Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by ForteanOrg
Every society has classes - defined or undefined.
No, every society has people that vastly differ in many aspects, say talents and character, but all should have equal rights. Equality does not equal
The old caste system in India based on the notion of groups of talented. That is a very common notion and is comparable to the old guild system we had
(and in a modified form still have) in Europe. Guilds were meant to build and exchange knowledge about a certain trade. Anybody that had the proper
talents could decide to join a Guild. Sounds good, right: equality, because anybody that wants to can join the Guild. But it wasn't all that good.
Any group of people also has political and societal power. In many cases members of a Guild just thought about their own good, not about that of
society in general. As an example: in my own country the Guild of Sawers was responsible for sawing logs into planks. This was done by hand and was a
costly affair. When a Dutchmen build a mill to saw the planks using a simple wind-driven machine (a sawmill), he was forced out of the city by the
Guild of Sawers, who saw (sic) their trade in jeopardy. It was only because he was able to continue his work outside the city that the Dutch were
able to build many cheap ships, which in turn allowed them to trade with the rest of the world, the dawn of our so-called 'Golden Age'. Had it been
for the Guild of Sawers we would still be sawing planks from trees by hand..
The classes by occupation called Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra mentioned in Veda are widely mis-understood.
Thanks for the list. You forgot the Untouchables. Now, officially they are not part of the Vedic system, but in practice India had a large group of
people that were treated as the garbage they collected.
The classes in Veda are NOT hereditary. There is no "caste" system mentioned anywhere in Veda. There is NO separation of classes. So this is no
different from any successful modern society.
Theory and practice vary wildly - as you already pointed out a number of times when we discuss socialism but fail to mention when we talk about Vedic
In theory, classes are not hereditary. But in practice they were. You were born inside a caste and it was VERY difficult to get out. As India moved
on, it is now possible to marry outside your caste - if your are not in a rural area. Because in many rural area's the castes still dictate whom you
can or can not marry and what type of work you can do. And even today we still have the 'untouchables', a bloody shame if you ask me.
That there is some 'cross class breeding' going on in India is made possible by the democratic forces in India whom moved India forward from the
'strong leaders' phase into the 'democracy' phase. The next logical step after democracy is socialism, not a fall back to the Vedic 'strong leaders'
You mention a few countries who have large welfare programs. These countries are not "socialist" by any measure but provide free healthcare, nutrition
and housing support to poor.
Yes, that's what I said: that we do not
have a real socialist country on this planet nor ever have seen one. But elements of the socialist
approach have been implemented, the ones you describe for example.
These principles are very close to Vedic principles which advises employers to take care of every need of employees (including marriage of
children) and advises the King that nobody should die of hunger. King is advised to take care of basic needs of people.
Well, if it works, it works. But it did not work and hence is replaced. See, my friend, in the end there is only ONE party that will stand up for the
people: it are the people themselves.
However Veda supports the principle of earning the wages. So kings started large construction projects in the weak economic cycles to provide
more employment. Doles is equal to donations in Vedic system. Supporting the poor and needy is clearly provided and is in fact duty of an Arya. This
works like this - a doctor will provide medical care free or at low cost to the poor for example.
So, the poor are at the mercy of the doctor
. If he does not want to treat them, he does not. That is unthinkable in a socialist system, where
all are treated the same and the doctor is payed the same for the treatment.
3. You have to tell me a successful "socialist" country by example. Then we shall take from there.
I fail to see why I need to tell you about a successful socialist country to discuss socialism. As I have pointed out many times before: we haven't
seen any truly socialist country / state yet. There is a lot of work being done to implement socialist values - with success.
edit on 1-6-2013
by ForteanOrg because: spelling errors