I liked the article until the end when he turns on the reader and basically says the situation is hopeless. Saying Buddhism can "help" without there being revolution is not an intelligent assertion.

I watched a great old movie yesterday, Comrade X (1940). I was impressed with the talk of "ideals" in it (in opposition to a philosophy of "bogie-wogie and hotdogs") but the ending was really unrealistic

I don't see how having strong opinions about how others should live their lives is in any way complementary to Buddhist ideas. I'd sooner consider it contrary.

It's about social identity, as the article says. Few can be hermits

Is Buddhism about social identity?

Well they say self and God are illusions so ye

The term "social identity" to me suggests an exterior source of self, which I think is contrary to what Buddhism teaches.

As the article says, Buddhism doesn't say the experience of self is bad or unreal. It says it is an illusion that causes suffering if not handled well. I live in California, USA. Third world countries are jealous of us but I don't think most Californians are happy from what I can see

So the groups Marxism posits one belongs to are illusory as well?

Every thing is illusionary is most ways according to the Buddhist. Reduction in suffering is their goal

The West says it has objective Good as its goal and the suffering element is irrelevant. Let suffering take care of itself, so to speak. I know that most Americans are narcissist however. Their facial expressions they put on and the parts of movies they especially like are all about the pride of the underdog being vindicated. It really becomes a bore after awhile

To my mind people make unnecessary distinctions in social-political theory. I do not support control of a country by a single person (monarchy, Fascism) but much fascist social theory is not different from socialist theory. The real opposed positions are

1) individualistic capitalism vs governmental control

2) cultural elitism vs cultural relativism

In America the Republicans believe that white Western culture is better than other cultures and that individualism is about human rights given by their white God. I don't call myself a Democrat because I see the Planned Parenthood movement as capitalist abortion, just a free market for people to make bad choices. I'm learning lately about "actual idealism", which was born from a paper by Giovanni Gentile in 1912. He intended to continue the "reform of the Hegelian dialectic" that had been started by Bertrando Spaventa, a Hegelian from Naples, by a "method of immanence" that was largely founded on Hegel's ideas but to a lesser extent, maybe, Fitche. (Gentile's ideas were latter put into Christian garb by Armando Carlini, who's initiatives lead to the movement called Christian Spiritualism.) Like Hegel's philosophy, it is a community oriented philosophy which supports a strong government, although I do not support any monarchical tendencies in any of these thinkers. See The Social Philosophy of Giovanni Gentile by H. S. Harris (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1960) if you want to learn more

To my mind people make unnecessary distinctions in social-political theory. — Gregory

Agreed. As far as I am concerned, they are all misplaced opinions about how other individuals should live their lives.

I do not support control of a country by a single person — Gregory

I do not support control of a single person by a country.

You seem like a sensible person, but you apply your ideas selectively.

Do you base your individualism on religion, philosophy, or practical concerns?

Philosophy.

I don't see how having strong opinions about how others should live their lives is in any way complementary to Buddhist ideas. I'd sooner consider it contrary. — Tzeentch

This statement is in strong contradiction to the fact that schools of Buddhism exist. Buddhism DOES want to tell to others (at least to those who ask for it) how to live. Very, very much so.

Granted, Buddhists don't tell people who are not interested in Buddhism how to live the Buddhist way, while communist agit-prop (agitational propaganda) does.

Buddhism DOES want to tell to others (at least to those who ask for it) how to live. — god must be atheist

That is a rather key distinction for me.

fair enough

Bah, no. Eh. Buddhism is elitist.

Bah, no. Eh. Buddhism is elitist. — baker

Can you explain?? Sounds like an old man drunk on his recliner.

Anyone who has spent any time around actual Buddhists will find it absurd to the utmost to think that Buddhism and Communism or Marxism could somehow go hand in hand. Jesus, no. Except for some California Buddhist hippies, the other, the normal Buddhists, are elitist, capitalist, classist, authoritarian.

If you can reference the article, that might help. But I think there was some relation in terms of sets of relations. I would imagine an ideal for Buddhist society would be living monk lifestyles, which is a sort of communism.

But yeah, I think Marxist-Communism is much more invested in technology as a solution which I think Buddhism has nothing much to say about. The conditions of life seem to be more concerned with the ideas of economics and Marx.. We have to work-to-survive. What does this mean? Of course, I think we shouldn't put people into this situation in the first place (pace antinatalism). Others think it is okay to throw another worker in the world whose needs uses others for labor and vice versa. It is an intractable situation.

I wonder though if people had a more self-awareness in just how it is that work itself and relations related to work is harmful and can be reduced. I think people think that as long as they are not being "man's wolf to man" on a macro level, they get a pass on a micro level, and working social relations are certainly a place where at a micro level, man enacts its "wolf" to man. Homo homini lupus. Because, if we don't all work to keep ourselves alive, then society breaks down, and others can't survive.. So get to fuckn' work! Stuff like that.. Man's wolf to man. Intractable though.. the problem is these habits are seen as necessary.. Yet if it is, we don't stop to pause and think if this situation is good for others to into in the first place.

Communism is authoritarian. To an extent so is Christianity. The new testament says to obey the powers that have the authority, although Jesus himself refused to take sides between the Jews and the Romans

The idea that "nobody can tell me what to do unless I have a vote" is contradicted by Paul and Peter in the Bible. "No taxation without representation" doesn't always work in the real world. China is an example of communism working, and many European countries are socialist. Here in the USA we have a semi-socialist system and to the north is socialist Canada. It didn't work in the southern Americas but it's worked elsewhere. The thing is you need a philosophy, an ethos, to live by still, be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, or Marxist philosophy

1 Peter 2 says the emperor and his governors had a right to rule, although they had conquered the people they were ruling over. It all depends on the situation and there are not many hard fast rules when it comes to that (in the abstract)

Anyone who has spent any time around actual Buddhists will find it absurd to the utmost to think that Buddhism and Communism or Marxism could somehow go hand in hand. Jesus, no. Except for some California Buddhist hippies, the other, the normal Buddhists, are elitist, capitalist, classist, authoritarian. — baker

Having been a serious Zen student for over thirty years and having studied classical and radical economics (at some depth) over the past 40 years, perhaps my perspective might help.

I would agree with the first part of your statement that Marxists and Buddhists would find little in common. Now this is assuming that these are folks that actually understand Marxism (few) and Buddhism (extremely few).

Where it gets interesting is whether we are considering Marx's critique of capitalism (which is solid) or the interpolation of his findings into the complete disaster that Communism became, and on the other side, whether we are talking about the religion of Buddhism, or the essence of Buddhism (the historical Buddha came up with the religion because he knew that all but the very, very few would "understand" the essence).

Your every day run of the mill religious Buddhist is generally a very nice person who tries to help others where they can. Marxists are miserable people who only see the contradictions in life (and there are plenty to be had). I've known a lot of both and it would be difficult to see much similarity between the two groups (and none between hard core Marxists and those who "get" Buddhism).

Can a Buddhist not be an activist?

If Tenzin Gyatso, Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet can claim to be a Marxist then yes.

Try to think of a Buddhist like you would think of any of person.

Why would you believe that a Buddhist would have to be an activist?

Because praying in your cave eventually becomes meaningless. Eventually you will want to put your ideals to practice