Buddhism and Marxism: points of intersection

Abstract

I contend that Marxism and Buddhism can mutually enrich and support each other, offer constructive criticisms of each other, and intersect in a variety of ways. To demonstrate this, I follow the order of Buddha’s “four noble truths.” I focus first on the general concern which informs both perspectives—their respective analyses of suffering (the first noble truth). While Buddhism emphasizes the pervasive existential and ontological nature of suffering (dukkha), and Marx focuses on its historical construction, I argue that the former is always mediated by the latter. Second, I examine their respective analyses of the causes of suffering (the second noble truth). While Buddhism locates the cause of suffering in the illusion of self and its attendant desires, cravings, and attachments and while Marxism sees suffering as caused by the division of labor, class exploitation, and alienation brought about by the capitalist mode of production, I argue that capitalism both feeds on and reinforces these cravings and attachments; and that the illusion of the self provides the desperation that capitalism turns into profit accumulation, competitiveness, and consumerism which, in turn, reinforce this illusion. Third, I consider their respective ways of understanding the overcoming of suffering (the third noble truth). For Buddhism, this requires extinguishing the illusion of self and its attendant desires, cravings, and attachments. Here, I argue that Marxism’s vision of communism, the construction of a classless society which would ultimately overcome all divisions of labor and forms of domination, will require extinguishing of the illusion of self and its attendant poisons; and that the possibility of overcoming dukkha and attaining Nirvana will, for the vast majority of human beings, require the construction of such a society. Fourth, I argue that Buddhism’s analysis of the eight-fold path as the praxis necessary to attain Nirvana (the fourth noble truth) needs to be extended to a “socially engaged Buddhism,” to a social praxis which confronts and struggles to change the oppressive social institutions that cause suffering; and that Marx’s understanding of revolutionary social praxis can inform and, in turn, be guided by this Buddhist social praxis. Finally, in the last section of this article, I use the challenge to the ecological crisis as an example of how Marxism and Buddhism can work together as well as to critique one another, how confronting this crisis requires both challenging global capitalism and the anthropocentric assumption which separates our species identity from the whole of nature.