In this article I discuss the ways in which Buddhist ethics can offer an alternative to the ethics manifested by the current neoliberal form of capitalism. I suggest that capitalism in its current globalised form is intrinsically unsustainable and requires a fundamental change in the ethical framework upon which it is grounded.
I would like to begin with what might seem to be a rather bold and possibly extreme statement – but I hope I can offer an argument that supports it. Capitalism, particularly in its current globalised, neoliberal form, is fundamentally unsustainable - because it relies on ever-growing desire and consumption, underpinned by exploitation of people and of the earth’s finite resources in the service of profit. Capitalist economic systems encourage an insatiable desire for ‘more’ – more things, more money, more status, more fame, more of anything that can be sold and consumed. Such systems are rooted in a competitive and divisive view of humanity rather than in a cooperative and cohesive view.
Neo-liberal capitalism: wealth for the few, unrestrained growth
Certainly, laissez-faire or neoliberal capitalism is unsustainable and deeply divisive. So-called ‘free markets’, with no regulations to control excess and imbalance of power, lead only to increasing greed, exploitation, widening inequality of wealth and wellbeing, conflict between individuals, communities and nations, and the predatory exploitation of the earth, its resources and inhabitants (both human and non-human). The removal or minimising of regulations, along with a policy of privatisation, lead to an expansion of wealth and power for an elite and a diminution of wealth and power for everyone else.
The widening of the gap between rich and poor that has occurred in many, if not most, capitalist economies is the direct result of deregulation and privatisation. This is because most government regulations are devised to protect communities and individuals from exploitation and profiteering, and to protect the environment from degradation, pollution and damage to fragile ecosystems. Remove these constraints on the power, greed and predatory habits of the wealthy elite, and everyone will suffer.
It seems that one fundamental, yet misguided, dogma at the heart of the neo-liberal capitalist project, is a belief in the need for what is called ‘growth’. Two objections immediately come to mind in regard to this belief. First, nothing can grow forever – except perhaps the craving of some human beings for more. All systems, both natural and man-made, can only grow within certain limits and conditions, and growth is inevitably counterbalanced by decay and fallow periods. The second objection is that, in a world of finite resources, there are limits to the materials available for economic growth.
For us to cultivate better health, wellbeing and wisdom we need to wean ourselves off a belief in unlimited economic growth and to cultivate instead sustainable practices that enable us to make the most out of the least. Minimising our craving for more and reducing our consumption of resources, is vital if we are to rediscover balanced and sustainable ways for us all to live a good life. I say ‘rediscover’ because many indigenous peoples around the world, and many agrarian cultures in times past, had sustainable economies that valued collective wellbeing above private greed and profit.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that inequality and exploitation, fuelled by insatiable greed and consumption, lead inevitably to conflict – both between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, and between those at the top of the ladders of power who compete to hang on to what they have and to obtain more of what they have. (see Wilkinson & Pickett 2010) This competitive and divisive mentality, is deeply misguided, rooted as it is in what the Buddha often referred to as the three most powerful agents of human suffering: namely, craving, aggression, and delusion.
Neoliberal unregulated capitalism is a free-for-all in which the wealthiest and most powerful individuals seek to impose their values and beliefs on everyone else. This wealthy elite, in their secure islands and citadels are, inevitably, cut off from the poverty, violence and insecurity that is the day-to-day experience of countless millions of their fellow human beings. In the so-called ‘post-truth’ and digital age, these wealthy and powerful individuals have even developed ways of manipulating and controlling others, to the extent that their employees, consumers and ‘subjects’ wish for, and believe, much of what they are told – even when this goes against common-sense and available evidence.
A recent Oxfam investigation has found that ‘the richest 1% of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity.’ (Oxfam 2023) Apparently, the richest 10% of humanity produced approximately 50% of global carbon emissions. In other words, the wealthiest among us are not only extraordinarily rich, but also produce a disproportionate amount of carbon through their ‘personal consumption, investment portfolios, and share of government subsidies and infrastructure benefits.’ (Watts 2023: 11) When we consider that the poorest countries are also often the countries that are most affected by the extreme weather events that arise with climate change, it becomes obvious that there is a grave injustice here – and this injustice is a direct consequence of the capitalist ethos of putting consumption, profit and exploitation above everything.
Critical perspectives on unregulated capitalism: Dewey and Schumacher
In an essay published in 1931, the American social philosopher and educator, John Dewey, was very critical of the domination by ‘business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda.’ Dewey recognised [and remember he wrote this in the great depression of the 1930s] that ‘power today resides in control of the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Whoever owns them rules the life of the country.’ (in Chomsky 2017: 166) These are prescient words and Dewey’s argument is probably more relevant today than it was in the 1930s. The power of a wealthy elite who own and command a vast empire of mass media has grown exponentially in the past twenty-odd years. These individuals have the means to broadcast their own beliefs and opinions to a global audience. Whether used to do good or to do harm, this is a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a small number of fallible human beings.
Back in the 1970s, Fritz Schumacher wrote a book titled, Small is Beautiful: A study of Economics as if People Mattered. I still have my dog-eared 1974 copy. The book was very relevant then and, if anything, it is even more relevant today – though the end of the subtitle might perhaps be changed to ‘as if all beings mattered’. Schumacher argues that we ought to develop a new economics rooted in what he considers to be Buddhist values.
Amongst the many trenchant criticisms of capitalist economics, Schumacher writes: ‘The keynote of Buddhist economics […] is simplicity and non-violence.’ That is, try to maintain a simple, sustainable lifestyle, that does as little damage as possible to living creatures and to the earth upon which we depend. He goes on to point out that most modern economists measure the standard of living by the amount of consumption that takes place in an economy. There seems to be an assumption that a person who consumes more is ‘better off’ than someone who consumes less. Schumacher argues that this is a recipe for waste and environmental degradation. Instead, ‘the aim should be to obtain the maximum of wellbeing with the minimum of consumption.’ (Schumacher 1974: 47-48)
Schumacher also writes that ‘simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related.’ (ibid) Consuming as little as possible, when taken as an ethical anchor, means we do not feed and inflate our desires, and are thus more likely to enable everyone to have what they need without exploitation of the weak by the powerful. A more equitable distribution of wealth and power is possible. A modest use of resources - a life in which endless consumption is not taken as being vital or good – will enable everyone to live more sustainably. If there is less harmful competition for resources, then peace and collective harmony are more likely.
Sivaraksa: an engaged Buddhist perspective on consumerism and craving
In his book, Seeds of Peace, Sulak Sivaraksa, the Thai Buddhist activist, builds on Schumacher’s critique of consumerism. Sivaraksa argues that: ‘As long as development is measured in terms of material success, greed will create tension and conflict, and people will increasingly take advantage of, and oppress, one another for a materialistic payoff. If consumers would be more temperate in their desires [….] destructive systems of development and capitalism would fail.’ (Sivaraksa 1992: 41)
For Sivaraksa, consumerism and the exaggerated craving that drives and sustains it, are a primary cause of conflict within, and between, individuals and communities. He continues: ‘Consumerism supports those who have economic and political powers by rewarding their hatred, aggression and anger. And consumerism works hand in hand with the modern educational system to encourage cleverness without wisdom. We create delusion in ourselves and call it knowledge.’ (ibid: 8) This tendency conflicts with a basic Buddhist belief that the ‘three poisons,’ greed, aggression and delusion, are primary causes of avoidable suffering and conflict. (ibid: 8)
To achieve a more peaceful world, grounded in a more sustainable way of living, we have to work to reduce our greed and aggression, and develop greater understanding. The practice of mindful meditation and mindful living are important ways of helping to achieve peace and sustainability.
Gary Snyder on the need for an engaged Buddhism
The points I am trying to make are not new. Prior to Schumacher’s 1970s critique of capitalist economics, the American poet, Gary Snyder, had written an essay in 1961 titled, Buddhism and the Coming Revolution. Snyder was not only critical of the whole capitalist project. He also had this to say: ‘Institutional Buddhism has been conspicuously ready to accept or ignore the inequalities and tyrannies of whatever political system it found itself under.’ (Snyder 1969: 90) He suggests that this kind of acceptance on the part of Buddhist organisations is a betrayal of the Buddha’s teaching that compassion is to be cultivated alongside understanding. In Snyder’s words, ‘wisdom without compassion feels no pain.’ (ibid) Wilful ignorance, or avoidance, of political and economic realities amounts to delusion and irresponsibility – something we all need to keep in mind.
Using the language of his time, Snyder goes on: ‘The "free world" has become economically dependent on a fantastic system of stimulation of greed which cannot be fulfilled, sexual desire which cannot be satiated and hatred which has no outlet except against oneself, the persons one is supposed to love, or the revolutionary aspirations of pitiful, poverty-stricken marginal societies like Cuba or Vietnam.’ (ibid: 91) At this time, Cuba was under American blockade and the Vietnam war was being fought. Snyder is emphasising that Buddhist ethics is as important as meditation practice – mindful ethics are inseparable from mindful meditation and action.
To be mindful is to be aware of the web of political and economic relationships that radiate out from and around our immediate perceptions, thoughts and feelings. ‘Paying attention’ means to become aware of the economic and political forces at work in our society. As well as noticing the thoughts and feelings that come and go in our consciousness, we also need to notice that the bank that holds our savings may invest those savings in fossil fuel extraction companies or arms industries. Working to understand and transform the way we think and feel needs to go hand-in-hand with understanding and acting responsibly in relation to our social, economic and political actions.
For a reformed, more ethical capitalism
Somehow, we need to develop a form of capitalism that makes the most out of the least and measures its success not by consumption, private greed or profit but by sustainability and collective wellbeing. Only in this way can we lessen the burden we place on the earth and enable all beings to flourish. This goal of emancipation and flourishing for all beings is what is meant by the term, sukha. The prefix su- means something like ‘good and conducive to wellbeing’ – while the du- in ‘dukkha’ means ‘bad, difficult or inclining towards illness or harm’.
Transforming dukkha into sukha is possible if we moderate our cravings and consumption, care for all beings and look after this wonderful planet we inhabit. Rather than removing governments’ regulatory structures we need to maintain and extend the regulations that restrict the excesses and harmful effects of consumerism and profit-dominated business ethics. Transforming these forms of ethics into mindful ethics is vital if we are to develop sukha rather than dukkha. By mindful ethics I mean an ethics rooted in both paying attention and ‘minding’ – that is caring, being kind, being attentive to the needs of all beings. In terms of the Eightfold Path or Eight Tasks this can be iterated as mindful understanding, intention, action, communication, livelihood, effort, awareness and concentration.
Mindful awareness and mindful ethics can enable us to observe both our own thoughts, feelings and perceptions, and the wider political, economic and social networks within which we live and work. The writer, Katherine Rundell, in an interview in the Financial Times, argues that we need to think of paying attention ‘as a bodily and political act, not just an intellectual discipline. The same way that being attentive to a guest means not just looking at them but understanding their needs and providing for them.’ (Rundell 2022: 3)
It is this kind of mindful attention - combining care with clear awareness - that needs to be extended to the social and political sphere. By being mindful of how we think, feel and act, we can begin to understand what needs to be done to transform ourselves and our society – cultivating insight, compassion and wellbeing, rather than delusion, aggression and suffering. Learning how to let go of harmful preconceptions and prejudices can enable us to develop a more balanced and wise view of what is going on around us. Such a balanced, calm and mindful view might enable us to articulate positive and creative criticisms of our society, its economic and political structures and even our religious traditions - which are always in need of revision in the light of changing conditions and understandings.
Conclusion
I would like to end with another quote from Sulak Sivaraksa: ‘In Buddhism, income and wealth are not indicators of prosperity. Buddhism values a peaceful life in which one relates harmoniously to all sentient beings and the environment.’ (Sivaraksa 2016: 83) If we all prioritised investing in life and wellbeing rather than in death and suffering – for instance, ensuring our savings are invested in sustainable and beneficial businesses, recycling things whenever possible, mending our own clothes and appliances, and if we have space, growing our own food – we would all be contributing to a more sustainable economy. ‘Making the most out of the least’, ‘make do and mend’ and ‘waste not, want not’ are very useful mottos. They are as relevant today as they were in the 1950s – when post-second world war shortages meant everyone appreciated their relevance and usefulness. Such mottos, combined with mindful awareness, ethics and action, point to a future in which we can live well and be at peace with each other by developing a revised and renewed economics that is based not on consumption and profit, but on caring for each other and caring for this earth which has everything we need, if only we live simply and mindfully.
References
Chomsky, Naom. 2017. Optimism Over Despair. London: Penguin.
Oxfam. 2023. Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99%. Online at: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/mc/qer7km/ - accessed 1 December 2023.
Rundell, Katherine. 2022. Article: Lunch with the FT, in Financial Times Weekend, 1-2 October 2022.
Schumacher, E.F. 1974. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Abacus.
Sivaraksa, Sulak. 1992. Seeds of Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society. Berkeley: Parallax Press.
Sivaraksa, Sulak. 2016. The Wisdom of Sustainability: Buddhist Economics for the 21st Century. Asheville USA: Koa Books.
Snyder, Gary. 1969. Earth House Hold. New York: New Directions.
Watts, Jonathan. 2023. Article: The Oil Barons. Guardian Weekly, 24 November 2023, pp. 11-12.
Wilkinson, Richard & Pickett, Kate. 2010. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin.
