This article was downloaded by: [DTU Library]

On: 04 May 2014, At: 01:30

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary Buddhism: An
Interdisciplinary Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcbh20

Can you be a Buddhist and a Marxist?

Michael Slott
Published online: 07 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Michael Slott (2011) Can you be a Buddhist and a Marxist?, Contemporary
Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12:2, 347-363, DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.610640

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2011.610640

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND
A MARXIST?

Michael Slott

Both Buddhism and Marxism have strengths and weaknesses in helping us to

understand human experiences and social problems. Rather than trying to create a
synthesis of the two perspectives, I attempt to discern the elements in each which can
help us experience better lives and be more effective political activists. Buddhism
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

identifies those understandings and practices which lead to greater happiness and less
suffering in response to existential challenges that we all must face as mortal human
beings, irrespective of the particular family, society, or historical era that we live in. But
while Buddhism captures certain basic aspects of universal human experience, it does
not take account of the interaction or dialectic between humans qua social beings and
the relatively permanent social structures that humans both reinforce and challenge
in the course of history. The latter is the province of a radical social theory, such as
Marxism. At the same time, however, Marxism does not address the ways in which, at an
experiential level, life causes suffering and anguish irrespective of the social context.

I
How can I have a fulfilling, reasonably happy life? As I get older, how do I
come to terms with my mortality? How is it possible to participate in creating a
decent, just society in which my happiness and fulfilment are inextricably linked
with the happiness and fulfilment of my loved ones, my neighbours, and all
human beings?
These basic existential and political concerns frame the purpose of this
essay. In what follows I will explore the relationship of Buddhism and Marxism,
focusing on their respective limitations and value in answering the above
questions. I should say at the outset that I do not believe in several key tenets
common to the main traditions of Buddhism, including the notion of karma linked
to rebirth and the existence of transcendent beings. Following Stephen Batchelor
(1997; 2010), I would characterize myself as a secular Buddhist who believes that
the Buddhist view of human experience and the practice of meditation are
essential in helping us to live ethically, while facing the vicissitudes of life that
cause us anguish and suffering. At the same time, I do not consider myself an
orthodox Marxist. There are core elements of a Marxist view that still make a lot of

Contemporary Buddhism, Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2011

ISSN 1463-9947 print/1476-7953 online/11/020347-363
q 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2011.610640
 348 MICHAEL SLOTT

sense to me, but there are other perspectives not emphasized in Marxism that I
have found useful in gaining a more critical understanding of the world—
feminism and psychodynamic theories of the self being two examples. However,
even though Marxism needs to be supplemented and complemented by other
perspectives, we still need a radical social theory that grasps both the potential for
progressive change, as well as the human and social-structural obstacles to the
qualitative transformation of our world.
Before proceeding further, it is important that I provide some personal
context, as well as clarify what I mean by Buddhism and Marxism. Readers of this
journal will likely be very familiar with the various traditions and philosophical
perspectives of Buddhism. I have recently encountered Buddhism and engaged in
a regular practice of meditation while I have, for many years, been a progressive
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

activist in the labour movement and seriously grappled with Marxist theory and
practice. Therefore, I approach this issue as someone who, having recognized the
limitations of radical politics in both the personal and social dimensions of life, has
come to see certain Buddhist ideas and practices as vital in each of these areas.
When I use the term ‘Buddhism’ in this article, I am referring to what Ken
Jones (2003) has characterized as the ‘core dharma’ or essential aspects of
Buddhism, which includes the ‘ . . . .basic diagnosis of the human condition, the
prescription of meditative practices and the goal of existential awakening (i.e.
enlightenment)’ (Jones 2003, 118). In his view, that core is composed of the
following elements: the four noble truths; the three signs of being and the three
fires of greed, aggressiveness, and delusion; dependent co-origination; the moral
precepts; the noble eightfold path; and karma as a psychological phenomenon.
However, when I refer to a particular trend or view within Buddhism, I will note
that this trend or view is not shared by all Buddhists.
Marxism, too, is a complex and diverse body of thought and practice. I will
similarly be using the term ‘Marxism’ based on a set of core propositions shared by
all Marxists. First, Marxists believe that the production and reproduction of our
material existence is both the basis for and the key (although not the only) factor in
structuring society. In the context of this notion—often referred to as the theory of
historical materialism—Marxists further argue that historical development is
significantly shaped by the conflict between social groups or classes over the
ownership and control of the means of production and reproduction. Third,
because of class conflict and other internal contradictions within a particular mode
of production, Marxists assert that socioeconomic formations inevitably become
unstable and incapable of being fixed or reformed. Fourth, capitalism, the dominant
socioeconomic formation for the past several hundred years, is prone to crises due
to tendencies inherent in the nature of profit-driven competition between busi-
nesses, as well as conflict between the two most significant social groups: working
class people and the owners of businesses, the capitalist class. Fifth, given their
common experiences of mistreatment and exploitation, groups of workers (parti-
cularly in individual companies) have a tendency to band together into collective
organizations (such as unions) to defend and advance their interests vis-à-vis their
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 349

employer. When workers move beyond such sectional economic solidarity to a

broader political understanding (the ‘class for itself’), they have the potential to be
the primary agent of a fundamental transformation of capitalism, one in which
workers and their allies supplant the capitalist class and create a democratic, non-
exploitative society. Finally, Marxists believe that progress in history, whether it be
within the realm of technology, culture, economics or politics, is based on our
inherent and distinctive capacity for creative, purposive labour—what Marx called
praxis. Ultimately, change is only possible because of this unique human capacity.
Given my motivational and practice-based starting point, I am not
examining the relationship of Marxism and Buddhism in order to compare and
contrast their fundamental or core propositions, nor am I seeking to develop some
new synthesis—Buddhist Marxism or Marxist Buddhism. Several writers (Brien
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

2006; Gunasekara 1984; Puligandia and Puhakka 1970; Shackley 2001; Titmuss
1993) have already addressed these issues and identified some common elements
in Buddhism and Marxism. Both perspectives stress the primacy of change and
process in reality, as opposed to permanent essences and substances. They also
share similar humanistic goals: the alleviation of suffering and the development of
our ‘true’ or better aspects of our human nature. Finally, they reject otherworldly
Absolutes and dualisms. At the same time, they diverge in important respects, the
most crucial of which is the emphasis in Buddhism on individual change versus the
centrality of social conflict in Marxism. While recognizing their commonalties and
differences, my goal in this essay is not to find some way to integrate the two
perspectives, as it is to discern the elements in each which can help us experience
better lives and be more effective political activists.
The basic argument in this essay is that both Buddhism and Marxism have
strengths and weaknesses when helping us to understand human experience and
social problems. Buddhism provides us with profound insights about the human
condition. Based on these understandings, Buddhism identifies those practices
which lead to greater happiness and less suffering in response to existential
challenges that we all must face as mortal human beings, irrespective of the
particular family, society, or historical era that we live in. Yet while Buddhism
captures certain basic aspects of universal human experience, it does not take
account of the interaction or dialectic between humans qua social beings and
the social structures and processes that humans both reinforce and challenge in
the course of history. The latter is the province of a radical social theory. At the same
time, however, Marxism does not address the ways in which, at an experiential
level, life causes suffering and anguish irrespective of the social context.

II
The limitations and value of both can be shown by considering what life
would be like under ideal conditions envisaged by each perspective.
Among Marxists, the ideal society has been referred to in various ways,
reflecting the various trends within the Marxist tradition: communism with a small ‘c’,
 350 MICHAEL SLOTT

democratic socialism, workers’ democracy, and so forth. Whatever the particular

appellation, such a society has certain core characteristics. In the first place, it is a
society in which human beings have the opportunity to develop their full human
potential for intelligent, purposive, and creative activity. Further, natural, socio-
economic, and cultural resources are used for the benefit of all of the people, not for
the profit of a few. Every human being is guaranteed the material necessities of life, an
adequate income, health security, and the opportunity to gain education and training.
Exploitative and oppressive social relationships are eliminated, allowing human
beings to interact with each other on the basis of mutual respect and justice. In this
egalitarian society, it is the content of one’s character, not one’s skin colour, or who
one’s family is, that is essential. To the extent that such a complex society requires
policies to be chosen, planning to occur, and the administration and regulation of
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

human activities, it is not a bureaucracy or an elite group that is in charge. Instead,

working people, through their participation and control of various democratic social
institutions (unions, planning boards, representative assemblies) make the key
decisions in society. In short, this ideal society is a substantive democracy whose
resources are owned, controlled, and utilized by and for working people.
Put aside the question of whether such a society, or even some relatively
close approximation, can actually be established sometime in the future.1 Try, for a
moment, to imagine the life of an individual in such a society. Certainly, many of
the problems that make our current life so difficult would no longer play a
significant role. Insecurity would be diminished as people are guaranteed the
basic necessities of life. Competition and striving for advantage over others would
also be less prominent in a world in which everyone experiences nurture and
support for their human potential. The horrors of war, famine, and environmental
devastation would disappear, allowing us to lead lives marked by peace, comfort
and security. Technology and automation would be used to free human beings
from uncreative, physically difficult labour while reducing the total amount of time
needed to work. We would have more time to spend with our families and friends,
as well as to develop our talents and interests in a variety of areas. Marx envisaged
the full development of human potential in this context in these terms:
. . . .in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but
each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the
general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and
another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in
the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming
hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. (Marx 1972, 124)

A wonderful world and surely anyone would wish to be part of it. So, would
we be happy and content? Certainly, happier than now—and that is, of course, no
minor accomplishment. However, there would still be aspects of life that would
cause us anguish and suffering, in spite of these optimal conditions for social
interaction and the development of our potential. This is the point at which
Marxism reaches its limit.
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 351

Let us start with the most obvious and important existential fact. We are
mortal beings. We are going to die and virtually all of us—unless condemned to
death at a particular date and time—do not know when we will die. This is an
inescapable fact of life, an existential certainty regardless of the society that we
live in. For most of us, the inevitability of our death is a source of suffering and
anguish. We do not want to die; we are, as living beings, ‘hard-wired’ to want to
continue to survive, and yet we are painfully conscious of our own mortality. The
thought of our death is frightening. Worse, we know that death is not, for most
people, some pleasant slide to oblivion. Many of us will undergo physical and
mental pain before we die. For the lucky few, the process of dying may be
relatively quick, following a long period of creative activity, loving relationships,
and meaningful social contributions. Unfortunately, the vast majority of human
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

beings face a fairly protracted period in which our body (and perhaps our mind as
well) loses its ability to function in ways that are both painful and sometimes
degrading.
It is not just our mortality, our impermanence, that is troubling to us. Even
when we are relatively physically and mentally fit, we suffer daily. As human
beings, we have needs and desires that are not met. We experience fears and
aversions for objects, peoples, and events. We are often restless and bored. In
short, in a multitude of ways throughout our existence, life is not what we wish it
to be. Life inevitably brings us suffering; à la Elizabeth Barrett Browning, let me
count some of the most common ways:
The things and people we want, we don’t get.
The things and people we don’t want, we get.
The things and people we have and we wanted, suddenly change and we no
longer want them.
We lose the things and people that we have and we wanted.
We learn that what we wanted and got is no good for us.
We learn that what we don’t have is good for us.
And so on . . . . . . .

What Buddhism recognizes is that we suffer because we are human beings

who have needs, wants, aversions, and fears in a world in which it can never be
possible for us to have all that is ‘good for us’, all of the time. More precisely, we
suffer because we get attached to and ‘hooked’ on needs, wants, fears, and
aversions which are only the projections of our illusions and conditioning. Lacking
an understanding of the cause of such illusions, we will experience loss and pain.
Now, of course, we also have many moments of happiness in our life as well.
Buddhists understand perfectly well the experience of happiness, but they also
know that happiness is impermanent, as is everything else. It is that
impermanence of events, objects, and people that is difficult for us to understand
and embrace. As beings who must survive in the world, we have a naturally strong
tendency to hold on to what makes us feel good and to recoil from what we
experience as bad. Yet it is precisely this tendency to attach ourselves to or retreat
 352 MICHAEL SLOTT

from objects, events, and people that causes us to suffer. What is, in one respect,
an essential survival mechanism for a biological being living in an uncertain,
perilous world, is also that which makes human life, in any kind of society, difficult,
sometimes almost unbearable.
So how do we resolve this conundrum? The Buddhist view is that suffering
can be ended when we are no longer attached to or recoil from objects, events
and people. To be free of attachment and aversion, one must understand the true
nature of reality—its impermanence, insubstantiality, and interconnectedness—
and engage in certain practices, including meditation and acts of loving kindness,
that facilitate our path to a state of non-attachment and non-aversion, that is
enlightenment. While Buddhists have different views about how and when
enlightenment can be achieved, as well as its exact meaning, they believe that
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

there is a way out of suffering.2 The account of the Buddha’s successful struggle to
gain enlightenment is an illuminating and inspiring example of this process.
My own view, which is consistent with my secular Buddhist orientation, is
that suffering can be lessened, but not ended. Although I am ultimately an
agnostic on this issue, I do not think it is reasonable to believe that human beings
can achieve a state of absolute non-attachment and non-aversion. What we can
do is learn how to experience and view our attachments and aversions in a more
open, curious, and compassionate manner. Instead of harshly judging ourselves
and others in the service of identifying with our attachments and aversions, we
can become more clear-eyed and detached toward the ‘good and bad stuff’ in life
while, at the same time, developing a greater sense of empathy toward all beings,
including ourselves. Personally, I have found vipassanā or insight meditation to be
a meditative practice that is conducive to this quest. According to Salzberg (1999),
through insight meditation, we can come to experience attachments and
aversions as inevitable but impermanent aspects of our lives. They are part of us,
but they are not us, for they come and go, come and go. They are part of the
stream of life, of which we are also an impermanent part. By viewing life and
ourselves in this manner, we become more capable of mindfully experiencing the
world, being less caught up in the attachments and aversions that often control
our life’s narrative.3
For Buddhists, understanding the causes of suffering and consequently
committing oneself to performing practices (such as meditation) that reduce one’s
suffering, is not a narrow personal pursuit. It is not a matter of one gaining a sense
of peace and calm, a purity of mind, in order to edify the individual soul. When we
understand why we suffer and how to lessen suffering, we naturally want to lessen
the suffering of other beings. In our dealings with others, we thus act with ‘loving
kindness’ (mettā) and care. Contrary to the view asserted by Žižek (2001), that
Western Buddhism essentially functions as a means to allow individuals to tolerate
the insanity and brutality of globalized capitalism, there is an essentially ‘social
action’, an ethical aspect of Buddhism.
There is an interesting contrast here I think, with a basic ethical maxim of the
Judeo-Christian tradition, the Golden Rule—‘Do unto others as you would have
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 353

others do unto you.’ The Golden Rule expresses a reciprocal notion of human
rights and value; if I act well, others will act well in response. On the other hand,
the Buddhist injunction to practice loving kindness toward others is not a form of
enlightened self-interest, but an unconditional expression of compassion and
empathy. We do not act with loving kindness in order to get something back, but
because, reflecting on our own suffering, we understand that all beings deserve to
be treated with loving kindness.
Buddhists recognize the integral connection between our selves and the
environment (other selves, society, the Universe). How we understand and act in
the world, to a large extent creates that very world. The person whose mind is
caught up in attachment and aversion will tend to create a world in which what
she or he experiences are objects of attachment and aversion—in short, a world of
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

suffering. Those who can attain non-attachment and practice compassion will
create a world in which peace, calm, and loving compassion are predominant. The
‘mind’ and the ‘external world’ are not dualistically opposed entities, for the
external world is, in part, created by and through the mind.
Thus, although Buddhism has an inherently social dimension, Buddhists
believe that the root cause of human suffering, as well as the remedy, reside in the
individual’s experience with and response to their perceived reality. Human beings
need to work on changing themselves, understanding the cause of suffering and
following the EightFold Path of ‘right’ understandings, speech, and actions,
including practising loving kindness and compassion. A human being who makes
these changes will act better toward others. As more and more human beings act in
this manner, social relationships will become more peaceful, just and empathetic. A
society in which loving kindness is the primary basis of social relationships is one in
which the vast majority of human beings understand and act based on non-
attachment and compassion. This is the ideal society according to Buddhism.
I agree with the notion (not just limited to Buddhism of course) that social
change requires a fundamental change in individual behaviour, attitudes, and
understandings. On the most basic level, when we show kindness and generosity
to others, they tend to react positively and, in turn, will likely show more kindness
and generosity to others. Loving kindness is ‘infectious’ in this sense. Two
examples from my own life: I remember one time when I went to a convenience
store to get a coffee after having had a very pleasant and rewarding time with
someone. I went to the cashier to pay for my coffee and she said, ‘You have such a
nice smile on your face.’ I was not aware of my facial expression, but I could see
that my good mood had lifted her spirits as well. Or, the time when I was trying to
get into the parking lot where I work and the endless stream of traffic going the
other way caused me to wait longer than I wanted. Feeling increasingly impatient,
I began to focus on the work I needed to do and how I hated to drive on that
street, but then, a driver going in the opposite direction slowed down and
motioned for me to make the left turn into the parking lot. He smiled at me and I
felt a palpable relief and a sense of calm returning. As I walked the steps up to my
office, I felt lighter and more capable of responding positively to others.
 354 MICHAEL SLOTT

And yes, beyond these small but precious moments in life, individual actions
imbued with mindful, loving kindness can have an even broader social impact. In
recent years, a trend has developed within Buddhism that emphasizes the social
action implications of the Buddha’s teachings. Advocates of ‘engaged Buddhism’,
such as the contributors to the books edited by Kotler (1996), McLeod (2006) and
Queen (2000), assert that loving kindness needs to be manifested in all areas of
life: from personal interactions, to providing service to those in need, to
involvement in activist groups fighting for peace, an ecologically-sustainable
economy, and justice. Guided by an ethic of non-harming and compassion, such
Buddhists strive to reduce suffering caused by both the existential conditions of
life and social conditions that harm human beings.
Buddhism has been an important component of several significant political
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

movements, including the campaign for democracy in Burma led by Aung San Suu
Kyi. Looking beyond Buddhist-inspired political activism, we can find other
important examples of progressive movements based on spiritual perspectives
emphasizing loving kindness and care. Think of Gandhi’s non-violent mass
campaign for both Indian independence and religious tolerance, or Martin Luther
King’s contribution to building the US civil rights movement. No one can deny that
the religious, spiritual inspiration for individual activists in both cases was
absolutely crucial in sustaining both the Indian independence and American civil
rights movements.
While it is imperative to recognize the ways in which the transformation of
individuals is a necessary condition of social transformation, it is equally important
to take into account how the individual is shaped, partially constituted, by
obdurate social structures. Even Buddhists who assert the need for collective
action and radical political change, such as Jones (2003), fail to recognize this
dimension of the individual-society relationship. Thus, Jones argues that ‘it is our
root existential condition that is primary. It is from this that our social condition
originates, and the radical remedy for the ills of that social condition depends on
no less a radical change in the kind of people we typically are’ (Jones 2003, 222).
It is a mistake to view the quality and character of society as primarily the
product of individuals’ thoughts and actions. There exists in this world a whole
complex of powerful economic, political, and social structures. These structures
stubbornly persist because they sustain and promote the interests of specific
groups of people, namely, economic and political elites. As a result, these
structures have a ‘hardness’, a relative permanence, that make them extremely
resistant to change. If it is true that the world is, as Buddhists emphasize, marked
by constant change and impermanence, it is also the case that some aspects of
our social reality are relatively immovable and unchanging.
In the interaction or dialectic between the individual and society, there are
certain capacities of human beings that are also relatively enduring, irrespective of
the social environment. Insofar as such capacities distinguish human beings from
other beings, it is appropriate to say that the complex of such capacities
constitutes human nature. Let me be clear. I am not speaking of human nature as
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 355

an essence that is transcendent, permanent and fixed. Both Buddhism and

Marxism are correct in rejecting such a view of human nature, whether it is
conceived of as ātman or Feuerbach’s abstract human essence.4 Yet, if it is true
that human capacities are always socially mediated, always actualized only in the
context of particular social forms, it is also the case that our complex human
nature does set certain limits on our behavioural repertoire and makes possible
certain kinds of individual and social transformation. We can reject the idea of a
universal, human essence, separate from social interaction, and still recognize that
there are enduring capacities that play a fundamental role in shaping the
processes and structures of society. As noted earlier, we naturally seek what we
want and need and are averse to what we do not want and need. Beyond that,
there is a universal human capacity for aggression, competition, and dominance
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

just as there is a human capacity for rationality, generosity and empathy. We have
a tendency to view the ‘Other’ as less than and/or a threat, just as we can view
another person or group from their vantage point in a compassionate way.
These relatively enduring human capacities interact with relatively hard
social structures. We grow up in a society that emphasizes competition,
domination, and avarice, and so those aspects of our nature are developed within
and through such a social context. In turn, individual behaviours reinforce and
reproduce the very same oppressive social structures based on these qualities. Yet,
as Marxists have emphasized, we have other capacities that allow us to change
and transform oppressive social structures. If we did not, how can one explain
progress (admittedly in its varied and contradictory forms), social revolutions, the
increasing legitimacy of democracy, and so on?
This complex dialectic is a core element of a radical social theory. As Marx
said, ‘The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones . . . . They are the
real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live,
both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity’
(Marx 1972, 113). A radical social theory helps us understand the hardness of
structures and the broad spectrum of human capacities that cause us to both
reproduce and transform those structures. In contrast, Buddhism envisages social
change primarily as a one way causal interaction: changes in the individual’s mind
and behaviour lead to changes in social reality. It is true—we need to change
ourselves as part of the process of social change, but that is only part of the
solution. Social structures are not transformed solely by individual acts of
compassion and loving kindness, even if these acts may be reinforced by being
brought together in the context of a loving, ethical community.
What is required, in addition, are collective forms of struggle and collective
organizations that challenge social structures that are highly resistant to change.
This is so for two reasons. First, collective forms of power and dominance can only
be challenged and ultimately transformed by alternative collective forms. The
exploitation of the capitalist can only be countered by the collective action of
workers, through unions and political organizations. The tyranny of a government
can only be countered by a mass organization of citizens. Furthermore, while
 356 MICHAEL SLOTT

changes in our selves do have an impact on our social relationships and the larger
society, the reverse is also true; changes in individuals can be the product of
collective activity. For example, through the experience of common struggle, a
striking worker who has bigoted views can begin to look beyond racial differences
and identify with a broader solidarity of working people; or, a middle class activist
involved in a campaign against a polluting company begins to recognize the ways
in which working class communities are differentially affected by toxic wastes and
thus develops a more complex, class-based notion of environmentalism.
In sum, the Buddhist prescription for personal happiness lacks one key
ingredient: an understanding of the relatively durable social conditions that block
our ability to limit suffering and live happy, fulfilled lives. At the same time, the
Marxist vision of an ideal society elides the obdurate, existential facts of human
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

suffering. Yet, both perspectives also provide us with valuable insights about how
all human beings can attain a good life.

III
Both Buddhism and Marxism have strengths and weaknesses with respect
to addressing the questions posed at the beginning of this essay. What, then, is
their relationship? Rather than try to combine elements of each to form a new,
universal world-view, I think it is more fruitful to look at how each perspective can
inform or enrich the other in ways that make a secular Buddhist practice and
radical political activism both more efficacious and more consistent with their
respective goals. In a blog post, Cox (2003) offers a somewhat similar approach. He
believes that Buddhism and Marxism provide respectively a ‘grammar of spiritual
practice’ and the ‘grammar of social movements’ that enable us to understand
better personal development and political struggles. Their limitations and value
are highlighted by confronting each perspective with the other ‘ . . . in terms of the
kind of critique which I believe is called elenchic—showing that what people hold
in one area is incompatible with what they hold in another area, in this case
showing that what practitioners and movements are working towards is
incompatible with the means they are choosing to realise it . . . .’
For a political activist with a Marxist perspective, the value of Buddhism is, in
the first place, that it sets a realistic boundary on the utopian dimension of
Marxism. To whatever extent a decent, just society can be created, human beings
will still suffer. We cannot create a perfect society and we should not claim that we
can. Consequently, the hubris that sometimes pervades radical social theory (‘“X
theory” will solve all of our problems’) will be mitigated, and partially replaced with
a greater sense of humility and a clearer understanding of the obstacles to social
transformation.
Second, the cultivation of non-attachment and loving kindness, core
components of the Buddhist tradition, can help activists be more effective and
sustain a long-term commitment to social change. One might argue that
recognizing the impermanence of things and events, as well as feeling a powerful
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 357

compassion for other beings, would weaken or dilute an activist’s passion and lead
to a devaluation of politics. In fact, I think the opposite is true. When activism is less
fuelled by rage and aggression, we can better confront exploitative social structures
and those in power. Our ability to develop workable strategies will be increased
insofar as we ‘keep our eyes on the prize’, rather than have our vision clouded by
aversion and anger linked to the needs of our ego. In addition, a Buddhist
perspective helps us to go through the hard times and difficult defeats that we must
inevitably encounter. The Buddhist emphasis on impermanence and the
conditioned nature of all human acts provides us with a more long-term perspective
on the day-to-day struggle. We can lose a battle that we care deeply about, and feel
badly, but that does not shake our core commitment. In this context, the question
posed by a leader of a day long vipassanā meditation retreat that my wife and I
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

attended is particularly apposite: ‘How can we still be happy when our team loses’?5
Finally, if one looks at the development of radical political parties and
revolutionary movements from an historical perspective, there is a pervasive
tendency for idealism and solidarity to be increasingly replaced by authoritarian-
ism and unethical behaviour. Certainly, establishing and maintaining democratic
structures that ensure accountability of leaders and due process can help to
constrain degenerative organizational tendencies. Just as important, however, a
Buddhist-inspired sense of loving kindness and non-attachment would provide
additional support for egalitarian modes of interaction. If our actions within an
organization are less determined by ego-based desire, anger, and delusion, we are
more likely to make a productive contribution and to treat others with greater
respect and dignity.
At the same time, Marxist understandings can have a salutary impact on the
Buddhist perspective. Taking into account Marx’s real premises, the human and
social structural conditions of life, is crucial for viewing the practice of meditation in
a more complex, nuanced way. Buddhists describe the ‘monkey mind’ as one which
is dominated by aversions, desires, and delusions. When one meditates, one
attempts to bring focus to what is really happening, while accepting with openness,
curiosity and compassion all the comings and goings of the thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions that constitute this monkey mind. To the extent that one becomes an
objective observer of the monkey mind, meditation can help lessen suffering.
However, the process of meditation can be impeded by other obstacles
besides the monkey mind. Like all other human activities, meditation takes place
within a social context and presupposes certain material conditions. To start with
the most obvious example, most of us can only meditate when we have had
enough nutrition to sustain the mental and physical effort that is required. We also
need to have the ‘free’ time to set aside for meditation. We need a relatively
comfortable and quiet space as well. As Virginia Woolf noted, in the context of the
challenges faced by women writers, one needs a room of one’s own. Finally, it is
extremely difficult to meditate if we are experiencing any form of social,
psychological, or physical coercion. In the most extreme situations, the notion of
meditation seems almost unreal. How does one meditate in the killing fields of
 358 MICHAEL SLOTT

Rwanda? In short, if we believe that meditation is a crucial way to live a happier

and more fulfilled life, we have to pay close attention to the social and material
circumstances under which human beings engage in that process. If we do so, we
cannot fail to see, for example, the ways in which social class differences have an
impact on one’s ability to meditate.
There are at least two other ways that Marxism can enrich Buddhist theory
and practice. In evaluating human behaviour, Buddhists often contrast skilful
versus unskilful actions. When our actions are skilful, grounded in wisdom and
compassion, they lead to happiness and a lack of suffering; unskilful actions based
on desire, aversion, and delusion have the opposite effects. Skilful actions
primarily pertain to the individual’s relationship to himself/herself and to other
beings. We are skilful when we learn how to observe mindfully our own aversions,
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

desires, and delusions. We act skilfully when we respond with loving kindness to a
person who has harmed us in some way. If, as I have contended, the obstacles to a
lessening of suffering and a happier life are also based on the negative impact of
exploitative and oppressive social structures, then the scope of skilful actions must
be broadened to include ways in which the negative effect of such structures is
mitigated and, ultimately, transformed. We ought, then, to view skilful actions as
being part of a broader continuum, ranging from ways that we work on ourselves,
to interpersonal actions, to community organizing struggles, to strategies for
resisting the hegemony of the capitalist class (see Gramsci 1957). While each point
in the continuum requires a unique combination of knowledge, passion, and
intentions for our actions to be fruitful, the necessary condition of all skilful actions
is that they be imbued with a sense of mindfulness and loving kindness.
Paying greater attention to the importance of skilful actions at the ‘macro’
level requires us to examine more closely how we function in the world, in
particular, what kind of occupation or profession we have. As part of the Eightfold
Path, ‘right livelihood’ means that one should earn one’s living in a righteous way
and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. Thus, arms trading,
prostitution, and drug dealing are specifically prohibited, as are other occupations
that cause one to violate the principles of right speech and action. In practice, this
has entailed the view that any job that does not directly cause someone to be
harmed is acceptable. However, if social structural constraints to happiness are
understood to be as crucial as individual and interpersonal ones, then what we
consider to be harmful must also be expanded. From this perspective, harm
includes not just direct damage, but contributing, in a significant manner, to the
perpetuation of harmful social structures. An example: is a financial speculator on
Wall Street engaged in a right livelihood? I think not; whatever his/her progress in
gaining mindfulness in meditation, or his/her good works toward others, financial
speculation epitomizes the way in which our economy puts profits before human
needs, leading to the privation, alienation, and exploitation of the vast majority of
people.
Of course, the difficulty lies not in identifying the most egregious cases
of occupations that cause social harming. Between a social worker and the
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 359

manufacturer of a nuclear bomb lie a whole range of jobs for which the criteria of
individual and social harming are not so easily applied. All of us, no matter what
social role we play, are, in some sense, complicit in the continued functioning of
our socioeconomic system. The issue is not one of establishing a rigid Buddhist-
Marxist test for occupational correctness, but of recognizing that the right
livelihood has a social dimension that goes beyond direct harming. This
recognition needs to be incorporated into a Buddhist perspective as well.

IV
I have offered some ideas for how Buddhism and Marxism can enrich each
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

other and consequently make their respective practices more fruitful. One way of
summarizing this is to say that our actions need to be guided by the mutual
interaction of, on the one hand, metta and mindfulness, and, on the other,
solidarity and a critical social analysis. Of course, that is easier said than done. What
form might that relationship take in the world?
At this point, I do not think that this mutual interaction can or should be
embodied in an organizational hybrid that combines both Buddhist and Marxist
perspectives and practices. As religious/spiritual and political/activist organiz-
ations are currently structured, it seems unlikely that this could occur.
Furthermore, given the tragic examples of some Left political groups becoming
cult-like (for example, the so-called US Labor Party led by Lyndon LaRouche) and
of religious organizations debasing their spiritual mission as they engage in
partisan politics and power struggles in society (certain Right wing fundamentalist
churches), we should be wary of any efforts along this line.6
What seems more feasible is for individuals who are political activists/
‘Marxists’ and ‘Buddhists’ to bring into one organizational arena insights and
actions based in the other. In a radical, political organization, the activist with
a Buddhist sensibility can attempt to interact with others more on the basis of
mindfulness and loving kindness; thus facilitating more respectful and
compassionate interactions among the group’s members. He/she can also help
the group to avoid actions that are primarily rooted in ego-driven rage and fear.
Finally, he/she can help the group to envisage and make changes in organizational
functioning that facilitate communication, democracy, and mutual respect.
Within Buddhist Centres or organizations, the radical political activist can, in
a mindful, not hectoring, way draw attention to the social structural dimension of
suffering. He or she can encourage his/her fellow Buddhists to expand their
understanding of harm, skilful actions, and other key Buddhist notions. The activist
can propose forms of political engagement based on this broader understanding.
Whether or not such individual efforts can lead to qualitative changes in
either Buddhism or Marxism, their mutual interaction would, I believe, have a
positive impact on individual ‘spiritual’ practice and collective forms of ‘political’
activism.
 360 MICHAEL SLOTT

V
In advocating the mutual enrichment of Buddhism and Marxism, I am not
asserting that this approach provides a universal solution to basic existential
and political issues. For me and for others who find that Buddhism and Marxism
resonate with our personal history, as well as our intellectual and political
interests,7 the response to the question that is also the title to this essay is: yes,
but in a qualified way. On the one hand, one cannot at the same time be
a reductionistic Marxist for whom all individual actions are the product of
socioeconomic forces and be a Buddhist who is disengaged from social action,
focusing on meditative practices as the solution to suffering. ‘Buddhism’ and
‘Marxism’ of this type do constitute contradictory stances. On the other, it is
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

possible, to live with integrity and without contradiction, as someone for whom
Buddhist insights and practice, and Marxist theory and activism, are integral,
complementary aspects of one’s life. In fact, I have argued in this essay that
Buddhism and Marxism can enrich each other, leading to greater happiness,
fulfilment, and more effective political advocacy.
While Buddhism and Marxism can fruitfully complement each other, there
are other world-views and practices that address the existential and political
dilemmas we experience as human beings. Each person has to find his or her own
path. The Dalai Lama expressed this well when he said, ‘Of course, to myself,
Buddhism is the best. But this does not mean that Buddhism is best for the world.
No! Each person, each individual can find the best. Like Medicine, you cannot say
“Just because I take it, it is the best medicine.” For some people, Christian is best
because it is most effective’ (Iyer 2008, p. 77). Within many religious, spiritual, and
political traditions, there are philosophical perspectives, beliefs, and practices that
promote both human compassion and the kind of society advocated by Marx in
which the ‘free development of each is the condition for the free development of
all’ (1959, 353). For Christians, the Catholic social teaching of the ‘preferential
option for the poor,’ as well as the prophetic, liberatory dimension of certain
Protestant denominations, have supported a radical political stance. The Jewish
notion of tikkun offers similar resources. Likewise, political movements based on
anarchist, feminist, and ecological perspectives have aspects that facilitate mettā
and solidarity. Thus, someone who seeks to experience a fulfilled, reasonably
happy life and wants to contribute to radical political change, can find other
perspectives that provide inspiration and guidance. In the context of a
complicated, diverse world, I think it is this tolerant, pragmatic yet visionary
spirit that offers us the soundest basis for living together and transforming society.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The responses by an anonymous reviewer helped me to clarify several key
arguments in the essay. I also want to thank my spouse and meditation partner,
Sharon Tobias, for her insightful comments and useful suggestions.
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 361

NOTES
1. My views have shifted substantially on this issue over the years. Thirty-five
years ago, I thought that the creation of a society based on workers’
democracy was difficult, but within the realm of possibility. I now view such a
goal as less of a realistic project than an ideal guiding social activism. Why the
change? In my view, while Marx was correct to see intelligent, creative labour
(praxis) as a distinguishing feature of human beings and the basis of progress
in technology and politico-social relationships, his theory did not pay adequate
attention to other aspects of human nature, such as the capacity for
aggression and antagonism toward the “Other”, that make the creation of an
egalitarian workers’ democracy problematic. We are more complex beings than
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

the self-active workers that Marx believed could overthrow capitalism and
create communism. That said, given the relative plasticity of human behaviour,
it is not clear what limits on progressive social change are ultimately set by
our complex human nature. I think we should struggle as hard and
intelligently as we can for radical change, but do so with a sense of humility
based on our understanding of the very real obstacles, both human and social-
structural.
2. Among Western Buddhists, the diversity of views about enlightenment can be
found in a recent issue of the publication, Inquiring Mind, in which practitioners
from the Zen, Tibetan, and vipassana traditions discussed their understanding of
enlightenment. Fall 2010, v. 27(1), pp. 4– 15.
3. There is a view among some Buddhists that this process is a means by which the
mind is "purified" and various “defilements” (e.g. greed, jealousy, fear) are
overcome. By purifying the mind, one finds its “true” nature, which has been
covered over by the various attachments and aversions, as well as mistaken or
deluded ideas. As Joseph Goldstein (1993) asserts, “the essential nature of our
mind and heart is pure” (p. 83). When one is fully enlightened, the process of
purifying the mind is complete. I do not think the notion of a duality of an essence
(the pure/true mind) vs. an appearance (the defiled/deluded mind) is a useful way
of framing the practices of meditation and loving kindness. In my view,
meditation is a form of self-reflective consciousness that facilitates an open,
curious, and compassionate stance toward oneself and others. However, it is no
more “true” or “real” than other human capacities.
4. Geras (1983) argues that Marx’s critique of Feuerbach’s view of human nature
in the Theses on Feuerbach does not entail that Marx rejected any notion of
human nature. According to Geras, Marx distinguished between the ways in
which our behaviour is shaped by society and the distinctive, enduring,
features or capacities of human beings. The latter does constitute human
nature.
5. The question was posed by the retreat facilitator, Sandra Weinberg, 19 September
2010, at the Insight Meditation Center, New York City.
 362 MICHAEL SLOTT

6. At the same time, we should not exclude the possibility that an organization
integrating Buddhist (or, for that matter, any other spiritual tradition) insights
about human experience and radical political perspectives could be developed.
There have been examples of groups that combined radical activism and a
religious/spiritual commitment in a very positive manner, such as the Liberation
Theology movement in central and South America.
7. I am particularly attracted to perspectives that are, on the one hand, grounded,
non-dualistic, and pragmatic, while, at the same time, have as their goal the
development of our human potential through active participation in this
world.
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

REFERENCES
BATCHELOR, S. 1997. Buddhism without beliefs. New York: Riverhead Books.
BATCHELOR, S. 2010. Confession of a Buddhist atheist. New York: Spiegel and Grau.
BRIEN, K. 2006. Marx, reason, and the art of freedom. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
COX, L. 2003. Liberation Buddhology, 25 August. Message posted to http://www.iol.ie/
, mazzoldi/toolsforchange/buddhist/buddhology.html.
GERAS, N. 1983. Marx and human nature: Refutation of a legend. London: Verso.
GOLDSTEIN, J. 1993. Insight meditation: The practice of freedom. Boston: Shambhala.
GRAMSCI, A. 1957. The modern prince and other writings. New York: International
Publishers.
GUNASEKARA, V. A. 1984. Marxism in a Buddhist perspective. Vimamsa Journal of the
Buddhist society of Queensland, http://www.vgweb.org/bsq/marxbud.htm.
INQUIRING MIND. 2010. 27 (1): 4– 15.
IYER, P. 2008. The open road: The global journey of the fourteenth Dalai Lama. New York:
Vintage Books.
JONES, K. 2003. The new social face of Buddhism: An alternative sociopolitical perspective.
Boston: Wisdom Publications.
KOTLER, A., ed. 1996. Engaged Buddhist reade. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
MARX, K. 1959. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In Basic writings on politics and
philosophy: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ed. Lewis Feuer, 1– 41. New York:
Anchor Books.
MARX, K. 1972. The German ideology: Part I. In The Marx-Engels reader, ed. Robert Tucker,
110 – 64. New York: W.W. Norton.
MCLEOD, M., ed. 2006. Mindful politics: A Buddhist guide to making the world a better
place. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
PULIGANDLA, R., and K. PUHAKKA. 1970. Buddhism and revolution. Philosophy East and
West 20 (4): 345 – 54.
QUEEN, C., ed. 2000. Engaged Buddhism in the west. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
SALZBERG, S., ed. 1999. Voices of insight. Boston: Shambhala.
SHACKLEY, P. 2001. Zen Marxism. Contemporary Buddhism 2 (2): 169 – 76.
 CAN YOU BE A BUDDHIST AND A MARXIST? 363

TITMUSS, C. 1993. Marxism, Buddhism, and the question of human suffering. In Marxism
and spirituality: An international anthology, ed. Benjamin Page, 197 – 205.
Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
ŽIŽEK, S. 2001. From Western Marxism to Western Buddhism. Cabinet 2. http://www.
cabinetmagazine.org/issues/2/western.php.
Downloaded by [DTU Library] at 01:30 04 May 2014

Michael Slott is a faculty member of the Labor Studies and Employment Relations
Department at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (USA). A long-
time union and political activist, the author was on the staff of the Health
Professional and Allied Employees/AFT, AFL-CIO and several other labor
unions prior to becoming a faculty member.
Address: University: Rutgers University, USA. Home: 8 Aubrey Road,
Montclair, NJ 07043, USA. Email: mslott@verizon.net