The unlikely comparison between Buddha & Karl Marx made by Dr.B.R Ambedkar

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar provides an evaluation of the similarities and the differences between Karl Marx and Buddha, two revolutionaries with a gap of 23 centuries between them. Both of them have had an impact on the world through their works and thoughts. Karl Marx, born 1818 AD, is supposed to be the father of modern Socialism or Communism. Buddha, born 563 B.C, on the other hand is believed to be no more than the founder of religion which has no relation to politics or economics.

Dr.Ambedkar’s evaluation suggests that both these revolutionaries are suggesting more or less the same thing, however, the path they prescribe is totally different. Ambedkar suggests that even though the Marxian Creed may have been demolished by its opponents, what still remains is a ‘residue of fire’, small but significant.                                                                                                                                

Comparsion of the residue remains of Karl Marx with Buddha’s views :

      1.    Karl Marx : The purpose of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not waste its time in explaining the origin of the world.

Buddha : Buddha emphasizes that he shall express no opinion regarding the questions

of the origin of the world, as such questions are not concerned with Dhamma.

2.    Karl Marx : There is a conflict of interest between the classes.

Buddha : Buddha recognizes that class conflict exists and is a cause of misery.

      3.    Karl Marx : Private ownership of property brings power to one class and misery for the others through exploitation.

Buddha : To this Buddha suggests that if in an imagined scenario, there is no possession of any kind there shall be no greed. When there is no tenacity towards anything there is no appearance of possession. The cause of greed is possession and the cause of possession is tenacity.

      4.    Karl Marx : It is necessary to abolish private property for the good of the society to reduce their sorrow

Buddha : According to the rules of the Bhikshu Sangha, a Bhikku can have private property including on eight articles such as a razor, a needle, water strainer etc. Further, a Bhikku was forbidden to receive gold or silver as it was thought he’d give into materialism and buy things other than the 8 things he is permitted to have.

Comparison between  the means suggested by both :

Buddhist View : Buddhism firstly accepts the fact that the world is full of misery and unhappiness. It suggests means to attain liberation from the causes of such sorrow. In a nutshell, it prescribes that one must follow the ‘States of Perfection’ or ‘Paramitas’ to his utmost capacity. The means adopted by the Buddha were to convert man by changing his moral character and mindset to follow the path voluntarily.

Marxian/Communist view : Communists suggest only 2 ways to establish communism. The first being use of violence to forcefully break up the existing system. The second being dictatorship of the Proletariat or the working class, to continue the new system.

EVALUATION OF MEANS OF BOTH :

The Buddha was certainly against violence but he was also in favour of justice. Where justice required use of force, he permitted it. Buddha’s ahimsa was not as absolute as the ahimsa preached by Mahavira, the founder of Jainism. According to him, the use of force must be regulated to save as many ends as possible in destroying the evil. However, he was most definitely  opposed  to the Communist idea of preaching violence as an absolute measure.

As for Dictatorship, the Buddha had an opposite stand. He was an all out democrat. The Bhikshu Sangh had the most democratic constitution, equalitarianism is evident in the functioning of the Bhikshu Sangh. If a gift was given, it must be a gift given to the entire Sangh. The Buddha also refused to appoint someone as a head of the Sangh to control it. He refused to be a dictator and appoint a dictator.

The Communist state cannot be sustained except by the use of force. When the communist state withers away when the force holding it together is withdrawn, if the end result is anarchy, then what good is a Communist state. The Communist give no answer to as to why a dictatorship cannot liquidate itself after is has successfully removed the obstacles in the path of a safe democracy. Why cant the victors disarm themselves rather than disarming the victims, like Ashoka who practiced violence but are later renounced it.

 The Communists have a profound hatred towards Religion, a hatred that makes them blind to religions which are helpful to Communism itself. Due to their hatred they also fail to examine the ideas of Buddhism, which can be actually an ultimate aid to sustain Communism when force is withdrawn. The Communists revel in their own achievements but they fail to recognize the wonder of all wonders that Buddha established Communism in the Sangha without dictatorship, this communism may have been on a smaller scale but it was a communism without dictatorship, a miracle which Lenin or Marx failed to do. Buddha’s method was not to force people to do what they would rather prefer not to, even though it might benefit them. His method was to alter the character and mind of people so that they would voluntarily do what they would otherwise not do.  

Communist idea of permanent dictatorship pays no attention to spiritual values. The Russian Revolution aimed at equality, however in producing equality the Communist state sacrificed liberty and fraternity. Such equality is of no use.

Dr  Babasaheb Ambedkar's speech on Buddha or Karl Marx at Fourth Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhist, Kathmandu on 20th November 1956