Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Kropotkin and Buddha
I have recently been reading a lot of works by, and about, Peter Kropotkin. I couldn't help but notice the similarities between the life of this foremost anarcho-communist with the life of Buddha. Both were born as princes, but they both voluntarily gave up their princely titles. The Buddha came from a warrior caste (Kshatriya), and Kropotkin was born to the descendants of both nobility and Russian generals. In fact, Kropotkin entered into a military school at a young age, and his memoirs detailed the hazing and other abuses which lead to the school's notoriety. They were both also considered to live meritorious, if not near perfect, lives. In his work De Profundis, Oscar Wilde described Peter Kropotkin as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems coming out of Russia" and living one of the "most perfect lives".
Peter Kropotkin also recognized, in his work Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, that early Buddhist communities embodied the principle of mutual aid. In this context, mutual aid means voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit. The work itself was to demonstrate that, despite the claims of social Darwinists, "it was an evolutionary emphasis on cooperation instead of competition in the Darwinian sense that made for the success of species, including the human."
In his work Ethics: Origin and Development, Kropotkin often praised both Christianity and Buddhism for they "gave man a lofty moral lesson." He also noted that, "The principal point wherein Christianity and Buddhism differed from all preceding religions was in the fact that instead of the cruel, revengeful gods to whose will men had to submit, these two religions brought forward — as an example for men and not to intimidate them — an ideal man-god." He also further contrasted them from earlier religions, noting that "the point where Christianity and Buddhism did introduce a new principle into the life of humanity was in demanding of man complete forgiveness for the harm inflicted upon him. Up to that time the tribal morality of all peoples demanded revenge, personal or even tribal, for every injury: for murder, for wound, for insult." Later on, he also noted that "The life of these two teachers was passed, not in temples, not in academies, but among the poor, and from among these poor and not from among the temple-priests came Christ's apostles. And if at a later date Christianity as well as Buddhism evolved into the 'Church,' i.e., the government of the 'chosen,' with the inevitable vices of all governments — such development constituted a flagrant deviation from the will of the two founders of religion, notwithstanding all the attempts that were later made to justify this deviation by citing the books written many years after the death of the teachers themselves."
I have to say that many of my own ideas have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, by both Kropotkin and Buddha. I also cannot help but see a lot of similarities between the two, which is only accentuated by Kropotkin's own appraisal of Buddha. I just thought I would share this, and ask if anyone else had any thoughts?
Peter Kropotkin also recognized, in his work Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, that early Buddhist communities embodied the principle of mutual aid. In this context, mutual aid means voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit. The work itself was to demonstrate that, despite the claims of social Darwinists, "it was an evolutionary emphasis on cooperation instead of competition in the Darwinian sense that made for the success of species, including the human."
In his work Ethics: Origin and Development, Kropotkin often praised both Christianity and Buddhism for they "gave man a lofty moral lesson." He also noted that, "The principal point wherein Christianity and Buddhism differed from all preceding religions was in the fact that instead of the cruel, revengeful gods to whose will men had to submit, these two religions brought forward — as an example for men and not to intimidate them — an ideal man-god." He also further contrasted them from earlier religions, noting that "the point where Christianity and Buddhism did introduce a new principle into the life of humanity was in demanding of man complete forgiveness for the harm inflicted upon him. Up to that time the tribal morality of all peoples demanded revenge, personal or even tribal, for every injury: for murder, for wound, for insult." Later on, he also noted that "The life of these two teachers was passed, not in temples, not in academies, but among the poor, and from among these poor and not from among the temple-priests came Christ's apostles. And if at a later date Christianity as well as Buddhism evolved into the 'Church,' i.e., the government of the 'chosen,' with the inevitable vices of all governments — such development constituted a flagrant deviation from the will of the two founders of religion, notwithstanding all the attempts that were later made to justify this deviation by citing the books written many years after the death of the teachers themselves."
I have to say that many of my own ideas have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, by both Kropotkin and Buddha. I also cannot help but see a lot of similarities between the two, which is only accentuated by Kropotkin's own appraisal of Buddha. I just thought I would share this, and ask if anyone else had any thoughts?
0
Comments
Of course man had to cooperate to survive. Man still does, especially in extreme environments, like the arctic. Arctic cultures are very cooperative. Marx observed that indigenous cultures in general lived according to what he called "primitive communism". Looks like Darwin's theories to some extent reflected his Western capitalist background. What a fascinating contrast. He said a mouthful, here!
I have no faith in and disregard capitalism, yet the marxists are not to my liking either. Communism works on paper, but there will always be greed within the human race. Is there a middle way for society to function properly?? :-/
I would suggest reading The Conquest of Bread. It presents an alternative organization of society in contrast to state socialism/Marxism and capitalism.
Speaking of human greed, in his Appeal to the Young, Kropotkin has something relevant to say about the current global economic crisis:
"One day a crisis comes, one of those crises which are no longer mere passing phenomena, as they were a while ago, but a crisis which destroys a whole industry, which plunges thousands of workers into misery, which crushes whole families. You struggle like the rest against the calamity. But you will soon see how your wife, your child your friend, little by little succumb to privations and fade away under your very eyes. For sheer want of food for lack of care and of medical assistance, they end their days on the pauper's stretcher, while the life of the rich sweeps past in joyous crowds through the streets of the great city gleaming in the sunlight - utterly careless and indifferent to the dying cries of those who perish.
Then you will understand how utterly revolting this society is; you will reflect upon the causes of this crisis and your examination will go to the very depths of this abomination which puts millions of human beings at the mercy of the brutal greed of a handful of useless triflers; then you will understand that Socialists are right when they say that our present society can be, that it must be reorganized from top to bottom.
To pass from general crises to your particular case. One day when your master tires by a new reduction of wages to squeeze out of you a few more pence in order to increase his fortune still further, you will protest; but he will haughtily answer, 'Go and eat grass, if you will not work at the price I offer.' Then you will understand that your master not only tries to shear you like a sheep, but that looks upon you as an inferior kind of animal altogether; that, not content with holding you in his relentless grip by means of the wage-system, he is further anxious to make you a slave in every respect. Then you will either bow down before him, you will give up the feeling of human dignity, and you will end by suffering every possible humiliation; or the blood will rush to your head, you shudder at the hideous slope on which you are slipping down, you will retort, and, turned out workless on the street, you will understand how right Socialists are when they say, 'Revolt! Rise against this economical slavery!' Then you will come and take your place in the ranks of the Socialists and you will work with them for the complete destruction of all slavery - economic, social and political."
Personally, I consider myself an "anarchist without adjectives" in that I feel free experimentation is important in any free society, and that economic preferences are of secondary importance to abolishing hierarchy and authoritarianism.
I studied sociology for a year at college (in the UK college runs for two years post 'high school' and is not university), so I am familiar with such things to an extent. Although my teacher at the time turned us into copying machines, everyday the white board was full of facts, dates, names, quotes and we just copied 95% of the time, not the best way to learn IMO.
I think however, for any society to function, their has to be someone or something in charge, but for humans to abolish greed and to be transparant in such a position is near enough impossible.
But one thing is for sure, capitalism does not work for society as a whole, and the picture that Kropotkin paints above ^ is not one to stand and admire at. And to be totally honest, I can see something of that nature occurring.
I always liked Animal Farm by Orwell if you have never read that novel before. It was something I had to study in my final year at high school, I suggest you take a glance if you have never come across it.
Speaking of the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish anarchists were successful in implementing anarcho-communism. It actually worked out quite well, but unfortunately it was eventually crushed by both the Communists (Stalinists) and Fascists (Francoists) as well as economic and armaments blockades from capitalist countries. However, during its period, it saw an increase in production - both industrial and agricultural. So, it can work - and it can work quite well. For more information, check out this link.