Occupy Buddhism: Or Why the Dalai Lama is a Marxist

Jason

An interesting article exploring the unlikely partnership of Buddhism and Marxism, and the need for Buddhism to consciously "enter the movement of the real and be engaged with the struggle to end suffering, and man's inhumanity to man" instead of continuing its transformation into "a fetish that ultimately enables the status quo to maintain its continuing control, dominance, and expansion":

Occupy Buddhism: Or Why the Dalai Lama is a Marxist

Smithers asks, "Does [Buddhism] have the legs of an emancipatory religion, a religion of liberation with the power to transform societies and cultures?" and seems to answer in the affirmative. And from my own experience, I'm inclined to agree—Buddhism definitely has that potential. Before I even became interested in Buddhism, for example, I didn't really have any political-economic views to speak of. In fact, I was more or less completely uninterested in politics whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an active interest in the world. This was partially due to cultivating compassion and being more sensitive the suffering of others, as well as Buddhism's encouragement to analyze our actions and their effects in the world in an effort to make ourselves and the world a better place; and I've found the seemingly unrelated aims of Marxism and Buddhism to actually be quite compatible. In his introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Marx wrote:

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.

And I think this accords quite well with Buddhism since opium is a type of pain-killer, and what the Buddha taught was a prescriptive cure for our neurosis, existential suffering, and our inhumanity, thereby eliminating our need for pain-killers of any kind, including Buddhism. In Buddhism, what truly matters is what one does with the teachings, not what one believes about them, which is why I think the Buddha likened his teachings to a raft in MN 22:

And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.

To me, the main difference between the approaches of Buddhism and Marxism is one of focus; whereas the Buddha's focus was primarily on how to liberate the individual from their mental suffering by mastering the process of 'I-making and my-making' involved with our conception of self, Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, was primarily on how to liberate society from its suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. So for me, instead of canceling the full impact of reality and making me "indulgent, pleasure-seeking, distancing, and largely apathetic to worldwide suffering and misery," it's done the exact opposite.

DairyLama

Marx wrote:

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.

And I think this accords quite well with Buddhism since opium is a type of pain-killer, and what the Buddha taught was a prescriptive cure for our neurosis, existential suffering, and our inhumanity, thereby eliminating our need for pain-killers of any kind, including Buddhism.

I think with the opiate reference Marx was talking about religion as a means of coping with ( avoiding? ) suffering, whereas Buddhism is a means for overcoming it.

Ficus_religiosa

Marx meant, that religion was the ruling class' way of holding people in line. They were seduced to accept their fate by religious teachings, and those teachings were made and controlled by the ruling class.
To Marx religion was a thing to overcome, to expose for what it was and then throw away. There is no God and no holiness, all ethics stem from the economic setup of society - the type of economy dictates the type of ethics (materialism).
In a post-revolutionary society, a very different form of ethics will be the dominating.

Personally I think Buddhism and politics should be held apart. Once I believed differently, and along the lines of the Dalai Lama. I have found, that wishing for another society has nothing to do with Buddhism. The kind of society you live in doesn't matter when the goal is to alleviate suffering.
Changes in society is politics. Alleviating suffering is Buddhism.
That said, there are of course types of political ideologies quite inconsistent with Buddhism - mostly ones promoting or demoting cultural groups.
Hate-ideologies is just not very compassionate and directly against the teachings

RebeccaS

Personally I think Buddhism and politics should be held apart.

Amen!

Jason

The problem (at least from a historical materialist point of view) is that not addressing many of the material conditions giving rise to and supporting society's suffering and alienation ultimately serves to help maintain their continued existence (when this is, that is). Moreover, if the society one lives in isn't conducive to practicing Buddhism, then it does matter what kind of society one lives. As the Buddha said in Khp 5, "To reside in a suitable locality, to have done meritorious actions in the past and to set oneself in the right course — this is the greatest blessing."

It'd be great if everyone were free from greed, hatred, and delusion, and everyone treated everyone else with kindness, compassion, and generosity—if the world was free from all forms of exploitation, privation, and gross inequalities. But the world isn't a perfect place, and we're not all saints; and one of the ways to help alleviate the suffering of ourselves and others is by changing the society we live in. And from this point of view, it's not about making Buddhism political, it's about applying the ideals of Buddhism in all that we do, which for me (and others like the Dalai Lama) includes trying to help society overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.

RebeccaS

I just can't believe HHDL would support an ideology that resulted in the extermination of so many millions (communism, specifically).

Marxism is childish and dangerous. I am very much surprised at HHDL's proclamation and am personally troubled by it.

Jason

Marxism itself is ultimately a method of analysis and presentation (i.e., historical materialist and logically dialectical). Furthermore, Marxism and totalitarianism aren't synonymous simply because totalitarian regimes utilize Marxist methods and terminology, and the Dalai Lama seems to understand this.

RebeccaS

The methods were so useful to them because they're so harmful. That's why they were utilized by totalitarian regimes in the first place.

"Like goes to like".

Ficus_religiosa

I just can't believe HHDL would support an ideology that resulted in the extermination of so many millions (communism, specifically).

Marxism is childish and dangerous. I am very much surprised at HHDL's proclamation and am personally troubled by it.

Marxism is an economical philosophy; or rather analysis. Marx used his dialectic materialism on the liberal economy and came to the conclusion, that such a system - like all other systems - will necessarily collapse. To him, history showed a progression in waves (thesis - antithesis - synthesis; over again) and he called it dialectics after Hegel.
The key in those waves is economy. Our economy is called capitalist, the next will be communist. I don't remember what Marx called previous economies.

Thus Marxism is not an ethical system or a final solution. Marxism is not about what society should look like, but rather a way of understanding history.

What Lenin did was different - he wanted to force the changes Marx had foretold. Russia, being primarily a country of farmers, was not suited for the revolution Marx wrote about - that would happen in an industrialized country where owners a few exploited millions workers by buying their workforce for less than it is actually worth and saving the money for themselves (accumulation of capital).
Lenin started a forced industrialization as well as forced collectivism of farms. THAT meant the killing of thousands. Not Marxism.
Knowing that the time wasn't ripe for a real revolution, Lenin - later Stalin - also had to fight enemies of the new system. Such enemies wouldn't exist during a real revolution - just see the American and French revolutions, which lead to the rise of capitalism. Enemies of real revolutions are few in number.
Marx said it this way: "the ideology is materialized when it gets hold of the masses".

As such capitalism is not wrong, it's necessary. And it's not the best system, but it's still better than what was before, according to Marx.

So don't fear Marxism, fear totalitarianism such as the one in USSR.
While I don't have a specific opinion about Marxism, other than it's interesting (I find many philosophers interesting), I think it's taken more than it's share of the blame - as has communism. Neither Marxism nor communism automatically leads to USSR or Mao's China anymore than capitalism leads to Argentina or Chile.

RebeccaS

When I read the communist manifesto, all I saw was envy, malice and falsehood.

Actually, no, tell a lie, I was totally into it at first (many years ago) then I saw it for what it was.

Ficus_religiosa

(the totalitarian regimes in South America seems oddly forgotten, but are only a few years away. They were as bad as their communist counterparts but when we talk USSR we say "communism is so bad!" - never have I heard anyone say "just look at Chile, capitalism is so bad!".. I guess someone has an interest in keeping it covered)

Jason

The methods were so useful to them because they're so harmful. That's why they were utilized by totalitarian regimes in the first place.

"Like goes to like".

By that logic, then, capitalism itself is indicted by the actions of fascist Germany, Italy, and Spain, it being so useful to these three, adamantly anti-communist dictatorial regimes and all.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the negative opinions of Marxism. I really do. I was extremely critical of Marxism myself by proxy of the actions of the Soviet Union and China before actually picking up things like Capital and Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

I just hope in this case, people are actually reading the article and not simply commenting based upon their prejudices.

Ficus_religiosa

When I read the communist manifesto, all I saw was envy, malice and falsehood.

Actually, no, tell a lie, I was totally into it at first (many years ago) then I saw it for what it was.

That manifesto was ordered by the French communists. Some of those groups were even laid distance to by Marx for their stupid ideas - fx equal pay for all jobs. It does not fit Marxist analysis of what a piece of work is worth and predates Marx' ideas.

Marxism is not found in that manifesto, but in the real writings of Marx - namely The Capital, but also others. There is no hate or spite in those writings at all. They are not political, but economical philosophical.

RebeccaS

Not quite. Communism was created as antithesis to capitalism, not the other way round. While fascist Germany was adamantly anti-communism, its goal wasn't capitalism. Don't forget the Nazi party was national-socialist.

I'm basing my opinion on Marx solely on the work of Marx.

As for HHDL, I am still surprised. Obviously I honor and respect his wishes for a better society, I'm just shocked by his applauding Marxism - something so fundamentally flawed.

Jason

When I read the communist manifesto, all I saw was envy, malice and falsehood.

Actually, no, tell a lie, I was totally into it at first (many years ago) then I saw it for what it was.

That manifesto was ordered by the French communists. Some of those groups were even laid distance to by Marx for their stupid ideas - fx equal pay for all jobs. It does not fit Marxist analysis of what a piece of work is worth and predates Marx' ideas.

Marxism is not found in that manifesto, but in the real writings of Marx - namely The Capital, but also others. There is no hate or spite in those writings at all. They are not political, but economical philosophical.

Yeah, the Communist Manifesto was a piece of propaganda commissioned by the Communist League, and much of it was based off of something Engels had written earlier that was edited/added to by Marx. To really see the genius of Marx, one needs to check out things like Capital, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, etc.

RebeccaS

I understand that it's just a philosophy, but it's a deeply flawed one based on a false premise - that capitalism is about exploitation, for the gain of some and at the expense of many.

Jason

I understand that it's just a philosophy, but it's a deeply flawed one based on a false premise - that capitalism is about exploitation, for the gain of some and at the expense of many.

I hope I don't come off as being flippant here, but if you haven't actually read Captial how can you say that his analysis of capitalism is flawed?

RebeccaS

I read an abridged version not so long ago.

Ficus_religiosa

Marx' model shows, that when you work you don't get full compensation. If you did, the company would not have any profit - I think that's pretty logical.
Workers produce canned beans for $ 40'000'000 a year, but their combined salaries are only a fraction of that - even when expenses are counted and deduced in the value of the canned beans. I don't say it's really bad, but it sure is more gain for the company than the workers.

We can discuss the fairness of the system, but not that, that is how it works.

Jason

I read an abridged version not so long ago.

Ah, my mistake. I guess I misread what you previously wrote and assumed that the Manifesto was the extent of your reading of Marx. So if I may ask, what about his theory of exploitation do you disagree with exactly?

RebeccaS

I agree. But we also have to say that Marx was obviously disdainful of the system.

Jason

I agree. But we also have to say that Marx was obviously disdainful of the system.

Yes, that's certainly a fair assessment, I'd say.

RebeccaS

@Jason - there's nothing intrinsically exploitative about it. Obviously it can be exploited, as can everything, but it's not correct to say it's exploitative in nature.

Capitalism is basically a system of reward based on merit.

Ficus_religiosa

Capitalism is an economic model based on the private ownership of production...

Liberalism gives freedom and thus reward based on merit - and often support capitalism. But they must not be confused

Jason

@Jason - there's nothing intrinsically exploitative about it. Obviously it can be exploited, as can everything, but it's not correct to say it's exploitative in nature.

Capitalism is basically a system of reward based on merit.

Well, from the Marxist perspective, it is exploitative as Ficus_religiosa has already pointed put. Exploitation in the Marxist sense refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour, which is kept by the capitalist in the form of profit. Workers under capitalism are coerced by the logic of the system itself to sell their time and labour-power for a wage, which is always less than what they produce, i.e., when you work you don't get full compensation.

RebeccaS

Yes, you're right.

But it's still stands that it's not exploitative because they still receive a portion of that "full" compensation. That's not exploitative, it's sense.

Jason

Except it is. It's an inherent part of how the system functions.

RebeccaS

That's really not exploitative.

Ficus_religiosa

Why is it sense? I think it's offensive, but inevitable due to the nature of humans.
I wouldn't fully compensate an employer either. I would pay what the market dictated plus what individual negotiations could count for..
Buddha said, that employees should receive pay, food, care when they are sick and days off

RebeccaS

Because if I pay every builder the value of a house I'm screwed

Jason

So you agree with me when I say that "workers under capitalism are coerced by the logic of the system itself to sell their time and labour-power for a wage, which is always less than what they produce, i.e., when you work you don't get full compensation" (which is basically Marx's definition of exploitation), but contend that this isn't exploitative in nature even though it's an inherent part of capitalism itself? If so, it seems like it's only through wordplay and/or by redefining what Marx meant by exploitation. Regardless, one shouldn't ignore the rest of Marx's critique of exploitation, especially in regards to how it ties in with his theory of alienation, commodity fetishism, etc., which goes a long way towards showing that capital ultimately holds a dominant role in society, and labour coerced into a predominately submissive one.

Jason

Why is it sense? I think it's offensive, but inevitable due to the nature of humans.
I wouldn't fully compensate an employer either. I would pay what the market dictated plus what individual negotiations could count for..
Buddha said, that employees should receive pay, food, care when they are sick and days off

Under the current system, this is the best that can be hoped for. Unfortunately, it's quite easy (and common) for employers to squeeze the lifeblood out of labour for the sake of the almighty dollar and give them relatively little in return.

RebeccaS

So you agree with me when I say that "workers under capitalism are coerced by the logic of the system itself to sell their time and labour-power for a wage, which is always less than what they produce, i.e., when you work you don't get full compensation" (which is basically Marx's definition of exploitation), but contend that this isn't exploitative in nature even though it's an inherent part of capitalism itself?

Yeah, because I don't see why it's a problem

RebeccaS

So you agree with me when I say that "workers under capitalism are coerced by the logic of the system itself to sell their time and labour-power for a wage, which is always less than what they produce, i.e., when you work you don't get full compensation" (which is basically Marx's definition of exploitation), but contend that this isn't exploitative in nature even though it's an inherent part of capitalism itself?

Oh, hang on... Yes, its exploitative within that definition, but I don't see that kind of exploitation being a problem.

The word has a very negative connotation, but is actually pretty benign by that definition.

Jason

So you agree with me when I say that "workers under capitalism are coerced by the logic of the system itself to sell their time and labour-power for a wage, which is always less than what they produce, i.e., when you work you don't get full compensation" (which is basically Marx's definition of exploitation), but contend that this isn't exploitative in nature even though it's an inherent part of capitalism itself?

Oh, hang on... Yes, its exploitative within that definition, but I don't see that kind of exploitation being a problem.

The word has a very negative connotation, but is actually pretty benign by that definition.

That's why I also mentioned one shouldn't ignore the rest of Marx's critique of exploitation, especially in regards to how it ties in with his theory of alienation, commodity fetishism, etc., which goes a long way towards showing that capital ultimately holds a dominant role in society, and labour coerced into a predominately submissive one, and details some of the negative consequences of this unequal relationship. It's not necessarily as benign as it may seem.

RebeccaS

Well, not working for "full compensation" is certainly benign.

RebeccaS

It's all so straightforward to me. My husband earns a better salary than I ever will because he's smarter than me and has a much greater skill set than I do. My manager will earn more than me for the same reasons (hopefully, lol).

The owners of the business will earn more than everyone because it was their idea and without their ingenuity none of us would be reaping the benefits of employment.

It's all pretty straightforward from my perspective, and it's all pretty benign, too

Ficus_religiosa

It's all so straightforward to me. My husband earns a better salary than I ever will because he's smarter than me and has a much greater skill set than I do. My manager will earn more than me for the same reasons (hopefully, lol).

The owners of the business will earn more than everyone because it was their idea and without their ingenuity none of us would be reaping the benefits of employment.

It's all pretty straightforward from my perspective, and it's all pretty benign, too

But they all produce more value than they get paid, hence the (hopefully) profit in the company they work for

RebeccaS

And then the company puts the money into expansion which leads to hiring even more people! So more people have jobs, less poverty, we spend the money we make on more products and then those companies can expand and hire more people and it goes round and round More demand = more jobs = more people with money = less poverty.

RebeccaS

That's where Marx made his mistake - he saw the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat, whereas in reality they're completely interdependent and both work to the benefit of each other.

Sile

I just can't believe HHDL would support an ideology that resulted in the extermination of so many millions (communism, specifically).

Marxism is childish and dangerous. I am very much surprised at HHDL's proclamation and am personally troubled by it.

The things that are troubling and dangerous aren't Marxism. The things that are troubling and dangerous are people's abuse of such a system--just as people's abuse of capitalism and freedom is troubling and dangerous. But yes, I believe Marxism--or at least communism--is particularly vulnerable to abuse.

Or it could be that the relatively tiny number of people (in all of world history combined) who have had a chance to claim they were "communist leaders" were simply inept and prone to greed.

Do the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima wish the USA had been Marxist? I don't know, but either way, hundreds of thousands of non-combatants died.

The underlying issue is not one of political system, but how that political system is motivated. Voluntary Marxism is not a problem. Forced Marxism is.

Dakini

Marx recognized the potential for religion to be used by regimes of any kind to keep the people docile and fatalistic. This is the sense in which he considered religion to the opium of the people.

DaltheJigsaw

Interesting stuff! Thank you:)

DairyLama

This is the sense in which he considered religion to the opium of the people.

I think it's TV now.

Ficus_religiosa

That's where Marx made his mistake - he saw the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat, whereas in reality they're completely interdependent and both work to the benefit of each other.

They did in fact do that only 90 years ago. To a very real extent it still happens - ever heard of working poor? People who work one, two or even three jobs but still have a hard time making ends meet. It's not like their companies don't have a major surplus.
Such conditions are on the rise again. Partly because people are forgetting how it was to be employed after the industrialization of western countries.
Take a look at The Jungle by Upton Sinclair - he lived undercover as a worker in Chicago in the 1920's and what he experienced and the stories he heard became a book.
It meant the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act, but not as he hoped made politicians realize that rules regarding safety, working conditions etc. was needed.

Working conditions and salaries are not a thing from the heavens, but something the employees and their unions have fought hard to get. I fear it can all go down the drain.

DairyLama

Working conditions and salaries are not a thing from the heavens, but something the employees and their unions have fought hard to get. I fear it can all go down the drain.

It seems to be happening in the UK at the moment due to those Tory toffs.

music

Good article. I would be surprised if Buddhists weren't socialists of some sort - Marxist, anarchist etc. - because compassion is central to Buddhism.

Ficus_religiosa

Good article. I would be surprised if Buddhists weren't socialists of some sort - Marxist, anarchist etc. - because compassion is central to Buddhism.

Socialism or even social justice is not a prerequisite for liberation. Buddhists, therefore, do not have to support any specific social system. I see where you're coming from though

white_wolf

RebeccaS said:

It's all so straightforward to me. My husband earns a better salary than I ever will because he's smarter than me and has a much greater skill set than I do. My manager will earn more than me for the same reasons (hopefully, lol).

The owners of the business will earn more than everyone because it was their idea and without their ingenuity none of us would be reaping the benefits of employment.

It's all pretty straightforward from my perspective, and it's all pretty benign, too

I'm sorry, but I firmly disagree with your view. You are essentially saying capitalism is meritocratic and that hard work is rewarded. I'm sorry, but Mitt Romney has never worked a day in his life and never will, and yet people who work 3 jobs can barely make ends meet. The 6 Walton children will never work a day in their lives and neither will any of their children and yet their employee's will likely have to work at least two jobs.

son_of_dhamma

.... If the Buddha saw all the Buddhism of the world today, through its society and practice... I'm fairly sure he would sit still and be very, very, quiet. And then perhaps leave.

RebeccaS

white_wolf said:

I'm sorry, but I firmly disagree with your view. You are essentially saying capitalism is meritocratic and that hard work is rewarded. I'm sorry, but Mitt Romney has never worked a day in his life and never will, and yet people who work 3 jobs can barely make ends meet. The 6 Walton children will never work a day in their lives and neither will any of their children and yet their employee's will likely have to work at least two jobs.

I'm not a fan of hyperbole, it so often equates to lying. Aside from that, I couldn't care less if Romney worked or not (which he did by the way). It has nothing to do with me.

All the hate the rich people stuff is just envy, and I'm really not interested in that. So what if they're rich? Let them be rich.

Hating the rich is not equal to or close to the same as caring about the poor.