Buddhism and Marxism (Buddhism)

Introduction
Though Buddhism as a religious movement far predates the sociopolitical force known as Marxism, a few factors have led to their conjunction in scholarship. The first factor is certain seeming affinities between the two systems of thought. For instance, according to many of the sources recounting his teachings, the Buddha focused on liberating individuals from a world of pain and suffering. In this primarily humanist approach, insofar as the divine is not explicitly invoked, some scholars have seen a similarity to Marxism, which has sought liberation for humans from oppressive economic and material situations.The second factor is the vigorous scholarly debate ensuing from the preceding claims by those who deny any kinship between Buddhist and Marxist thought. The third factor is the prevalence of Marxist thought in countries that either currently or historically have been predominantly Buddhist, such as Sri Lanka and China. This bibliography, aside from one work of general overview, is divided along these seams in the scholarship, detailing sources on the one hand that argue for the compatibility of Buddhism and Marxism, sources on the other hand that see the two as disconnected, and finally works focusing on the interaction of the two in a particular region or country.

General Overview
For those wishing to get a quick grasp on some of the scholarship about Buddhism and Marxism, as well as an overview of the political interaction in the Southeast Asian region, Katz and Sowle 1987 is perhaps the best resource. In addition to surveying those who have attempted to synthesize the two perspectives alongside those who pushed them apart, the chapter provides a substantial survey of Buddhist and Marxist thought in the Southeast Asian region.

Katz, Nathan, and Stephen Sowle. “Theravada Buddhism and Marxism in the Postwar Era.” In Movements and Issues in World Religions: A Sourcebook and Analysis of Developments since 1945. Edited by Charles Wei-hsun Fu and Gerhard Spiegler, 417–462. New York: Greenwood, 1987.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

This book chapter serves as perhaps the best general overview piece on the entire bibliography. It is divided up into sections that actually mirror the categories created in this article. After a brief introduction on Buddhism, Katz and Sowle consider in turn thinkers who have argued for the compatibility of Buddhism and Marxism and then those who argue for its inherent disjuncture. Finally, they survey developments between Buddhism and Marxism in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand, taking a close look at the regional inflections of the interaction between the two ways of thought.

Find this resource:


Studies in Philosophical Compatibility
The works listed in this section all attempt to find common ground between Marxist and Buddhist thought. However, the motivation among the works for doing so can be quite different. Some, such as Bhattachary 1976 and Slott 2011, see a parallel in the political dimension. Ling 1979 and Shackley 2001, on the other hand, proceed from a more historical vantage, assessing the circumstances and factors behind the rise of both ways of thought. From the comparative philosophical perspective, the author of Brien 2002 has been the most prolific writer and has tended to see Buddhism and Marxism as completing or augmenting each other.

Bhattachary, P. K. Marxism and Buddhism: The Problem of Emancipation in Modern Light. Calcutta: Lipi Enterprises, 1976.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

This work offers a comparison of Marxist and Buddhist thought. For instance, in the Marxist identification of capitalism as the cause of worker exploitation and Communism as the solution, with steps offered for worker revolution, Bhattachary sees a formula similar to the Four Noble Truths. Overall, Bhattachary positions both as revolutions: Buddhism as revolutionary religion, freeing humans from superstition, and Marxism as a rebellion to free humans from class structures.

Find this resource:


Brien, Kevin. “Logos and Mythos: Humanistic Marxism and Buddhism.” Dialogue and Universalism 12.3 (2002): 77–100.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Brien argues that a synthesis between humanistic Marxism and Buddhism is possible. To do so, he draws on Mahayana Buddhist thought (primarily Nagarjuna) that complicates subject/object distinction, while teasing out from Marxist thinking the possibility for satisfying existential needs through “unalienated spirituality” (as opposed to “religion”). These connections are termed “ironic affinities” in that, though they are unintended, they are nevertheless present.

Find this resource:


Brien, Kevin. “Buddhism and Marxism: Ironic Affinities.” Dialogue and Universalism 14.1–2 (2004): 35–60.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Drawing on the phrase “ironic affinities” developed in Brien 2002, the author argues that humanistic Marxism (as opposed to orthodox Marxism) is complementary to aspects of Buddhism. He highlights the concern for solving human suffering found in both traditions and construes certain concepts (such as karma, samsara, and awakening) to find parallels in Marxist thought on social evolution, the “ego-self,” and the potential for an unalienated spirituality.

Find this resource:


Ling, Trevor. Buddha, Marx, and God: Some Aspects of Religion in the Modern World. New York: Macmillan, 1979.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-16054-9Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Ling positions the three personalities in the title as forces in cultural clashes around the globe that involve religion. The first two, though, he argues, have begun to find (at the time of his writing and in his estimation) an equilibrium together in Asia because of complementarities on topics such as economic inequality and social justice.

Find this resource:


Shackley, Paul. “Zen Marxism.” Contemporary Buddhism 2.2 (2001): 169–176.

DOI: 10.1080/14639940108573748Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Shackley proposes that, despite obvious incompatibilities between Marxism and Buddhism, such is the relative importance or non-importance of materialism that the differences are attributable to historical origins and do not impede a synthesis of the two ways of thought.

Find this resource:


Slott, Michael. “Can You Be a Buddhist and a Marxist?” Contemporary Buddhism 12.2 (2011): 347–363.

DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.610640Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Locates elements in each that, when combined, can potentially contribute to more effective political activism: a coherent approach to the challenges of human existential experience in the case of Buddhism and tools to critique social structures in the case of Marxism.

Find this resource:


Titmuss, Christopher. “Marxism, Buddhism, and the Question of Human Suffering.” In Marxism and Spirituality: An International Anthology. Edited by Benjamin Page, 197–206. London: Bergin and Garvey, 1993.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Writing from his perspective as a convert Buddhist monk, Titmuss sees parallels in the life stories of Marx and the Buddha, and concludes that their perspectives on the world are also similar. Thus while recognizing that the Buddha’s message is awakening from internal ignorance and Marx sought liberation from exterior capitalist exploitation, they were both concerned with bettering and freeing humanity from its worldly circumstances, as opposed to a hereafter.

Find this resource:


Vohra, Ashok. “The Notion of Suffering in Buddhism and Marxism.” Dialectics and Humanism 10.4 (1983): 97–101.

DOI: 10.5840/dialecticshumanism19831049Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Puts forward the position that the concept of suffering is similar in the two philosophies and that both additionally posit solutions to that suffering by the removal of conditions fundamental to human experience or society.

Find this resource:


Arguments for Philosophical and Historical Incompatibility
The works in this section take issue with the claims of those who see Buddhism and Marxism as complementary. In some cases, the arguments are responses specific to a work given in Studies in Philosophical Compatibility. For example, Reynolds 2004 is a counter to Brien’s assertions on the compatibility of Buddhism and Marxism (see Brien 2002 and Brien 2004, in Studies in Philosophical Compatibility). Other pieces in this section take different tacks to arrive at similar conclusions, citing fundamental differences in the way each perceives the nature of human suffering (Jayewardene 1957), the more materialist view of Marxism (Smart 1981, Smart 1983, and Banerjee 1978), and rival political agendas (Benz 1965).

Banerjee, Nikunja Vihari. Buddhism and Marxism: A Study in Humanism. Orient Longman, 1978.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Banerjee argues for Buddhism’s status as a humanism superior to Marxism by virtue of, in the author’s estimation, its focus on nonviolence and an ethics that rejects egoism. Buddhism is thus more equipped to deal with the challenges humans face in the world in that it prepares individuals to cut their ties from material possessions. Marxism, on the other hand, advances the notion that greater control over possessions is a good.

Find this resource:


Benz, Ernst. Buddhism and Communism: Which Holds the Future of Asia? Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

This work surveys the author’s research on Buddhist reactions to the Marxist revolutions that occurred during the 1960s. It also discusses the transition to Communist government in Tibet and the role of Buddhism in the Soviet Union. Throughout, Benz argues that Buddhism and Marxism can be only rival sociopolitical ideologies and he attributes various Buddhist movements in Sri Lanka and Myanmar to a desire on the part of Buddhists to counter Communism.

Find this resource:


Jayewardene, J. R. Buddhism and Marxism: And Other Buddhist Essays. London: East and West, 1957.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Jayewardene compares Buddhism and Marxism from a Buddhist point of view. He emphasizes significant differences between the two ways of thought, including their approach to human suffering, economics, and the concept of social class. He rejects any combination or compatibility between the two systems and, speaking to the time period in which the piece was written, strongly characterizes Marxist movements in Sri Lanka as a dire threat to the country.

Find this resource:


Karsenti, Bruno. “Lévi-Strauss and Marxism.” Diogenes 60.2 (2015): 67–78.

DOI: 10.1177/0392192114568267Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Taking a cue from a brief passage in Tristes Tropiques in which Lévi-Strauss admiringly compares Buddhism and Marxism, Karsenti examines what he sees as the ahistorical nature of this claim and spirals out from there into a discussion of how Lévi-Strauss’s own intellectual proclivities are revealed by this conjunction, which Karsenti sees as incongruous.

Find this resource:


Puligundla, R., and K. Puhakka. “Buddhism and Revolution.” Philosophy East and West 20.4 (1970): 345–354.

DOI: 10.2307/1397820Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Examines affinities between Buddhist philosophical concepts such as “karmic bondage” and the Marxist view of economic determinism, though ultimately the authors argue that the Buddhist critique of human existence is more thoroughgoing than Marxism, or any Western revolutionary ideology, for that matter.

Find this resource:


Reynolds, John Myrdhin. “Some Thoughts on Buddhist-Marxist Dialogue.” Dialogue and Universalism 14.1–2 (2004): 61–65.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Reynolds’s article is a direct response to Brien 2004 (cited under Studies in Philosophical Compatibility). A student of Edward Conze, Reynolds similarly sees potential connections between the two ways of thought primarily because of their anthropocentric orientation. He goes on to consider, however, that the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth would prove an obstacle to unity with Marxist thought, as the latter’s materialism would have difficulty accommodating the notion of existence occurring over multiple lifetimes.

Find this resource:


Smart, Ninian. Beyond Ideology: Religion and the Future of Western Civilization. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

In the context of casting certain political ideologies as on a par with religious worldviews, and thus necessary for study alongside the traditional “world religions,” Smart recounts (albeit briefly, in the scope of this entire book) what he sees as the deleterious impact of Marxism on Buddhist traditions in Tibet, China, and Southeast Asia.

Find this resource:


Smart, Ninian. Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1983.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

In the midst of a dimensionally-based introduction to religious traditions, Smart includes multiple references to Marxism and, when discussing the context of Asian religions, asserts that Buddhist and Marxist worldviews are fundamentally incompatible, with the former declining in the face of the latter. The basis of this incompatibility is the Marxist materialist worldview, which Smart argues cannot be squared with fundamental Buddhist doctrines, such as impermanence and dependent origination.

Find this resource:


Regional Ethnologies and Case Studies
The works in this section all focus on Buddhism and Marxism in specific cultural and/or historical environments. These studies and ethnographies both complicate and complement the works collected in General Overviews and Studies in Philosophical Compatibility. Some of the studies cited in this section focus on very individualized reactions to Buddhism and Marxism, as documented in Gibson 1995 and Shields 2012. Others highlight the blending of the two across an entire community, as discussed in Contursi 1993, and still others examine the consequences of tensions between the two on a national scale, as in Stuart-Fox 1983.

Contursi, Janet. “Political Theology: Text and Practice in a Dalit Panther Community.” The Journal of Asian Studies 52.2 (1993): 320–339.

DOI: 10.2307/2059650Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contursi provides a frame for understanding the syncretism of religious and political movements; she calls this frame “political theology.” Her case study involves the Bharatiya Dalit Panthers, a group that combines Buddhist and socialist ideas, through the works of Ambedkar. She argues that while some have posited theoretical and philosophical distinctions between Marxism and Buddhism, in the lived experience of this community, the two are blended.

Find this resource:


Gibson, Keiko Matsui. “Noma Hiroshi’s Novelistic Synthesis of Buddhism and Marxism.” Japan Quarterly 42.2 (1995): 212–222.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

This article is a study of the means by which the Japanese novelist Noma Hiroshi combined elements of Buddhism and Marxism for a post–Second World War audience. Gibson sees a plea and hope for social change based on rationalism and science as the crux of the synthesis between Buddhist and Marxist thought in Noma’s novels.

Find this resource:


Jones, Charles B. “Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu’s Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times.” Journal of Global Buddhism 1 (2000): 82–111.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Traces the approach of a Taiwanese monk who sought to integrate Buddhist and Marxist thought against Japanese imperialist and capitalist forces.

Find this resource:


Katz, Nathan. “Buddhism and Marxism on Alienation and Suffering.” Indian Philosophical Quarterly 10.3 (1983): 255–261.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Katz explores conceptual and structural parallels between Buddhist and Marxist thought. For instance, he sees a resonance between Marx’s notion of “alienation” and the Buddha’s discussion of “suffering,” both of which are neither random nor intractable in the human condition. Katz concludes, therefore, that the approach to life and society in both systems is quite similar.

Find this resource:


Mun, Chanju. “A Historical Introduction to Minjung (Liberation) Buddhism: A South Korean Version of Radical Buddhism in the 1980s.” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15.2 (2014): 264–282.

DOI: 10.1080/21567689.2014.899065Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

This article is a case study of a Korean Buddhist group (the Minjung Buddhists) that worked for certain political goals, such as the reunification of North and South Korea, and blended aspects of Marxism and Buddhism. The article raises questions about the nature of “engaged” Buddhism, as the Minjung (which translates to “masses,” as in the “oppressed masses” of Marxist theory) positioned themselves as a Korean brand of engaged Buddhism.

Find this resource:


Rodrigues, Valerian. “Buddhism, Marxism, and the Conception of Emancipation in Ambedkar.” In Dalit Movements and the Meaning of Labour in India. Edited by Peter Robb, 299–338. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

In this book chapter, Rodrigues analyzes Ambedkar’s Buddhist conversion movement in the mid-20th century in India, paying special attention to his critique of Marxism. Rodrigues shows that Ambedkar primarily believed that, while Marxism provided some insights and tools toward social change, Buddhism possessed these already and without Marxism’s tendencies toward violence.

Find this resource:


Shields, James Mark. “A Blueprint for Buddhist Revolution: The Radical Buddhism of Seno’o Giro (1889–1961) and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 39.2 (2012): 333–351.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Employs the writings of Seno’o Giro to look at the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism as a socialist-Marxist entity, as well as examine the prospect of future socially radical Buddhisms.

Find this resource:


Shields, James Mark. “Liberation as Revolutionary Praxis: Rethinking Buddhist Materialism.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 20 (2013): 461–499.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

While both Buddhism and Marxism speak of “liberation” and movements across Asia have attempted to synthesize the modes of thought, Shields argues that the results have been mixed. However, drawing on the writings of Seno’o Giro, Shields puts forward a case for the overlap of Buddhism and Marxism on the subject of self-determination in the face of alienation.

Find this resource:


Stuart-Fox, Martin. “Marxism and Theravāda Buddhism: The Legitimation of Political Authority in Laos.” Pacific Affairs (1983): 428–454.

DOI: 10.2307/2758191Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues that traditional Theravāda Buddhism in Laos was appropriated and transformed by the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party and examines how Buddhist institutional authority was gradually undermined.

Find this resource:


Yu, David. “Buddhism in Communist China: Demise or Co-Existence?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39.1 (1971): 48–61.

DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/XXXIX.1.48Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Yu’s survey of Communist writings about religion and Buddhism in China contextualizes the dynamics between the two ways of thought in that country. Part of the dynamics surveyed include definitions and re-definitions of the role of Buddhism in the history of China, as well as strategies employed by Buddhist leaders of that time period to portray their practices and beliefs as fully compatible with a Marxist outlook on life.