Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

eXploiTeD · Oct 19, 2003, 09:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Section 8, according to Buddhism, you must respect and accept the beliefs of others, and not attempt to enforce your beliefs onto them.

So since you want to be a Buddhist, you're not supposed to criticise capitalism, you are supposed to accept it, and do your part to alleviate suffering.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have studied and practiced Buddhism for nearly two years now, and your post reflects a common misunderstanding of the doctrine of nonviolence. Buddhism is an exercise in being critical, not an exercise in blind faith. The alleviation of suffering lies neither in political ideology, nor economic doctrine, but in the cessation of self.

G. Adams · Oct 20, 2003, 06:47 am

Buddhas last teaching was that no-one should do as he said just because he said it, it was more important that they evaluated it individually, and decided it was also correct.

castille · Oct 20, 2003, 10:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
But by getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with communism, he would be alleviating suffering.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, he would be subjecting everyone to suffering. I'm sure Communism in China followed the verses of Buddhism.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And while buddhism respects the 'beliefs' of others, as in their spirituality, it doesn't argue that you should sit by and watch people starve just because you respect the beliefs of capitalists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But Buddhism doesn't allow for violent revolution either. In the 1917 Soviet revolution, soldiers of the Imperial Guards had the skin of their hands torn off by the Communists. Is this what Buddhism preaches?

Now I know why there were so many Buddhist warrior monks....

Section 8 · Oct 20, 2003, 10:40 am

Castille, please elaborate on those last sentences they make absolutely no sense. What the hell does the USSR have to do with Buddhism.

G. Adams · Oct 20, 2003, 02:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
But by getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with communism, he would be alleviating suffering.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, he would be subjecting everyone to suffering. I'm sure Communism in China followed the verses of Buddhism.

But Buddhism doesn't allow for violent revolution either. In the 1917 Soviet revolution, soldiers of the Imperial Guards had the skin of their hands torn off by the Communists. Is this what Buddhism preaches?

Now I know why there were so many Buddhist warrior monks....<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I know Buddhism does not support violent revolution. The Dali Lama has refused many times the idea of a revolution to free tibet.

But neither does it support oppression. And while its strict adherants may be happy to let a tank roll over them, after all they will come back to life anyway, I doubt they would not understand none believers trying more violent means.

eXploiTeD · Oct 20, 2003, 05:18 pm

Communism is not a viable political or economic system, and never has been or will be. Human beings, as a whole, are highly unlikely to forego their own ambitions for that of the collective. Since this is a required characteristic of a successful communistic society, it follows that the probability of communism ever succeeding - on a large OR small scale - is approximately zero. Acknowledge this, and move on.

Castille, please refrain from making accusations you cannot provide any substantial evidence for - G. Adams is neither responsible for the actions of the Russian revolutionaries of 80 years ago, nor was he implying that he supported those actions. Buddhism holds no doctrine that promotes inaction in the face of oppression; at the same time, Buddhism holds that non-violence must be extended to those who oppose you. Case-in-point, the Free Tibet movement under the Dalai Lama. Over 1 000 000 Tibetans have died at the hands of their Chinese neighbours, yet no widespread violence has occured in retaliation.

Violence manifests itself only in intent, not in action. If intent is pure of selfish motivations, the actions that follow it will be as well. If I advocate social change in the name of personal power, my actions will be corrupted; if I advocate social change with the ultimate goal of alleviating suffering, my actions will be pure. Change, than, lies in the individual, as it always has. A body cannot move without a leg; a leg does not move without a body.

colin_powell · Dec 1, 2003, 07:13 am

How the hell can link seculkar communist movements with Buddhism when Buddhism itself has been persecuted by these regimes.

G. Adams · Dec 3, 2003, 05:11 am

There has been no communist regime to persecute the buddhist peoples around the world. How many times does it have to be said? Marxism-Leninism nor Maoism are communist. They are at best socialist, and a very distorted brand of socialism at that.

Communism supports the principles of buddhism and vica-versa, the only difference is that most communists will fight for what they believe, while buddhists won't. There's no point for them, if they die they'll come back anyway.

nature of reality · Dec 3, 2003, 06:06 am

"I do like Buddism. I do find it odd that most buddist societies have poor human rights records. Even Japan, which is very advanced economically has a terrible justice system where 99% of those accused are found guilty and where the death penelty is rigorously enforced. "

that is because buddhism promotes the cessation of self. as it can be obviously infered selflessness--- mindlessnees (which they are also humourously preach, that if you blank out reality you will be happy) as the self makes rational decisions. Violence and low humans will naturally be rampart in a country that denys its reliance on mankinds sole tool for survival; His Mind.

shunyadragon · Jan 24, 2004, 01:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Japan is not purely buddhist, it is a blend of it indigenous shinto beliefs and buddhism, as well as traditional japanese values. The only country you can point at to highlight a buddhist society is Tibet, and that has now been changed by the Chinese.

How do you mean pacifist warrior, GWB? Are you talking about the Shaolin or similar monastaries? They came about originally when an Indian monk came to China and found that the monks did so little exercise that they were dangerously frail. So he taught them fighting exercises, because he was from the indian warrior caste.

The correlation between pacifism and fighting is that you can only be truely pacifist if you can be truelly destructive, yet still choose none violence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What was originally taught at Shaolin were not fighting exercises, but mudra forms of meditative disaplines from a mix of Buddhist and Vedic traditions in India. The concept of what is called 'Martial Arts' or 'Warrior Arts' came later.

Bobdhidarma came to Shaolin to restore and teach the original doctrine of the 'Middle Way'. The Buddhists of Shaolin were weak and frail because practicing the aesthetic path.

Later the monks of Shaolin got involved in secular conflicts and incorporated the use of 'Martial Arts into their disciplines to defend against outside attacks and support different rulers and interests in China. The oldest unarmed Arts were called 'Chuan Fa'. Later they were called 'Wushu' which directly translates into 'Martial Arts'. The term 'Kungfu' or 'Gungfu' means the skills and knowledge acquired from the practice and learning of many different arts including painting, pottery making and carving. It is mistranslated today in the west to be the name of a 'Martial Art'. This is an example of how things get warped and changed over the years to come out as something totally different from the original meaning.

shunyadragon · Jan 24, 2004, 02:02 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
But by getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with communism, he would be alleviating suffering.

And while buddhism respects the 'beliefs' of others, as in their spirituality, it doesn't argue that you should sit by and watch people starve just because you respect the beliefs of capitalists. You should argue with the capitalism for compassion in what they do, effectively converting them to socialism/communism, if you were succesful in making them compassionate that is. Which is exactley what Sec8 has been trying to do, persuade people on this board, and outside I assume, to socialism/communism/anarchism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Buddhism has nothing to do with socialism/communism/anarchism. It is the doctrine of seeking the end of suffering through the journey of the 'middle way'.

PeterAngelo · Jan 28, 2004, 12:01 pm

Communism has never even been attempted. Totalitarian regimes called themselves that - and we supported it - to make communism a dirty word.

Stalin, Mao, and Bush are identical - tyrants who play dumb people.

Stalin was our ally. He had to have fifty years of pure slave labor to build a 20th Century infrastructure. The Soviet Union did not fall in 1989 - it just moved into the final phase. We gave up the pretense of human rights and now simply do business with China (also not communist), Russia, and anyone - no questions asked.

Yes - even Cuba - but you won't hear about it. Mexican Cardinal Sandoval ( The Vatican Banker) just came back from meeting with Castro do make financing plans for the new casinos about to open in Cuba. It is current news available on the net. Sandoval is also in trouble for using drug laundering to finance 32 casinos and sixteen gambling cruise ships. The possibilities are endless with secret bankers and "HOLY" protection of evil acts.

My brother is an attorney. In law school he did a research paper on the Vatican Bank. His law school, St. Thomas, in Miami,. was funded by drug money the Vatican Bank and the DEA were fighting over. TRUE and documented. His Dean of the Law School told him the whole story.

Type VATICANBANKCLAIMS.COM and read real history.

One of my sons does a lot of work on the barter method and lives a great life withour money, taxes, or the rest of the rigged-game.

When you say that prior societies that were socialistic failed - it is because they are attacked from outside.

The American Government has a strong central power because, in the early days, each state wanted soverign power to import and export goods. This led to an unmanageable mess. The King of England was the chief backer of LLoyds of Londen, and would not insure American shipping if there was not centralized customs under one Federal control.

That is the primary reason we are in this fix (study Maritime Law - the case history is fascinating and my story absolutely correct).

A retired attorney told me that his father used to make a good living in the 30's making crates. He was put out of business after Roosevelt decided that the nails he bought from Georgia - just over the state line - came under Interstate Commerce Rules ( a new idea).

That led to artificial prices created by fees, subsidies, etc.

The Federal Government interferred with a system that worked perfectly for the people, but let no opportunity for the Feds to interfere and steal money.

We have never seen anythng approaching equity, communism, socialism, or even an ethical attempt to be good "leaders".

It is a savage game of deliberate division, deceit, fear, terror, ignorance, and finally WAR that rules our lives.

It continues to work because we are a regernarating species. It guarantees that by the time you are old enough to figure it out, you die and are replaced by a baby - who knows nothing.

We repeat history because the ruling clas has the intelligence to think decades ahead and make sure their families carry on the traditions I have described.

I am afraid it is true. The knowledge is essentially useless for making reforms. It is only usefull in participating in the slaughter.

I try to remove my guilt by giving up these secrets to anyone who cares.

I also like to piss in the wind.

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 08:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
Communism has never even been attempted. Totalitarian regimes called themselves that - and we supported it - to make communism a dirty word. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually in at least on instance communism worked very well. The Panama Canal Zone was managed by the US government as a communist state and it did very well. All property, service and the businesses were owned by the state. Everyone worked for the state. All positions were appointed by the state. Everyone lived in state owned housing and in the drove state owned cars.

It ended for political reasons and not because it was a failure.

PeterAngelo · Feb 1, 2004, 11:42 am

The political reason would be that any example of a society that works for common people - and not for warlords (especially ours)- is the enemy of capitalist pirates.

We are in the hands of skull and bones pirates playing just another version of King v. peasants.

It works because they have the guns - that's all.

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 08:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
The political reason would be that any example of a society that works for common people - and not for warlords (especially ours)- is the enemy of capitalist pirates.

We are in the hands of skull and bones pirates playing just another version of King v. peasants.

It works because they have the guns - that's all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Communism is an economic theory, not a political theory. The reason it failed was that the Canal Zone became unteniable in the present political climate of Central and South America.

PeterAngelo · Feb 2, 2004, 04:09 am

Any economic theory is political by virtue of the human condition. Politics is "argument with resolution by agreement" - not force.
Any economic system has to have agreement and cooperation by leaders.

All the leaders of the world - so far - CHOOSE injustice.

Suburbanite · Feb 2, 2004, 06:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
Communism has never even been attempted. Totalitarian regimes called themselves that - and we supported it - to make communism a dirty word. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thanks for the rhetoric Dr. Angelo, I think everyone has heard it before. You're wrong though. There have been many truly communist societies. Not in the Marxist sense, but in the true meaning of communism. They were primitive. Ideally of course it would be glorious, everything would be ideally. But these same communist societies were crushed upon the first encounters with capitalism, feudalism. It is a weak structure, communism, susceptible to so many levels of corruption and devoid of any defense.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)

Actually in at least on instance communism worked very well. The Panama Canal Zone was managed by the US government as a communist state and it did very well. All property, service and the businesses were owned by the state. Everyone worked for the state. All positions were appointed by the state. Everyone lived in state owned housing and in the drove state owned cars.

It ended for political reasons and not because it was a failure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There are many companies within the confines of America who operate very communistically. The fact is, once Panama was no longer upheld by the American dollar it became what Panama is now, which is hardly a success. Like I said, a very fragile system.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)

All the leaders of the world - so far - CHOOSE injustice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You can only hope.

Back to addressing all the would-be Buddhists here, I think that the religion is all fine and dandy but I have to wonder why it appeals to so many avoid non-Christians. Perhaps the absence of faith makes something as clearly laughable as Buddhism seem like a good idea. It is vanity that makes people think the Enlightenment is something they can obtain, or deserve. Further, the discipline it truly requires to be a Buddhist eludes you all. To say there are no Buddhist extremists is a fallacy; they are comprised of many fundamentalists. Those Buddhist who set themselves on fire in public as a sign of protest aren’t being a little extreme? True, they are non-violent; I guess suicide isn’t something that offends anyone…. I can’t say it really offends me either.

PeterAngelo · Feb 4, 2004, 05:38 pm

In primitive societies medicine men, priests, and chiefs were the smart guys doing the same games we are ruled by today.

Fake gods ordering us to obey fake rulers - who always rule by force and terror.

The societies you describe were horrible within their own confines but had no defenses against technological superiority, or imperialist monsters like us.

Until the fake god-state relationship is finally dropped, and we choose to live in the here-and-now, we will never demand honesty from each other and from our "chosen leaders".

Not until we choose - and it has NEVER been discussed honestly.

Suburbanite · Feb 5, 2004, 05:26 am

First of all, you are making a lot of assumptions here. Imperialist Monsters like us I am sure refers to Americans if not Western Cultures. You seem to be pretty self hating, but that’s another issue. And your belief in Marxist Communism is mot much different than Christianity. Perhaps they are both good ideas (I am playing the part of the relativist here) but easily corruptible as much evidence shows for both. I think you need to personally worry less about other people's opinions though and reevaluate yours first. I don’t like to admit it, but I once would have said many of the same things.
About talking honestly, I’m no chosen leader (just the chosen people), but I’m willing to be honest as I possibly can with you.

PeterAngelo · Feb 6, 2004, 07:19 pm

I do hate my flaws - lack of self discipline - lack of motivation - lack of hair.

I am disgusted with the aging process and have become too embittered about the whole death thing to care much about the future of a planet that will someday be destroyed by a fading Sun.

I believe that for all practical purposes we are all gods. We have a choice every second of every day to be a good god or an evil god.

So far we do not take responsibility for our actions but blame gods, devils, criminals, ignorance, or whatever works to get away with our deliberate evil.

If and when humans decide to be "good" gods - maybe there will be a chance to begin devising a society based on honesty, integrity, and respect for ourselves and each other.

That is now considered the pipe dream of idiots and litle girls.

I am an idiot.

Suburbanite - the fact that you care at all is hopeful.

Oct 19, 2003, 09:16 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
eXploiTeD Molten Ash Posts: 32	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Section 8, according to Buddhism, you must respect and accept the beliefs of others, and not attempt to enforce your beliefs onto them. So since you want to be a Buddhist, you're not supposed to criticise capitalism, you are supposed to accept it, and do your part to alleviate suffering.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have studied and practiced Buddhism for nearly two years now, and your post reflects a common misunderstanding of the doctrine of nonviolence. Buddhism is an exercise in being critical, not an exercise in blind faith. The alleviation of suffering lies neither in political ideology, nor economic doctrine, but in the cessation of self.

Oct 20, 2003, 06:47 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	Buddhas last teaching was that no-one should do as he said just because he said it, it was more important that they evaluated it individually, and decided it was also correct. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 20, 2003, 10:36 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) But by getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with communism, he would be alleviating suffering.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, he would be subjecting everyone to suffering. I'm sure Communism in China followed the verses of Buddhism. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by And while buddhism respects the 'beliefs' of others, as in their spirituality, it doesn't argue that you should sit by and watch people starve just because you respect the beliefs of capitalists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But Buddhism doesn't allow for violent revolution either. In the 1917 Soviet revolution, soldiers of the Imperial Guards had the skin of their hands torn off by the Communists. Is this what Buddhism preaches? Now I know why there were so many Buddhist warrior monks.... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 20, 2003, 02:39 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) But by getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with communism, he would be alleviating suffering.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, he would be subjecting everyone to suffering. I'm sure Communism in China followed the verses of Buddhism. But Buddhism doesn't allow for violent revolution either. In the 1917 Soviet revolution, soldiers of the Imperial Guards had the skin of their hands torn off by the Communists. Is this what Buddhism preaches? Now I know why there were so many Buddhist warrior monks....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I know Buddhism does not support violent revolution. The Dali Lama has refused many times the idea of a revolution to free tibet. But neither does it support oppression. And while its strict adherants may be happy to let a tank roll over them, after all they will come back to life anyway, I doubt they would not understand none believers trying more violent means. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Dec 3, 2003, 05:11 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	There has been no communist regime to persecute the buddhist peoples around the world. How many times does it have to be said? Marxism-Leninism nor Maoism are communist. They are at best socialist, and a very distorted brand of socialism at that. Communism supports the principles of buddhism and vica-versa, the only difference is that most communists will fight for what they believe, while buddhists won't. There's no point for them, if they die they'll come back anyway. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 20, 2003, 10:40 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Castille, please elaborate on those last sentences they make absolutely no sense. What the hell does the USSR have to do with Buddhism.

Oct 20, 2003, 05:18 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
eXploiTeD Molten Ash Posts: 32	Communism is not a viable political or economic system, and never has been or will be. Human beings, as a whole, are highly unlikely to forego their own ambitions for that of the collective. Since this is a required characteristic of a successful communistic society, it follows that the probability of communism ever succeeding - on a large OR small scale - is approximately zero. Acknowledge this, and move on. Castille, please refrain from making accusations you cannot provide any substantial evidence for - G. Adams is neither responsible for the actions of the Russian revolutionaries of 80 years ago, nor was he implying that he supported those actions. Buddhism holds no doctrine that promotes inaction in the face of oppression; at the same time, Buddhism holds that non-violence must be extended to those who oppose you. Case-in-point, the Free Tibet movement under the Dalai Lama. Over 1 000 000 Tibetans have died at the hands of their Chinese neighbours, yet no widespread violence has occured in retaliation. Violence manifests itself only in intent, not in action. If intent is pure of selfish motivations, the actions that follow it will be as well. If I advocate social change in the name of personal power, my actions will be corrupted; if I advocate social change with the ultimate goal of alleviating suffering, my actions will be pure. Change, than, lies in the individual, as it always has. A body cannot move without a leg; a leg does not move without a body.

Dec 1, 2003, 07:13 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
colin_powell Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	How the hell can link seculkar communist movements with Buddhism when Buddhism itself has been persecuted by these regimes.

Dec 3, 2003, 06:06 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	"I do like Buddism. I do find it odd that most buddist societies have poor human rights records. Even Japan, which is very advanced economically has a terrible justice system where 99% of those accused are found guilty and where the death penelty is rigorously enforced. " that is because buddhism promotes the cessation of self. as it can be obviously infered selflessness--- mindlessnees (which they are also humourously preach, that if you blank out reality you will be happy) as the self makes rational decisions. Violence and low humans will naturally be rampart in a country that denys its reliance on mankinds sole tool for survival; His Mind. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Jan 24, 2004, 01:57 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Japan is not purely buddhist, it is a blend of it indigenous shinto beliefs and buddhism, as well as traditional japanese values. The only country you can point at to highlight a buddhist society is Tibet, and that has now been changed by the Chinese. How do you mean pacifist warrior, GWB? Are you talking about the Shaolin or similar monastaries? They came about originally when an Indian monk came to China and found that the monks did so little exercise that they were dangerously frail. So he taught them fighting exercises, because he was from the indian warrior caste. The correlation between pacifism and fighting is that you can only be truely pacifist if you can be truelly destructive, yet still choose none violence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What was originally taught at Shaolin were not fighting exercises, but mudra forms of meditative disaplines from a mix of Buddhist and Vedic traditions in India. The concept of what is called 'Martial Arts' or 'Warrior Arts' came later. Bobdhidarma came to Shaolin to restore and teach the original doctrine of the 'Middle Way'. The Buddhists of Shaolin were weak and frail because practicing the aesthetic path. Later the monks of Shaolin got involved in secular conflicts and incorporated the use of 'Martial Arts into their disciplines to defend against outside attacks and support different rulers and interests in China. The oldest unarmed Arts were called 'Chuan Fa'. Later they were called 'Wushu' which directly translates into 'Martial Arts'. The term 'Kungfu' or 'Gungfu' means the skills and knowledge acquired from the practice and learning of many different arts including painting, pottery making and carving. It is mistranslated today in the west to be the name of a 'Martial Art'. This is an example of how things get warped and changed over the years to come out as something totally different from the original meaning. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 24, 2004, 02:02 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) But by getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with communism, he would be alleviating suffering. And while buddhism respects the 'beliefs' of others, as in their spirituality, it doesn't argue that you should sit by and watch people starve just because you respect the beliefs of capitalists. You should argue with the capitalism for compassion in what they do, effectively converting them to socialism/communism, if you were succesful in making them compassionate that is. Which is exactley what Sec8 has been trying to do, persuade people on this board, and outside I assume, to socialism/communism/anarchism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Buddhism has nothing to do with socialism/communism/anarchism. It is the doctrine of seeking the end of suffering through the journey of the 'middle way'. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 28, 2004, 12:01 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	Communism has never even been attempted. Totalitarian regimes called themselves that - and we supported it - to make communism a dirty word. Stalin, Mao, and Bush are identical - tyrants who play dumb people. Stalin was our ally. He had to have fifty years of pure slave labor to build a 20th Century infrastructure. The Soviet Union did not fall in 1989 - it just moved into the final phase. We gave up the pretense of human rights and now simply do business with China (also not communist), Russia, and anyone - no questions asked. Yes - even Cuba - but you won't hear about it. Mexican Cardinal Sandoval ( The Vatican Banker) just came back from meeting with Castro do make financing plans for the new casinos about to open in Cuba. It is current news available on the net. Sandoval is also in trouble for using drug laundering to finance 32 casinos and sixteen gambling cruise ships. The possibilities are endless with secret bankers and "HOLY" protection of evil acts. My brother is an attorney. In law school he did a research paper on the Vatican Bank. His law school, St. Thomas, in Miami,. was funded by drug money the Vatican Bank and the DEA were fighting over. TRUE and documented. His Dean of the Law School told him the whole story. Type VATICANBANKCLAIMS.COM and read real history. One of my sons does a lot of work on the barter method and lives a great life withour money, taxes, or the rest of the rigged-game. When you say that prior societies that were socialistic failed - it is because they are attacked from outside. The American Government has a strong central power because, in the early days, each state wanted soverign power to import and export goods. This led to an unmanageable mess. The King of England was the chief backer of LLoyds of Londen, and would not insure American shipping if there was not centralized customs under one Federal control. That is the primary reason we are in this fix (study Maritime Law - the case history is fascinating and my story absolutely correct). A retired attorney told me that his father used to make a good living in the 30's making crates. He was put out of business after Roosevelt decided that the nails he bought from Georgia - just over the state line - came under Interstate Commerce Rules ( a new idea). That led to artificial prices created by fees, subsidies, etc. The Federal Government interferred with a system that worked perfectly for the people, but let no opportunity for the Feds to interfere and steal money. We have never seen anythng approaching equity, communism, socialism, or even an ethical attempt to be good "leaders". It is a savage game of deliberate division, deceit, fear, terror, ignorance, and finally WAR that rules our lives. It continues to work because we are a regernarating species. It guarantees that by the time you are old enough to figure it out, you die and are replaced by a baby - who knows nothing. We repeat history because the ruling clas has the intelligence to think decades ahead and make sure their families carry on the traditions I have described. I am afraid it is true. The knowledge is essentially useless for making reforms. It is only usefull in participating in the slaughter. I try to remove my guilt by giving up these secrets to anyone who cares. I also like to piss in the wind.

Feb 1, 2004, 08:34 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) Communism has never even been attempted. Totalitarian regimes called themselves that - and we supported it - to make communism a dirty word. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually in at least on instance communism worked very well. The Panama Canal Zone was managed by the US government as a communist state and it did very well. All property, service and the businesses were owned by the state. Everyone worked for the state. All positions were appointed by the state. Everyone lived in state owned housing and in the drove state owned cars. It ended for political reasons and not because it was a failure. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 1, 2004, 11:42 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	The political reason would be that any example of a society that works for common people - and not for warlords (especially ours)- is the enemy of capitalist pirates. We are in the hands of skull and bones pirates playing just another version of King v. peasants. It works because they have the guns - that's all.

Feb 1, 2004, 08:41 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) The political reason would be that any example of a society that works for common people - and not for warlords (especially ours)- is the enemy of capitalist pirates. We are in the hands of skull and bones pirates playing just another version of King v. peasants. It works because they have the guns - that's all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Communism is an economic theory, not a political theory. The reason it failed was that the Canal Zone became unteniable in the present political climate of Central and South America. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 2, 2004, 04:09 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	Any economic theory is political by virtue of the human condition. Politics is "argument with resolution by agreement" - not force. Any economic system has to have agreement and cooperation by leaders. All the leaders of the world - so far - CHOOSE injustice.

Feb 2, 2004, 06:10 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) Communism has never even been attempted. Totalitarian regimes called themselves that - and we supported it - to make communism a dirty word. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thanks for the rhetoric Dr. Angelo, I think everyone has heard it before. You're wrong though. There have been many truly communist societies. Not in the Marxist sense, but in the true meaning of communism. They were primitive. Ideally of course it would be glorious, everything would be ideally. But these same communist societies were crushed upon the first encounters with capitalism, feudalism. It is a weak structure, communism, susceptible to so many levels of corruption and devoid of any defense. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) Actually in at least on instance communism worked very well. The Panama Canal Zone was managed by the US government as a communist state and it did very well. All property, service and the businesses were owned by the state. Everyone worked for the state. All positions were appointed by the state. Everyone lived in state owned housing and in the drove state owned cars. It ended for political reasons and not because it was a failure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There are many companies within the confines of America who operate very communistically. The fact is, once Panama was no longer upheld by the American dollar it became what Panama is now, which is hardly a success. Like I said, a very fragile system. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) All the leaders of the world - so far - CHOOSE injustice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can only hope. Back to addressing all the would-be Buddhists here, I think that the religion is all fine and dandy but I have to wonder why it appeals to so many avoid non-Christians. Perhaps the absence of faith makes something as clearly laughable as Buddhism seem like a good idea. It is vanity that makes people think the Enlightenment is something they can obtain, or deserve. Further, the discipline it truly requires to be a Buddhist eludes you all. To say there are no Buddhist extremists is a fallacy; they are comprised of many fundamentalists. Those Buddhist who set themselves on fire in public as a sign of protest aren’t being a little extreme? True, they are non-violent; I guess suicide isn’t something that offends anyone…. I can’t say it really offends me either.

Feb 4, 2004, 05:38 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	In primitive societies medicine men, priests, and chiefs were the smart guys doing the same games we are ruled by today. Fake gods ordering us to obey fake rulers - who always rule by force and terror. The societies you describe were horrible within their own confines but had no defenses against technological superiority, or imperialist monsters like us. Until the fake god-state relationship is finally dropped, and we choose to live in the here-and-now, we will never demand honesty from each other and from our "chosen leaders". Not until we choose - and it has NEVER been discussed honestly.

Feb 5, 2004, 05:26 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	First of all, you are making a lot of assumptions here. Imperialist Monsters like us I am sure refers to Americans if not Western Cultures. You seem to be pretty self hating, but that’s another issue. And your belief in Marxist Communism is mot much different than Christianity. Perhaps they are both good ideas (I am playing the part of the relativist here) but easily corruptible as much evidence shows for both. I think you need to personally worry less about other people's opinions though and reevaluate yours first. I don’t like to admit it, but I once would have said many of the same things. About talking honestly, I’m no chosen leader (just the chosen people), but I’m willing to be honest as I possibly can with you.

Feb 6, 2004, 07:19 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	I do hate my flaws - lack of self discipline - lack of motivation - lack of hair. I am disgusted with the aging process and have become too embittered about the whole death thing to care much about the future of a planet that will someday be destroyed by a fading Sun. I believe that for all practical purposes we are all gods. We have a choice every second of every day to be a good god or an evil god. So far we do not take responsibility for our actions but blame gods, devils, criminals, ignorance, or whatever works to get away with our deliberate evil. If and when humans decide to be "good" gods - maybe there will be a chance to begin devising a society based on honesty, integrity, and respect for ourselves and each other. That is now considered the pipe dream of idiots and litle girls. I am an idiot. Suburbanite - the fact that you care at all is hopeful.