Groucho Marxism

Buddhism and Marxism seem unlikely bedfellows. But according to the British philosopher Graham Priest, they have much in common. Buddhism is largely concerned with ethics, whereas Marxism is largely concerned with political philosophy, particularly the nature of capitalism and its negative consequences. There is obviously a strong connection between ethics and political philosophy, as ethics determines the kind of society in which we should live. So it seems plausible that we can combine Buddhist ethics with Marxist political philosophy to form a more comprehensive picture, drawing on the strengths of each. Before we attempt to do that, though, we first need to define what we mean by the terms ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Marxism’.

The core of Buddhism is encapsulated in four principles referred to as the Four Noble Truths. The first is known as the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha): life inherently involves suffering, dissatisfaction, or unease, encompassing obvious pain (birth, sickness, death) and subtler forms like dissatisfaction from change or attachment. The second is known as the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya): suffering arises from craving, attachment, and ignorance, leading to a cycle of desire and clinging. The third is the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha): it is possible to end suffering by letting go of craving and attachment, leading to a state of peace (Nirvana). And the fourth is the Truth of the Path to the Cessation of Suffering (Magga): the way to end suffering is by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Noble Eightfold Path is the Buddha’s practical guide to ending suffering, through eight interconnected practices. These are fall into three groups: cognitive practices (right view, right intention);  ethical practices (right speech, right action, right livelihood); and mental practices (right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration). The most relevant for our purposes is the first (right view). Buddhism teaches us that a major cause of craving lies in the fact that we misunderstand the world in which we live. Each of us misunderstands our very nature, taking this to be some kind of substantial entity, some abiding self. But as I explained in a previous blog post, the self is an illusion constructed by the mind. (More on this below.)

Marxism views capitalism as a socio-economic system driven by a single objective: the pursuit of profit. This inevitably involves the exploitation of workers, who make up the vast majority of the population. Thus, under capitalism, almost everyone ends up getting exploited. This exploitation is achieved in various ways: paying workers as little as possible; maintaining an ever-present threat of unemployment; producing commodities using as little labour as possible; allowing workers no say in the way firms are run; disenfranchising workers; using techniques of advertising (thought-manipulation) to create spurious desires; and deceiving people through propaganda. The last applies to capitalists as well, who are often just as deceived by their own propaganda as the workers it is primarily intended for.

Having defined what we mean by ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Marxism’ – albeit briefly! – the next step is to ask what they have in common. One point of similarity concerns the nature of the self. We have already seen that Buddha rejected the notion of self; similarly, Marx was a materialist who had no truck with the notion of soul, which is essentially the Western equivalent. The difference between them is that Buddhism emphasizes the importance of self-conception in what it is to be a person, whereas Marxism emphasizes the social nature of people. Of course, these two things are not inconsistent with each other. Indeed, they can be seen as complementing each other, each contributing to a more rounded picture.

Marxism complements Buddhism in other ways too. Buddhism locates the cause of suffering in desire, but says little about the social factors which create this; Marxism, in contrast, says a lot about these social factors. Buddhism claims that people misunderstand the world in which they live, but says little about the social world; Marxism shows how, by the ideology of capitalism, people are engineered to misunderstand the nature of the social world and their place within it. Buddhism is a philosophy of compassion, but the Buddha could have had no idea of the forces that capitalism can bring to bear to undercut this; Marx, of course, had a very good understanding of these forces. Buddhism claims that the self is a construction; Marxism explains how such constructions are created under capitalism.

Conversely, Buddhism complements Marxism in several ways. Marxism claims that the exploitation that inevitably occurs under capitalism is bad, but doesn’t really explain why; Buddhism explains this, by locating capitalism in an overarching perspective of human suffering. Marxism tells us that capitalist ideology legitimizes self-interest; Buddhism shows us how the notion of self-interest is based on the metaphysical illusion that people are social atoms existing independently of their surroundings. Marxism explains how capitalism engenders a particular power-structure, with those who own capital exerting great power over those who don’t; Buddhism can widen our attention to other pernicious power structures, such as those of race and gender.

There other ways in which these two pictures complement and reinforce each other (see Priest’s article, of which this blog post is largely a synopsis). A consequence of both worldviews is that we should work to destroy the illusions on which capitalism is based and thereby hasten its demise. We also need to ensure that when capitalism does end, it is replaced with something better. The question is: how? It is clear from historical experience that systems must be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. The challenge for us socialists is to figure out how the many coordination problems that exist in modern society can be solved in a bottom-up way. I will leave this challenge for a future blog post.