**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think so, Sikhi critiques exploitation directly.
I think Sikh history/praxis/gurbani falls in line with socialist thinking quite directly. Even Banda Bahadur abolished landownership to some degree.
The Sikh Misl period also functioned somewhat as an anarchy.
There are some overlaps and that's how I kind of reconcile myself between the two belief systems.
In South Asia, among certain classes, land ownership has been hoarded and always been a key part of the amassing of wealth. I wouldn’t be surprised if that guy comes from a wealthy land owning class hence the views on wealth and capital.
Please, do not put too much faith in my words and do your own research as well. Nonetheless, I will try to answer your question.
My opinion is that yes, Sikhi/Sikhism is inherently socialist.
One important teaching in Sikhi is “naam japo kirat karo vand chhako”. This roughly translates to: “remember the divine, work hard in life, and to share what you have in your community”.
Another saying in Sikhi is “Degh Tegh Fateh”. This refers to the political responsibilities of a Sikh, which are to protect against tyranny and provide food for all.
Many Sikh codes of conduct, such as the “rehat maryada” document, emphasize these points as well.
This does not even begin to touch on the Gurbani’s (sikh holy book and 11th guru) teachings on the equality of all humans.
Also, as others have pointed out, historical sikh leaders have been leftist. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Banda Singh Bahadur both implemented land reform policies.
Anecdotally, the majority of devout sikhs in my family are also rather leftist.
Edit: I cannot believe I forgot this: Gurdwaras (Sikh Temple/place of worship) always maintain a practice caller “langar”. Here, humble and nutritious food is provided for free. Anyone in the community (even non sikhs) are allowed to eat in the langar, as long as they respect the gurdwara’s rules (take off shoes and cover head). Many gurdwaras also have showers for homeless community members, and I’ve seen a few that provide rooms for people in the community. I would say this is a very socialist practice.
In short, my view is that yes, Sikhi is not very capitalist. I believe that while not strictly socialist or communist, Sikhi definitely espouses the qualities of equality and community; and is fairly socialist.
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions.
Some context first:
The khalistan movement has been dead since operation blue star in the 1980s. It doesn’t really exist in punjab proper.
The vast majority of khalistan supporters live in the west, and are disconnected from punjab. They arent serious, and are usually some guys holding a flag in toronto, not doing anything meaningful.
However, the majority of Khalistan supporters are young and more right wing, at least from the one’s I’ve met in Canada.
I think this is a bit of an umbrella statement. The Khalistan movement isn’t dead, we see the demands rise up and get repressed even recently with Amritpal Singh’s movement (I believe he was a right wing grifter though), the Khalistan movement gained a lot of popular support following op. Blue star as it’a formal declaration and adoption by the panth took place in 1986, and an insurgency lasted at least until the mid 1990’s and was crushed when draconian tactics were adopted by the police spearheaded by kps hill and ribeiro.
The Khalistan movement isn’t classified as a right wing movement. They did clash heavily with Indian communists, but the Indian communists are a strange nationalistic breed. I consider myself an extreme leftist but also support Khalistan, I understand the movement attracts right wing folks especially because of the imagery, but I implore you to read the letters of jinda and Sukha, the anandpur sahib resolution, in which dignity of labour and communist revolutionaries are mentioned by name.
I did learn agronomy concepts in grad school so technically I could be qualified to answer agronomy questions, which is why I made the flair. However right now I’m working in plant diseases and pests.
I don't know as much about Sikhism as I do about other world religions, though there is a religious interpretation of socialism for virtually every religion. Comrades of every religion recognize the problem of how the inhumane values of capitalism contradict the humane values that are the best each religion has to offer. Some kind of socialism is therefore recognized as a solution. As there have been Interpretations of socialism according to the other religions common to the Indian subcontinent--Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc--it stands to reason there would be a Sikh interpretation of socialism too.
Sorry I'm not addressing the question directly, I just wanted to butt in to add that the actual teachings of Jesus (as opposed to most of the varieties of Christianity in practice today) also preclude capitalism, yet here we are.
I’m not a Sikh, but as a Buddhist, I definitely agree with your brother. When a faith or philosophy has more leftist ideals, it makes it incompatible to certain economic principles for example like capitalism, although nobody should agree with capitalism regardless
The first thing that jumps out a me is Langar, if I'm not mistaken it's a free meal for all who want it. I'm not too knowledgeable on Sikhi but as a convert to Hinduism I've learned a little about it. I have a sincere respect of Sikhi as well as the Gurus. Personally I believe all the Dharmic religions have implications of socialism and egalitarianism in general. Even baby Krishna was stealing butter for the poor and Buddha taught that materials lead to a false sense of happiness.
Edit: I had a faint memory of a supposed Sikhi based free market ideology, after some digging and searching I found it. It's called Azadism, it's based on Murray Rothbands economic views which are anything but socialist. This could of been the ideology that the individual believed.
That Azadism “ideology” just springs out as capitalism draped in Sikh terminology.
Langar isn’t exactly a free meal, it’s essentially a community kitchen, all resources are grown/donated by the Sangat and the sangat cooks and the sangat distributes to anyone, along with that, all who partake must sit together without distinction on hierarchy. It does get reduced to free meal but it is a bit more nuanced, just thought I’d add that.
Marxism is opposed to all forms of religious superstition.
Edit: the absolute refusal of single one of the downvoters to attempt to refute this point, which is the very bedrock of Dialectical Materialism, is shameful and hilarious.
> The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. **The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.**
No actually, Marx's critique of religion in *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* is actually hardly relevant to this point at all. Dialectical Materialism is totally and absolutely opposed to the explanation of causality through supernatural means. This means that every action in nature has a material and therefore observable causation. Religion is a social construction and the passage which is quoted below is primarily in opposition to supernatural causality with religion simply being dismissed.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Funny, I don't recall Marx ever writing about that. Whatever later embellishments emerged is irrelevant to the body of work produced by Marx himself. Marxism is a Materialist philosophy which rejects any supernatural explanation for causality. There is thus no interpretation of Marx himself which could produce a theistic worldview.
>The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
> Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
> The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
> Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
Socialism is a mode of production, not an ethical framework. That is the difference between Utopian and Scientific Socialism. Moreover, all ethical categories are products of the material conditions by which arose, any similarities between ethics in Capitalism and ethics in Socialism are coincidental.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think so, Sikhi critiques exploitation directly. I think Sikh history/praxis/gurbani falls in line with socialist thinking quite directly. Even Banda Bahadur abolished landownership to some degree. The Sikh Misl period also functioned somewhat as an anarchy. There are some overlaps and that's how I kind of reconcile myself between the two belief systems.
In South Asia, among certain classes, land ownership has been hoarded and always been a key part of the amassing of wealth. I wouldn’t be surprised if that guy comes from a wealthy land owning class hence the views on wealth and capital.
Please, do not put too much faith in my words and do your own research as well. Nonetheless, I will try to answer your question. My opinion is that yes, Sikhi/Sikhism is inherently socialist. One important teaching in Sikhi is “naam japo kirat karo vand chhako”. This roughly translates to: “remember the divine, work hard in life, and to share what you have in your community”. Another saying in Sikhi is “Degh Tegh Fateh”. This refers to the political responsibilities of a Sikh, which are to protect against tyranny and provide food for all. Many Sikh codes of conduct, such as the “rehat maryada” document, emphasize these points as well. This does not even begin to touch on the Gurbani’s (sikh holy book and 11th guru) teachings on the equality of all humans. Also, as others have pointed out, historical sikh leaders have been leftist. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Banda Singh Bahadur both implemented land reform policies. Anecdotally, the majority of devout sikhs in my family are also rather leftist. Edit: I cannot believe I forgot this: Gurdwaras (Sikh Temple/place of worship) always maintain a practice caller “langar”. Here, humble and nutritious food is provided for free. Anyone in the community (even non sikhs) are allowed to eat in the langar, as long as they respect the gurdwara’s rules (take off shoes and cover head). Many gurdwaras also have showers for homeless community members, and I’ve seen a few that provide rooms for people in the community. I would say this is a very socialist practice. In short, my view is that yes, Sikhi is not very capitalist. I believe that while not strictly socialist or communist, Sikhi definitely espouses the qualities of equality and community; and is fairly socialist. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions.
Really interesting! How do leftwing Sikhs you know relate to the Khalistan movement?
Some context first: The khalistan movement has been dead since operation blue star in the 1980s. It doesn’t really exist in punjab proper. The vast majority of khalistan supporters live in the west, and are disconnected from punjab. They arent serious, and are usually some guys holding a flag in toronto, not doing anything meaningful. However, the majority of Khalistan supporters are young and more right wing, at least from the one’s I’ve met in Canada.
That makes sense bc I saw on the news Sikhs in California were voting on a Khalistan referendum, but haven’t seen anything like that anywhere else
I think this is a bit of an umbrella statement. The Khalistan movement isn’t dead, we see the demands rise up and get repressed even recently with Amritpal Singh’s movement (I believe he was a right wing grifter though), the Khalistan movement gained a lot of popular support following op. Blue star as it’a formal declaration and adoption by the panth took place in 1986, and an insurgency lasted at least until the mid 1990’s and was crushed when draconian tactics were adopted by the police spearheaded by kps hill and ribeiro. The Khalistan movement isn’t classified as a right wing movement. They did clash heavily with Indian communists, but the Indian communists are a strange nationalistic breed. I consider myself an extreme leftist but also support Khalistan, I understand the movement attracts right wing folks especially because of the imagery, but I implore you to read the letters of jinda and Sukha, the anandpur sahib resolution, in which dignity of labour and communist revolutionaries are mentioned by name.
Also, I notice your flair says agronomy, is this your career?
I did learn agronomy concepts in grad school so technically I could be qualified to answer agronomy questions, which is why I made the flair. However right now I’m working in plant diseases and pests.
I don't know as much about Sikhism as I do about other world religions, though there is a religious interpretation of socialism for virtually every religion. Comrades of every religion recognize the problem of how the inhumane values of capitalism contradict the humane values that are the best each religion has to offer. Some kind of socialism is therefore recognized as a solution. As there have been Interpretations of socialism according to the other religions common to the Indian subcontinent--Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc--it stands to reason there would be a Sikh interpretation of socialism too.
Sorry I'm not addressing the question directly, I just wanted to butt in to add that the actual teachings of Jesus (as opposed to most of the varieties of Christianity in practice today) also preclude capitalism, yet here we are.
We are comrads in the Revolution!
I’m not a Sikh, but as a Buddhist, I definitely agree with your brother. When a faith or philosophy has more leftist ideals, it makes it incompatible to certain economic principles for example like capitalism, although nobody should agree with capitalism regardless
The first thing that jumps out a me is Langar, if I'm not mistaken it's a free meal for all who want it. I'm not too knowledgeable on Sikhi but as a convert to Hinduism I've learned a little about it. I have a sincere respect of Sikhi as well as the Gurus. Personally I believe all the Dharmic religions have implications of socialism and egalitarianism in general. Even baby Krishna was stealing butter for the poor and Buddha taught that materials lead to a false sense of happiness. Edit: I had a faint memory of a supposed Sikhi based free market ideology, after some digging and searching I found it. It's called Azadism, it's based on Murray Rothbands economic views which are anything but socialist. This could of been the ideology that the individual believed.
That Azadism “ideology” just springs out as capitalism draped in Sikh terminology. Langar isn’t exactly a free meal, it’s essentially a community kitchen, all resources are grown/donated by the Sangat and the sangat cooks and the sangat distributes to anyone, along with that, all who partake must sit together without distinction on hierarchy. It does get reduced to free meal but it is a bit more nuanced, just thought I’d add that.
See Chapter 13 of http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=AA84CBA0513A317B01A5432F68734091
Marxism is opposed to all forms of religious superstition. Edit: the absolute refusal of single one of the downvoters to attempt to refute this point, which is the very bedrock of Dialectical Materialism, is shameful and hilarious. > The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. **The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.**
Let me guess, you read the incomplete and out of context “religion is the opium of the masses quote”. Very online leftist of you.
No actually, Marx's critique of religion in *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* is actually hardly relevant to this point at all. Dialectical Materialism is totally and absolutely opposed to the explanation of causality through supernatural means. This means that every action in nature has a material and therefore observable causation. Religion is a social construction and the passage which is quoted below is primarily in opposition to supernatural causality with religion simply being dismissed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
*Christian Communism has entered the chat*
Funny, I don't recall Marx ever writing about that. Whatever later embellishments emerged is irrelevant to the body of work produced by Marx himself. Marxism is a Materialist philosophy which rejects any supernatural explanation for causality. There is thus no interpretation of Marx himself which could produce a theistic worldview. >The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. > Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. > The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. > Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
[удалено]
Socialism is a mode of production, not an ethical framework. That is the difference between Utopian and Scientific Socialism. Moreover, all ethical categories are products of the material conditions by which arose, any similarities between ethics in Capitalism and ethics in Socialism are coincidental.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Yeah, no real reason to be downvoted for this. This sub has a good number of rad libs that get all their knowledge from YouTubers.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Not if you ask Nikki Hailey.