it by free will. But unfortunately they don't.


All citizens deserve to have their basic needs taken care of. But, let us not kid ourselves, the needs will always outstrip the available resources and some people will be left behind. To dream that a high school graduate flipping hamburgers 40 hours a week should have access to the same health care and other necessities of life, as a person who spent 10-15 of his life earning advanced degrees to better his life, and puts in 60+ hours a week and may be is 'on call' over the week ends too; is a bit unreasonable.

The person who spent 10-15 years of his life earning advanced degrees most likely earned those degrees at schools that were funded by the government. He drives to work on roads that are built by the government. He eats food that is certified to be safe by the government. Why should he not give money back to the government that helped him get to where he is today? The government would then use that money to continue funding schools, building roads, etc. as well as help the burger-flipper get to where he is someday.

We must also not forget that somebody needs to flip those burgers. (Although in my ideal society they would be veggie burgers and not hamburgers). This is why, as I said, there will still be classes in society. But it is my belief that there are certain necessities that everybody in society should have, such as health care and a quality education. I don't care if you flip burgers or if you're some corporate CEO, all citizens deserve these necessities. The government needs to get that money from somewhere, and it would make more sense to tax the corporate CEO who makes $250,000 a year than the burger flipper who makes $20,000 a year.

Again, I do believe there will be classes in society. I don't have some utopian dream of a society where everybody is 100% equal. That would be more like communism. I am a socialist in the sense that I put people above profit, unlike capitalism which puts profit above people. Capitalism is full of mass inequalities and when a few people become rich they largely keep that money for themselves and give the poorer people no chance to get where they are. IMO socialism would largely fix that.

Jai Sri Krishna

[Believer]

In the US, all young people are democrats as 1. they are idealists, 2. they have no money and the tax system does not hurt them.

When they graduate and get a job in the corporate world and start making some REAL money, they all become aware of how the Govt. steals a large chunk of their earnings through taxation and then they all become republicans. :). Limiting the powers of the Govt. to rip them off becomes a mantra.

It is only a matter of time. We all go through different stages in our lives. The rigid morals of youth change to flexible morals of a householder, trying to take care of the family, and then somewhere along the line there is a resurgence of religion/spirituality in the human consciousness and a cleansing of the moral standards. Without walking in those shoes, it is easy to be young and do mental gymnastics and argue about things that one has no experience/clue about. Been there, done that. I thought I was very smart when I was young and could debate people into submission. But, not any more. I found out that I am dumb as a doorknob. Besides, I realize that after being here for 40+ years and with a lifetime of experiences behind me, I should not expect relative newbies to be on the same page with me. So enjoy your opulent intellect and debating skills before they become dull and meaningless!

[BryonMorrigan]

In the US, all young people are democrats as 1. they are idealists, 2. they have no money and the tax system does not hurt them.

When they graduate and get a job in the corporate world and start making some REAL money, they all become aware of how the Govt. steals a large chunk of their earnings through taxation and then they all become republicans. :). Limiting the powers of the Govt. to rip them off becomes a mantra.

That's a rather typical myth. Far more of the wealthiest people in America are actually Liberals. For example, this article, in a Conservative magazine, points this out: http://article.nationalreview.com/295884/party-of-the-rich/peter-schweizer

Actually, in my experience, I've found that most Conservative Republicans are actually low-wage earning, white Christians (*)...who DREAM of having the wealth that would cause them to have a larger amount of taxes taken out of their earnings...but are likely themselves to be taxed very little (or none at all...as many families in this country pay no taxes). And most likely they will NEVER be affected by these taxes because they don't have the intellect or drive to succeed at anything anyways. (Look at a Teabagger rally...they're easy to spot.)

Progressive taxation makes sense to anyone who has thought about it seriously. Dim-witted Populist sentiment makes the Teabaggers and other uneducated people shake their fists and foam at the mouth, but in reality, their rhetoric is foolish and anti-intellectual. They think things like a "flat tax" seem more "fair" because they can't do the math.

For example, look at it this way: Let's say that I make $2,000 a month. That's a pretty standard uneducated, time-clock punching wage. Let's say we make a flat 15% income tax. That would mean that $300 a month would come out of my income. For someone on that kind of a budget, the effect would be pretty drastic. $300 is a car payment...or 2 months' electric bills. That might mean that I can't afford enough groceries or gas for the month, especially if I have a family to support.

Now say I make $20,000 a month. That's still just below the $250k a year designation of being "rich" used by many gov't analysts. My monthly taxes would be about $3000. You think that would put a dent in my spending? Is one of these people more hurt by the flat tax than the other? Do the math.


___________________________________________________________

(*) Look at the **** that they're giving Nikki Haley for not being Christian "enough." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/haleys-path-to-christianity-leaves-some-evangelicals-uneasy/?fbid=50k3UKB9C65)

[BryonMorrigan]

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm86/BryonMorrigan/political-pictures-teabaggers-work-.jpg

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Believer,


In the US, all young people are democrats as 1. they are idealists, 2. they have no money and the tax system does not hurt them.

When they graduate and get a job in the corporate world and start making some REAL money, they all become aware of how the Govt. steals a large chunk of their earnings through taxation and then they all become republicans. :). Limiting the powers of the Govt. to rip them off becomes a mantra.

I would never become a Republican. There are plenty of other issues besides economic policy that I disagree with the Republican Party, so even if my ideas on economics change (which I highly doubt they will), I still won't join that party.


It is only a matter of time. We all go through different stages in our lives. The rigid morals of youth change to flexible morals of a householder, trying to take care of the family, and then somewhere along the line there is a resurgence of religion/spirituality in the human consciousness and a cleansing of the moral standards. Without walking in those shoes, it is easy to be young and do mental gymnastics and argue about things that one has no experience/clue about. Been there, done that. I thought I was very smart when I was young and could debate people into submission. But, not any more. I found out that I am dumb as a doorknob. Besides, I realize that after being here for 40+ years and with a lifetime of experiences behind me, I should not expect relative newbies to be on the same page with me. So enjoy your opulent intellect and debating skills before they become dull and meaningless!

I see what you are saying, but at the same time I disagree. I've grown up watching my father, who's made an average workingman's salary his entire life, proudly and unhesitatingly pay his taxes every year. He's never viewed it as the government "stealing" his money. Sure there have been times when the government utterly wasted his money, such as Bush spending billions of dollars in a meaningless war in Iraq. But at the same time the government uses that money to do great things, such as helping the poor and providing health care, as well as countless things people like you take for granted, such as building roads, funding schools, police departments, hospitals, certifying that food is safe, etc.

I look forward greatly to the day I pay my own taxes. Hopefully by then the rich will be paying higher taxes as well.

Jai Sri Krishna

[Ramakrishna]

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm86/BryonMorrigan/political-pictures-teabaggers-work-.jpg

:laugh:

Tea Party people protesting tax raises when Obama has cut taxes for 95% of people!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbyFeFhUTmI&playnext_from=TL&videos=3pwXAtQroXY

Jai Sri Krishna

[Ramakrishna]

Our Indian minds have been "conditioned" by the policies and socialist rhetoric of post partition political leaders, but India made progress only in the last 15 years or so when there was liberalization of economic policies instituted, I believe, by the then Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.


Namaste Believer,

Is this what you are talking about? This is largely the result of "liberalization of economic policies instituted".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10609407

http://free-pr-services.com/hindu-statesman-zed-asks-india-to-urgently-wake-up-to-her-monumental-poverty-crisis-1158.html

Jai Sri Krishna