Is Buddhist Philosophy Compatible With Marxism?

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

Out of curiousity, would anyone care to find contradictions within them? The biggest one being the violent revolution aside, are there any contradictions in relation to the other principles?

[Exterminatus]

It is absolutely incompatible. Buddhism is an incredibly reactionary, superstitious and frankly disgusting religion that should worry us greatly because it is in fact the religion of global capitalism today. Buddhism as it manifests today (i.e. the only way it can manifest) is totally harmonious with the reproduction of the existing relations, with it's propagation of "passivity" or a return to some inner "authentic" self. This matches perfectly well with the ruling pseudo-cynical ideology that is prevalent today

[Antiochus]

^^Yes, what a lot of people forget is that those picturesque Buddhist temples in Tibet were built by slaves.

[Ale Brider]

I would argue that Buddhism is "incredibly reactionary", however it is truly incompatible with any kind of Marxism, really. Even if you are subscribing to the less-materialistic obscurantism of Maoism-Third Worldism and the like. First of all, Buddhism is inherently idealistic, it has a belief in spirit, et cetera. And while the materialism of Marx is not simply the "contemplative", epistemological and ontological materialism of, say, Feuerbach, or other earlier materialists, it is still materialism. Consider also that Buddhism has a strong cyclical conception of time. And while the first forms of dialectical thinking (Heraclitus for example) can be applied within such a conception of time, the materialistic dialectics of Marx (due to its materialist and Hegelian origins) is based entirely on the irreversibility and linearity regarding time. To see the history of class struggle as a cyclical one is erroneus. Debord is a great (and fun) read regarding the relevance of the concept of time, he wrote some paragraphs about it in Society of the Spectacle, check it out if you are interested. Aside from the idealistic nature and the deeply rooted cyclical concept of time, Buddhism in almost all of its existing forms is either neutral to Marxism and the existing communist movements, or even hostile. There is a secularized, westernized (one could say bastardized and bizarrely lifeless) form of Buddhism, which manifests itself mainly as corporate zen. Explained in simple terms, it has a function of balancing a life out of balance (a typical life in hypercapitalism) and it is also a symptom how utterly insane capitalism is, if it needs to incorporate a bizarre mutation of Eastern philosophy to function properly without people committing mass suicide or organizing protests. On the other hand, there are traditional tendencies of Buddhism, too, mostly in Asia of course, where its role is more simple: to speak in Marxist clichés, it is part of the superstructure. It is ideology, which maintains and legitimizes colorful forms of oppression. Even where Buddhism as a part of identity (in Tibet) would be capable of being revolutionary (not strictly in a Marxist sense of the word) it is not, because of its very basic tenets. Of course it is not capable of being revolutionary: a revolution is basically increasing the dukkha for a short period of time, which is ethically insane from a Buddhist point of view as far as I know. Of course Buddhism is an old and colorful tradition and it had violent sects as well (Sohei, teachings of Chigaku, Wirathu and Buddhist terrorism etc), but still none of those were revolutionary. So we are kind of arriving at the conclusion that Buddhism is even capable of being violent, but never will be capable of being revolutionary. Progressive, perhaps. Look at Ambedkar and the dalit Buddhist movement he started. It shows that Buddhism can work as an emancipatory force and that the Hindu tradition in India is more closely and intimately tied to reactionary political tendencies than Buddhism. This is, however, while uplifting and positive, still not compatible with communism. And we of course have the contemporary Western non-corporate, sometimes even anti-capitalist Buddhists, and such, but I didn't mentioned them because it is just a trend. It is lifestyle, and communism (and especially Marxism) is not a lifestyle.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Out of curiousity, would anyone care to find contradictions within them? The biggest one being the violent revolution aside, are there any contradictions in relation to the other principles?

Are we speaking of the doctrines laid out by the Buddha and his various followers, or the social institution? As far as the doctrines of the Buddha are concerned, I have not come across a point-by-point Leftist critique of Buddhism as Feuerbach gives of Christianity, but there are aspects of Buddhism which were certainly advanced for the time. For instance, a rejection of a metaphysical notion of the self (a notion which gets revived by some later Buddhists) and a belief that the self is temporally conditioned. Also worthy of mentioning is the belief that humanity is capable of striving for liberation independent of entities higher than itself (of course, the notion of liberation was a decidedly non-Marxist one). Lastly, Buddhism itself was a response to a static caste system which did offer people at the time freedom from certain social constraints.

The monastic institution on the other hand, is another matter. Folks have already mentioned the fact that the Buddhist theocracy in Tibet practiced slavery, or the Burmese monks who agitate against Muslims, and also noteworthy was the Buddhist apologism for Japanese militarism in the 1900s.

Also worth criticism is folk buddhism, which often peddles various superstitions, and the kitchy Western appropriation of Buddhism.

Ultimately, I think we are asking the wrong question - the right one would be, what critique would be made of Buddhist doctrine and the institutions which claim to represent it?

And we of course have the contemporary Western non-corporate, sometimes even anti-capitalist Buddhists, and such, but I didn't mentioned them because it is just a trend. It is lifestyle, and communism (and especially Marxism) is not a lifestyle.

Marxism is not a lifestyle, but Marxism is compatible with various lifestyle choices. Practices like yoga and meditation are not intrinsically opposed to being a revolutionary. What is more problematic is the adoption of superstitious metaphysical beliefs, but unlike other religions it is not necessary that one adopt such views to identify as "Buddhist".

[ckaihatsu]

And we of course have the contemporary Western non-corporate, sometimes even anti-capitalist Buddhists, and such, but I didn't mentioned them because it is just a trend. It is lifestyle, and communism (and especially Marxism) is not a lifestyle.

History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

[Wessex Way Monster]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that because there is no appreciable worker's movement because there are no conditions for a worker's movement it doesn't matter if Buddhism is reactionary? And that in the case of a worker's movement against capital, the various ideologies of capital (whether Christianity or Buddhism or satanism or whatever) would begin to fall away, leaving only capital vs autonomy and those aiming for it?

Basically I'm saying who gives a shit.

[ckaihatsu]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that because there is no appreciable worker's movement because there are no conditions for a worker's movement it doesn't matter if Buddhism is reactionary? And that in the case of a worker's movement against capital, the various ideologies of capital (whether Christianity or Buddhism or satanism or whatever) would begin to fall away, leaving only capital vs autonomy and those aiming for it?

Basically I'm saying who gives a shit.

The thing is, though, that any religion, being a paradigmatic worldview, tends to *compete* with materialist-based views of the world, like that of revolutionary politics.

Besides the framework at post #6, illustrating matters of *scale*, I'll proffer this diagram as well that shows a 'cross-section' of any prevailing or 'underdog' social paradigm, consisting of the expanding circular regions of 'art', 'literature', 'cooperation / competition', 'social science', and 'science'.

In other words we could ask 'What does Buddhism say about science', juxtaposed to 'What does *Marxism* say about science', etc.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

You're positing a chicken-or-the-egg inquiry of causation for workers movements, and I'm responding that *class consciousness* is a large mass-subjective determining factor in the potentials for such. Religions are mental and social habits of superstition over world-material processes, which is the same cognitive 'turf' that Marxism addresses -- the religious-vs.-materialist approaches are therefore *competitive* and mutually-exclusive in their explanations for empirical (social) phenomena.

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

I was referring purely to the Sutras. Jesus Christ you guys read into shit way too deep. I am aware of the atrocities committed by buddhists of the past (Such as the skinning of children as sacrifice to the Dalai Lhama) but to say that buddhist philosophy is violent is a bit absurd.

By the way, when peaceful monks start fighting muslims, maybe we should reconsider the open-border policies to middle eastern/north African 'refugees'. Just saying. *prepares for insults for daring to mention Islam in a bad context*

[Riot]

Buddhism is indeed currently a tool for the reaction, and its proponents have been predominantly aligned with conservative movements around the world for at least a few hundred years. However, should we as Marxists be anti-conservative? In the immediate, practical sense, yes. However, there are things to be learned in studying conservative movements like Buddhism. Yet, when we get to something like American mysticism, for example, calling it Buddhism is more a catch-all term than a particularly useful categorization. This entire discussion hinges on what qualifies one to be a Buddhist. If it is admiration for Gautama's ethics and insights on anti-verbalism and enlightenment, or if it is taken as an aesthetic tradition oriented by principles like wabi-sabi and wu-wei, then Buddhism and Marxism are not incompatible and indeed may even be aligned. However, I doubt many delineate what categorizes a Buddhist in that way.

We must recall that Buddhism is essentially Hinduism, stripped of Hindu culture for export, with a bit of Taoist metaphysics and later Confucian ethics mixed in, alongside a myriad of other lesser schools of thought. The tradition of Buddhism has become something of a codex for accessing Eastern wisdom, orienting the scholar of Oriental history all the way back to the time of the Vedas. All of Eastern wisdom is not reactionary. And as a tool for exegetic orientation, Buddhism must not be rejected as purely reactionary either -- for entirely practical reasons. However, Buddhism as a tradition is currently aligned with religion and personal satisfaction. This is wrong.

Buddhism specifically, and Eastern wisdom in general, is inadequately understood if only or even primarily approached theologically. Nor is it properly 'philosophy', at least in the sense that Westerners are used to it. Formally speaking, Eastern wisdom, and this includes Buddhism, is more aligned to modern psychoanalysis than it is to the Abrahamic religions.

There is a radically progressive core to Buddhism, which can and should be brought to the fore. It's aim is not to find peace or to find resolve in wishful thinking, but is oriented towards a radical self-critique, and bases knowledge on experience and not external authority, often insisting that its practitioners take that as far as the pacing of their historical epoch would allow. If one looks, for example, at the Tao te Ching, we find a philosophy consistent with dialectical monism -- which certainly was advanced for its day, and may even be aligned to Marxism. For example, Sartre on Marxism:

"It is dualist because it is monist. Marx’s ontological monism consisted in affirming the irreducibility of Being to thought, and, at the same time, in reintegrating thoughts with the real as a particular form of human activity." —Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason, Vol. 1. Theory of Practical Ensembles

"In Sartre's seminal work, the Critique of Dialectical Reason, it is also shown how the essential dualism of Marx corresponds to a heightened synthesis, referring to totality, which is the monism that grounds the theses and antitheses of Marxism." (Wiki, Dialectical Monism)

Early Chinese Buddhists were quite candid in identifying themselves as an aperture of the totality, but often resorted to mystical analogies to get their message across for evangelical and pedagogical reasons. They did, and continue to, however, make the mistake of identifying themselves directly with nature, and not instead primarily with social activity/society (which lays at the core of why modern Buddhism tends to be so reactionary). Yet theoretically, it is not altogether a dry well, as there is much to learn from the tradition, especially in the realm of aesthetics, ethics, and as a precursor to psychoanalysis. However, I agree with previous posters entirely in their dismissal if we are talking about mainstream Buddhism. If that is the case, we may rightly dismiss it of any real value for contemporary revolutionary praxis.

[Tankie]

I'd have to say... Out of all the religions Buddhism doesn't strike a nerve with me like Christianity and Islam do. However I still don't think religion has any place in a socialist nation. Worship of achieving communism is much more prefered.

[Antiochus]

By the way, when peaceful monks start fighting muslims, maybe we should reconsider the open-border policies to middle eastern/north African 'refugees'. Just saying. *prepares for insults for daring to mention Islam in a bad context*

Its funny because many of these immigrants actually happen to be Christians. For example, Iraq's Christian community fled during the American occupation into Europe. It isn't that you insult 'Islam', which is a disgusting religion that crowned a pedophile warlord as its messiah. Its that you actually seem to suggest, no, you do suggest, lets throw away your pretense, that these Muslims are some sort of animals who are bound by their religion. They aren't. And just like Tibetan Buddhists shouldn't be denied refugee status because their elites practiced slavery, why on earth should Muslim refugees?

Oh and why don't you go and learn a bit of history. The Buddhists in Myanmar are hardly "peaceful", lmfao. And just for kicks, Muslims in Myanmar have never really been in a position of power and have not comprised a "ruling" caste, unlike say Muslims under the Mughals or whatever. The case of Myanmar is literally a state-led extirpation of an impoverished minority in order to assuage societal pressures and permit the bourgeoisie of the nation to rule unimpeded, you know, like the Nazis.

As far as whether a religion is inherently violent or not. Historically speaking how "peaceful" a religion is or not has nothing to do with the passivity of its teachings but with the material conditions of the nation/empire where its practitioners live. There is literally no religion as "peaceful" as Christianity, it still doesn't mean that Spanish conquistadors aren't literally the logical conclusion of it.

[Tankie]

Christians are bad too. I'm not for letting them in unconditionally.

However you're right about not demonizing muslims and well anyone else as subhumans. Everyone has potential.

I think in a socialist nation we should accept all refugees but they all have to be reeducated and abandon their religions. Probably works best with children. Maybe keep them in an area to live but have the state take the kids so they can get proper education instead of this brainwashing cult practice that is religion.

[ckaihatsu]

Christians are bad too. I'm not for letting them in unconditionally.

You're definitely identifying with the bourgeois nation-state if you're so concerned about the particulars of immigration policy.

However you're right about not demonizing muslims and well anyone else as subhumans. Everyone has potential.

I think in a socialist nation we should accept all refugees but they all have to be reeducated and abandon their religions. Probably works best with children. Maybe keep them in an area to live but have the state take the kids so they can get proper education instead of this brainwashing cult practice that is religion.

I consider religious / spiritual worldviews to basically serve the function of *escapism* -- why else would otherwise normal-thinking people descend into superstition and rituals -- ?

People are so overwhelmingly *disempowered* from their rightful proportionate input / control over societal functioning that religion / spirituality very effectively fills-in the void, allowing people to behave like children (in the 'disempowered' sense), so that they can feel *some* connection to the larger world and universe, even if it's just fictitious / make-believe / pretend.

Your heavy-handed approach to this topic of religion shows that you're not-comprehending this *social function* of the institution of religion, Tankie. If the world operated to effectively *empower* everyone -- especially workers -- over the way the world works, there would be no *need* for religious escapism. People would have enough 'on-their-plates' in the *real* world to occupy their desires, etc., since it would be real and at the same time personal and social / societal.

I also don't think that a post-capitalist social order would retain the 'nuclear family' form of parenting / raising incoming generations -- domestic 'labor', as that for raising children, would be entirely *socialized* so as to eliminate any kind of hierarchical impositions on the developing child, as through the nuclear family / extended family. People would be able to address each other at virtually all ages as equals, and cooperate fully in the ongoing reproduction of the social world. There would no longer be any global subdivision into 'nations' or 'families'.

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

To Antiochus:

These people, yes people, are bound by their religion. Are you fucking joking? They have been raised to believe these things and they are fucking awful beliefs. These people, like Buddhists, are wrong. But there is a fucking difference.

I believe in this superstition, therefore I will cut your head off. I believe in this superstition, therefore let me meditate. You avoided my actual claim and instead brought up the ancestors of buddhists and current elites of Muslims.

Well here's the thing dipshit, the Buddhists actions aren't representative of their ancestors. The Muslims are. The buddhists meditate, the Muslims fucking hate everything non-Islamic. THEY are causing the problems.

It isn't like the Buddhists have any problems with any other group of people. But thank you for derailing this conversation. You are a coward.

Just to put it out there one more fucking time for your thick skull. THE ACTIONS OF ANCESTORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTIONS OF CURRENT DAY PEOPLE. With this said, we know Muslims are commiting all of the terrorism practically. So stop defending these fucking pedophilic ****s.

At least the buddhists of today, yes today, aren't skinning kids. But the Muslims of today are still raping kids. But fuck it, we don't wanna be called racist..

[Ale Brider]

SkepticalofYourDogma, you don't really know a lot about Muslims, do you? Or refugees, or the refugee crisis in general? Maybe you just shouldn't take everything the alt-right and right-wing conservatives say, it really hurts your socialist mojo, if you get my meaning. Calling people fucking trotskyists (in an other thread), dipshits, SJWs (also in an other thread) will not earn you brownie points. You really speak like some of the most reactionary people in Europe. And if you do, what is the difference? That you call yourself a socialist? No one cares. Hate is hate, no matter who spreads it. Maybe you just have to decide? If you really want to be involved in this socialism thing, maybe you should stand down with the vicious name-calling, the islamophobia and consistent xenophobia which leaks through your words. The sheer demagoguery hurts. You don't want to be called a racist? Be prepared for the ugly truth: you probably are one. Let that sink in.

[Bolshevik 180]

See Lenin - Socialism and Religion. Available online just by searching it, I found it on Marxists website

I answer that, anything which pulls the masses away from materialism and encourages passive resistance and obedience to authority is bad, but religion is a private affair and as long as it does not damage class struggle it should be permitted.

[John Nada]

Ale Brider and Bolshevik 180, if you're not intending to type long ass paragraphs and your computer's settings aren't spacing out the paragraphs, type < br/> without the space between the < and b for each line down. For example,< br/>< br/>"SkepticalofYourDogma< br/>is< br/>< br/>a< br/> bigot." will come out

"SkepticalofYourDogma
is

a
bigot."

[Wessex Way Monster]

The thing is, though, that any religion, being a paradigmatic worldview, tends to *compete* with materialist-based views of the world, like that of revolutionary politics.

Besides the framework at post #6, illustrating matters of *scale*, I'll proffer this diagram as well that shows a 'cross-section' of any prevailing or 'underdog' social paradigm, consisting of the expanding circular regions of 'art', 'literature', 'cooperation / competition', 'social science', and 'science'.

In other words we could ask 'What does Buddhism say about science', juxtaposed to 'What does *Marxism* say about science', etc.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

You're positing a chicken-or-the-egg inquiry of causation for workers movements, and I'm responding that *class consciousness* is a large mass-subjective determining factor in the potentials for such. Religions are mental and social habits of superstition over world-material processes, which is the same cognitive 'turf' that Marxism addresses -- the religious-vs.-materialist approaches are therefore *competitive* and mutually-exclusive in their explanations for empirical (social) phenomena.

I cannot view your diagrams for some reason so if that is a super important part of your argument then I guess you can disregard this.

My point is that religions and such take a back seat when anti-capital actions are taking place, and that the conditions which produce struggle are not conducive to religion as a social force.

[Antiochus]

I believe in this superstition, therefore I will cut your head off. I believe in this superstition, therefore let me meditate. You avoided my actual claim and instead brought up the ancestors of buddhists and current elites of Muslims.

What I find hilarious is that a "Stalinist" turd is actually huckstering his way through this. Someone in this thread posted an excerpt from Lenin, you should read it, considering you call yourself a "Marxist-Leninist". Funny how your positions are diametrically opposed to his and in line with right-wing fascist scum. The reasons Buddhists "meditate" and Islamists "cut off heads" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A HOLY TEXT. LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT YOU IMBECILE. How the hell does a "Marxist" who is supposed to uphold a materialist conception of history and present conditions actually even suggest that this is how people function, LOL! The reason I bring up "history" ("their ancestors") is the same reason I bring it up when debating conservative liberals and other such contemptible garbage: BECAUSE IT MATTERS. Because it throws it into their filthy face how their preconceived notions of what people do has been EMPIRICALLY proven wrong. I could go on and on about why Islamism is "violent" but I'll spare you the details (research it yourself), I will simply say this:

Take the most vile action Islamists perform. That would be suicide bombings. Suicide is actually anathema to the Abrahamic religions, the punishment for attempted suicide is about as bad as it comes, the hellfire. Nevertheless the Islamists extol the virtues of suicide-bombings. Why? Because it is an effective tactic, because it fits their paradigm and because materially speaking, it makes perfect sense. Islamists (generally speaking) don't have access to fighter-jets or MBTs or drones, so they 'improvise'. Do you know who invented modern-suicide bombings? The Tamil Tigers. Hint Hint idiot, they weren't Muslims. And no, the Hindus are not "predisposed" to mass terrorism either.

Well here's the thing dipshit, the Buddhists actions aren't representative of their ancestors. The Muslims are. The buddhists meditate, the Muslims fucking hate everything non-Islamic. THEY are causing the problems.

So Buddhist monks from Myanmar burning alive random Muslims in a ghetto is "not representative"? Why? Because an idiot like you says so?

It isn't like the Buddhists have any problems with any other group of people. But thank you for derailing this conversation. You are a coward.

Listen you fucking freak, don't think you are getting away with these "innocent" comments that display in full public view what you are: An "alt" (read: Fascist)-Right monkey who declares himself a "Leftist" ONLY because he subconciously associates Stalin with "power". This comment above is STANDARD fascist talk. It actually comes from a "mass post" (chain e-mail), goes something like this, I might actually try to find the original:

"Hindus, Christians, Buddhists (etc...) have no problems with each other. Muslims have a problem with: Hindus, Christians, Buddhists (etc...). Muslims are the problem!!".

Need I remind you of a little "historical" event called the Holocaust that placed a certain group as an "enemy of mankind"? The logical end result of such a pronouncement is, of course, to fucking kill them. Derail the conversation he says, lmao. Have a little dignity you pathetic creature.

THE ACTIONS OF ANCESTORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTIONS OF CURRENT DAY PEOPLE. With this said, we know Muslims are commiting all of the terrorism practically. So stop defending these fucking pedophilic ****s.

The REASON YOU INBRED ORANGUTAN that Hindus or Buddhists today are "peaceful" (what world are you living in btw? Sectarian riots happen all the time, leave hundreds dead) has NOTHING to do with their "texts" and EVERYTHING to do with the way capital utilizes these ideologies. Islam in the 1930s was "peaceful", there were literally no major wars in Muslim majority countries at that time, does that TELL YOU ANYTHING about the present? No!

The rest of your post is just meaningless race-baiting. Look, idiot, you either accept a material conception of history or you don't. And if you don't, you almost invariably accept the converse: Idealism. If you accept that then there is nothing for us to discuss. Because if you accept that than you must also accept that Blacks deserve being the meat-grinder of Capitalism and that their economic perdition is the result of their "backward culture". But a rat like you wouldn't actually have the courage to throw his political pronouncements in public. Which is why you couch them in cryptic, but easily see-through, language.