Two great personalities on earth – the Buddha and Karl Marx – propagated their ideals in different fields of thought in different times. The Buddha, born in 563 B.C., is perceived to be the founder of a new religion whereas Karl Marx, who was born in 1818 A.D., is known for his philosophical ideas in relation to politics and economics. Another eminent p ersonality Dr B R Ambedkar explored comparison of the ideas of these two personalities in his treatise ‘Buddha or Karl Marx’ published in 1987. Earlier he delivered a historic speech on this subject on 20 November 1956 at the 4th World Buddhist Conference held at Kathmandu, Nepal. Ambedkar wrote: “A comparison between Karl Marx and Buddha may be regarded as a joke.
There need be no surprise in this.” In his essay, he attempted to investigate the failings of Indian society, particularly in regard to caste discrimination, by comparing the teachings of the Buddha and Marx. He commented, “Nonetheless a comparison between the two is attractive and instructive” and offered the proposition that “if the Marxists keep back their prejudices and study the Buddha and understand what he stood for I feel sure that they will change their attitude.” Ambedkar remarked that the Buddha is generally associated with the doctrine of ‘Ahimsa’. He said the creeds of the Buddha, as laid down in the Tripitaka, are that ‘religion is necessary for a society and religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and speculations about God or Soul or Heaven or Earth’. “Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Everything is subject to inquiry and examination . Everything is impermanent.”
On the other hand, according to Ambedkar, “Marx was more interested in proving that his socialism was scientific. His crusade was as much against the capitalists as it was against those whom he called the Utopian Socialists. He disliked them both.” Marx meant his brand of socialism was ‘inevitable’ and ‘inescapable’ and that society was moving towards it. In the words of Ambedkar, “Marxism is a broad philosophy developed by Karl Marx in the second half of the 19th century that unifies social, political, and economic theory.” But he believed there was hardly any doubt that Marx’s claim that his socialism was inevitable had been completely disproved. Ambedkar also opined that “Nobody now accepts the economic interpretation of history as the only explanation of history.” Marx’s contention was that the forces which shape the course of history are primarily economic. However, Ambedkar did not completely discard Marxism. He wrote: “What remains of Karl Marx is a residue of fire, small but still very important.” He believed Marxism aims to produce equality.
The function of Marxian philosophy is to reconstruct the world. There is class conflict in society and according to Marx there are two classes in the society – the oppressor and the oppressed. Marx propagated that “private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation.” There are similarities between the Buddha and Marx. Both of them had a common goal i.e. a reorganization of society so that people could lead happy lives. Secondly, both of them shared the view that there is conflict in so ciety though the nature of conflicts described by them differs. Buddha re cognize d conflicts between kings, between Brahmins and others, between house holders, between family members and acknowledged these are the true pictures of society.
Another observation of Ambedkar, made in a different context, is relevant: “It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class-conflict, but the existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact …” Misery and exploitation of the poor people of society were major concerns for both of them. Buddha and Marx both believed private ownership of property brought misery in the lives of the masses. Buddha said, “I have said that avarice is because of possession.” Budda viewed suffering as universal and said it comes from desire and attachment. However, the means recommended by Buddha and Marx to end human suffering and to establish a just and happy society are different. While Buddha suggested individual transformation, Marx aimed to end suffering through social revolution.
One looks inward for peace, the other looks outward for justice. Buddha adopted a non-violent, introspective path, while Marx advocated for a revolution, and collective action to overthrow capitalism. However, Ambedkar articulated the view that “the means propounded by Buddha are superior to those of Marx.” According to him Buddha adopted a means to convert a man by changing his moral disposition and follow the path voluntarily. “His main means to alter the disposition of men was his Dhamma and the constant preaching of Dhamma”, while Marx insisted on violence and dictatorship of the proletariat. Though violence cannot be dispensed with altogether, it leads to death of human beings and destruction of private property. Buddha was against violence but permitted the use of force only when it is required to establish justice. Buddha was never a dictator but a democrat all through his life.
He established democratic rules and equal rights in the Sanghas of the Buddhist monks. Ambedkar acknowledged that dictatorship for a short period, used to establish and to remove obstacles in the way of democracy, is good and welcome. He cited the example of King Ashoka. But, according to him, a permanent dictatorship infringes freedom of the masses. Dictatorship is often defined as absence of liberty. The conclusion is that the differences between the Buddha and Marx are about the means but the end is common to both. Ambedkar asserted that a government established by force dose not last longer than a government by moral disposition. It gives the finest picture when moral force prevails over brutal force. Buddha stressed upon the morality of people so they that they would become sentinels of a righteous kingdom.
Thus, the means of the Buddha were more efficacious than those of Marx. Ambedkar was very perturbed by caste discrimination, particularly untouchability that prevailed in Indian society. He often denounced it and fought for upliftment of the opposed class and for establishment of a just society. He wanted a new foundation of society based on ‘Fraternity, Liberty and Equality’ in line with the spirit of the French Revolution. But he said, “It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one (i.e. Equality) but not all.” Since the days of the Buddha, Marx and even of Ambedkar, society has changed substantially. India has now been an independent republic for more than 75 years and has a global presence. The economic system and growth determine a lot in the society. But a just society visualized by Ambedkar is still conceivably unaccomplished. A socio-economic transformation is still sought in the society. There is confidence among visionaries that one day the submerged section of society will gain sovereignty and a new social order will emerge. The writings of Ambedkar impel us to rethink both Buddhist doctrine and Marxist discourse about societal change and equality.
(The writer, a Cost Accountant, retired from a public sector power utility.)