Taoism and Marxism

[Red Rabbit]

Lately I've taken quite the interest in Taoism. I've been reading up on it and it seems to me that as a non-theistic religion/philosophy it would fit well with Marxism.

However, my knowledge in it is limited as I just recently started to study it.

What are your guys' thoughts? Is it compatible with Marxism?

[The Jay]

I am under the impression that taoism is that it doesn't hold very many beliefs at all. I don't get it much myself since it doesn't offer pre/proscriptions.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I've thought about this also. I concluded that Taoism is completely incompatible with Marxism as it advocates complacency with the way things are. It is also based on an anti-materialist cosmology which posits an invisible force called "chi" controls the universe. This kind of thinking is what leads people to believe there is no use in actively trying to better your life in the material world apart from accepting this invisible force and becoming "one" with it.

[RedGrunt]

Taoism has Dialectics in it. Outside of that, it's not explicitly compatible with Marxist thought. But it doesn't mean it can't be taken in a different light. It's old Chinese philosophy there's no need to take it as it is and think it absolute. I mean.. Hegel's dialectic was completely idealistic but Marx used it for a different purpose. I for one have the book, as well as the Bhagavad Gita. I find both extremely enlightening, just as I do buddhism or any other philosophy(including religion). The point is not to take it absolutely and literal.

[RedAnarchist]

I've heard that philosophical Taoism is supposedly similar to anarchism, but I don't know enough about Taoism to make a comment on that comparison.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Philosophical Taoism is compatible with Marxism but religious Taoism is very metaphysical. The philosophy was written by a group of ancient sages, most famous of which is Laotzi, and does not require any great metaphysical commitment. On the other hand the religion developed from the mix of that philosophy with the Chinese folk paganism and has created a complex pantheon on mythical beings.


I've thought about this also. I concluded that Taoism is completely incompatible with Marxism as it advocates complacency with the way things are. It is also based on an anti-materialist cosmology which posits an invisible force called "chi" controls the universe. This kind of thinking is what leads people to believe there is no use in actively trying to better your life in the material world apart from accepting this invisible force and becoming "one" with it.

Saying Taoism calls for complacency and inactivity is a mistaken way of thinking about it. Taoist philosophy instead calls for effortlessness, ie the sage or truly wise person does not strive for what he cannot achieve but tries for perfection in what they do, and does not do things for personal greatness but because they are the thing which needs to be done. As a philosophy it calls for acting but with humility and pragmatism but without vanity or personal greed.

As for the idea of "Chi", well, I don't think it's an anti-materialist cosmology as much as an attempt to deal with questions which are hard to answer with obvious material concepts, ie how our surroundings affect our mood, how life comes out of a body constructed from inert matter, etc. For a 2-3,000 year old philosophical system I think they did quite well.


I've heard that philosophical Taoism is supposedly similar to anarchism, but I don't know enough about Taoism to make a comment on that comparison.

Yes it is, at least on an abstract level. The general implication of Taoism is the best kind of government is a government which governs effortlessly, and the way an effortless government is described, the implication certainly seems to be either a withdrawal or non-existence of government institutions. The poems in the tao de ching oppose governments which try to force the masses to live or think in a certain way, impose taxes or raise arms for war. At the least, it is interesting to see a 2,000+ year old sage take such a critical view of government and the state.


*I deleted my previous message and reposted it with a response to RedAnarchist*

[Tenka]

The Tao Te Ching is the largest fortune cookie fortune I've ever read.
That said, I'm sure it is compatible with Marxism on some level, but also I've heard some free-market lolbertarians loving on it.:(

[blake 3:17]

I don't Taoism is incompatible with Marxism or revolutionary thought. Chuang Tzu is the really rocking one.

[Astarte]

Not sure how Tao Teh Ching = fortune cookie as there is no actual divination implicit in it. If you actually read the Tao Teh Ching comprehensively it is a text about how the author perceived reality based on the dialectic between yin and yang i.e. positive and negative.

EDIT: As for Taoism and revolutionary thought please look up the "Yellow Turbans Rebellion", Boxer Rebellion, Taiping rebellion. While none of them are Marxian, it is hard to deny the revolutionary character of these movements - that is the mass uprising of the lower classes and an attempt to establish a new order, all be it semi-consciously, and pre-Marxian. There are a lot of good books on this subject. "Primitive Rebels" by Hobsbawm is one of them.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the I-ching informs more of Taoism that LaoTzu's writings (it's quite likely LaoTzu was familiar with it), and actually quite legitimately seen as superficially reminiscent of the dialectic. So maybe it's a precursor to Hegel, and Hegel himself seems to have been very vaguely aware of this. This invites comparisons to Marx.

I think the similarities end there, however. Even under its most sympathetic reading the cannons of Taoism are hardly materialist, it certainly does not analyze class (despite what its contemporary audience may try to impute on it) and it makes rather grandiose claims about eternal human nature, precisely the sorts of self-serving ruling class pronouncements Marx railed against.

I will say this however. I find the Tao Te Ching is an incredibly beautifully written text of the ancient world. It's poetry is resonates impressively with me far more than many of the Greeks, Sanskrits or Romans I've read, and although I have not read the Quran in its original Arabic, of all the major world's religious texts I find it the most serene.

[Astarte]

I think the I-ching informs more of Taoism that LaoTzu's writings (it's quite likely LaoTzu was familiar with it), and actually quite legitimately seen as superficially reminiscent of the dialectic. So maybe it's a precursor to Hegel, and Hegel himself seems to have been very vaguely aware of this. This invites comparisons to Marx.

I think the similarities end there, however. Even under its most sympathetic reading the cannons of Taoism are hardly materialist, it certainly does not analyze class (despite what its contemporary audience may try to impute on it) and it makes rather grandiose claims about eternal human nature, precisely the sorts of self-serving ruling class pronouncements Marx railed against.

I will say this however. I find the Tao Te Ching is an incredibly beautifully written text of the ancient world. It's poetry is resonates impressively with me far more than many of the Greeks, Sanskrits or Romans I've read, and although I have not read the Quran in its original Arabic, of all the major world's religious texts I find it the most serene.

You should read the Huai Nan Tzu. I think it is unfair to say that all of Taoism's commentaries on human affairs (eternal human nature - what do you mean?) are grandiose.

Here is an excerpt. http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/tgl/tgl7.htm

[black magick hustla]

i dont see why is useful to accept a doctrine simply because you like some of its prescriptions

[Satyr696]

I always believed that adding a bit or Oriental influences could actually be very useful. Parts of Buddhism, Confucianism or Daoism could easily add something great to Left-wing politics.

Why?
Buddhism: anti-material, atheist (in essence, often mixed though), humanitarian. I'm not calling for Lamaism, though. I'm writing this with Thailand in the back of my mind where people give what they want to give - not because of force, but because they want to help the people who help them spiritually.
Confucianism: loyalty towards the state, a healthy system of responsibility between certain groups of people (boss has to take care of workers and the other way around).
Daoism... I'm not much into it, but I like the anti-materialistic parts of it. Even though I study Chinese, my knowledge of this belief system is very limited.

They shouldn't become more important than Communism, but the good parts of them can really rub off on Communism :)

[Jolly Red Giant]

This is one of the most interesting discussions that I have read on RevLeft for some time.

A few obersvations and then some comments
1. It is necessary to remember that the Taoism is its original form (as written in the Tao Te Ching) is not a religion - indeed it is anti-religion
2. The text ws written 2,500-3,000 years ago - this is vital in taking into account some of the formulations that exist in the text.
3. The Tao Te Ching is dialectical
4. The Tao Te Ching is also materialist in outlook.
5. In comparison to the other later philosophies right up to Marxism it contains remarkable insights that none of the others even come close to
6. Like Marxism - philosophical Taoism is a method rather than a doctrine
7. Taoism was suppressed by the ruling class and also diverted into religious belief by the ruling class because of the threat it posed to the ruling elites during the period it was written and after
8. There are many different translations of the Tao Te Ching - the translations can demonstrate the bias of the translator

So - some comments into the dialectic and materialist nature of philosophical Taoism

Remembering the following

1. It was written at least 2,500 years ago
2. That the word 'Tao' can have many meanings
3. That the verses of the Tao Te Ching can have many different interpretations
4. It is the different interpretations that make it an interesting text and make philosophical Taoism an interesting subject
5. I am of the view that Taoism and the Tao Te Ching adopts a similar approach to analysing society as Marxism and in the context of not having the evidence of the evolution of society through a number of stages of growth, has remarkable insight in a dialectical and materialist sense
6. These are my interpretations of selected parts of the text
7. I am sure there are a lot of people on this forum that will take great pleasure in proving me wrong.


comment 1

Verse 1

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao

It is not doctrinaire - not to be taken literally - it is a 'way' or method

comment 2

Example of the use of dialectics (and there are numerous examples)

Verse 2

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

and verse 11

We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.


comment 3

Scientific understanding (thinking of the 'way' as energy)

Verse 7

The Tao is infinite, eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born;
thus it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another

comment 4

Socialist outlook

Verse 8

In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present

Comment 5

Rejecting religion

Verse 4

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Self explanitory

comment 6

Rejection of ownership of property (again several examples)

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.

Outlining that systems based on absolute (religious) beliefs and ownership of property lead to conflict

comment 7

Class consciousness

Verse 33

Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.

and verse 65

When they think that they know the answers,
people are difficult to guide.
When they know that they don't know,
people can find their own way.

comment 8

The use of labour transforms everything

Verse 37

The Tao never does anything,
yet through it all things are done.

The labour expended by workers leads to a situation where 'all things are done'

comment 9

The consequences of a class based society

Verse 38

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

comment 10

Condemnation of a class based society

Verse 53

When rich speculators prosper
While farmers lose their land;
when government officials spend money
on weapons instead of cures;
when the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible
while the poor have nowhere to turn-
all this is robbery and chaos.
It is not in keeping with the Tao.

comment 11

The nature of a classless society

Verse 57

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

comment 12

For those who dismiss socialism as 'impractical'

Verse 67

Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Others call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves,
this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And to those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep.

comment 13

Having an understanding of the nature of society and an ability to adapt to changing circumstances

Verse 76

Men are born soft and supple;
dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plats are born tender and pliant;
dead, they are brittle and dry.

Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible
is a disciple of death.
Whoever is soft and yielding
is a disciple of life.

The hard and stiff will be broken.
The soft and supple will prevail.

Have some fun :cool:

[Enragé]

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

then what would happen when faith is lost?

Anyway, this all sounds quite interesting. Think im gonna read it. A longtime friend of mine (also anarchist) once told me he likes taoism alot too, never really thought of looking into it in a detailed fashion tho. I did read 'The Tao of Pooh' one time xD Like children's book about taoism starring winnie the pooh :P My gf had it lying around. Liked it.

edit: what would be the best translation to use? since there are like 250 different ones o0

[Philosopher Jay]

I'm not sure what the word "compatible" means here. If it means can someone be a Marxist and Taoist at the same time, I don't see why not. If it means something like does does Marxism support Taoism or Taoism support Marxism, I would say no.
It is more or less like saying is being a Harry Potter fan compatible with Marxism. I don't think being a Harry Potter fan will make you a better Marxist or being a Marxist will make you a better Harry Potter fan. They compatible in that there really isn't any contradiction between them.

[enver criticism]

I am a Chinese.Taoism is anti-marxism.For example,Taoism is Negation of sure,with no dialectical sublation,but marxism is negation of the negation.Change the world is more important than explain the world,but Taoists do not think so

[hatzel]

Change the world is more important than explain the world,but Taoists do not think so

I sense shades of Marx here. Which then demands we cite Heidegger's famous comments on the subject:


The question of the demand for world change leads us back to Karl Marx's frequently quoted statement from his Theses on Feuerbach. I would like to quote it exactly and read out loud: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; what matters is to change it." When this statement is cited and when it is followed, it is overlooked that changing the world presupposes a change in the conception of the world. A conception of the world can only be won by adequately interpreting the world.

That means: Marx's demand for a "change" is based upon on a very definite interpretation of the world, and therefore this statement is proved to be without foundation. It gives the impression that it speaks decisively against philosophy, whereas the second half of the statement presupposes, unspoken, a demand for philosophy.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is far from clear just why changing the world presupposes a change in the conception of the world. But that's probably just Martin's obscurantist self talking.

But furthermore, the final paragraph makes no sense, especially the assessment of the lack of foundation for the demand, which indeed should be taken as more of a historical assessment of the role of philospher's and their systems in human societies, something which Heidegger fails to comprehend, obviously. And to scale down to rhetorical analysis, it's very hard to see just how does Marx's statement give off the impression that it decisevely speaks against philosophy, considering the fact that what is being criticized is the lack of concrete practice (philosophers have only interpreted the world differently).

But in the end, I'm afraid that Martin has completely missed the point of this thesis, precisely because he disregards its aspect of (very condensed, but still) concrete historical assessment.

[Hit The North]

Yeah, the logical conclusion of Marx's dictum is that the transformation of material reality is the act of material beings engaging in material practices and hedged in by specific material conditions, not by philosophers who's contemplation has led them to a particular understanding of the world. This is why Marx says that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves - and why he abandoned speculative philosophy for a theory of praxis.

Heideggar might like to think that he and his profession are engaged in real work but, as Marx realised, they are just blowing it out of their arses.

[Astarte]

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.


then what would happen when faith is lost?


You are thinking of this from too much of a "Western" mindset. The last two lines say "Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos".

You ask what happens when faith is lost. The husk of true faith is the beginning of chaos. This means that the faith actually is constantly negated, over and over - that is why it is the beginning of chaos. The 'negation' the largest piece of dialecticalism in Taoism.

Welcome to the "faith" of mysticism.

[blake 3:17]

But furthermore, the final paragraph makes no sense, especially the assessment of the lack of foundation for the demand, which indeed should be taken as more of a historical assessment of the role of philospher's and their systems in human societies, something which Heidegger fails to comprehend, obviously.

UH -- not obvious at all -- please explain.

[Rooster]

I think I could see where some people might conflate taoism with dialectics, possibly through a misunderstanding of one or both of them. I was under the impression that taoism was the unity of opposites to create a balance; can't have evil with good, etc. I'm probably wrong in this though, but that's my impression of what I've looked into many years ago. Dialectics on the other hand is more about the over coming of antagonisms, not so much about creating a balance. I'm sure I read about Mao's idea of dialectics and it's been changed to follow more taoism.