Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
By themselves, they do not really relate until you find yourself in a society where they touch, for example, China.
In China, the basis of the student movement is Marxism with specifics. The main religion is Buddhism.
Of course, there is a lot to go in the answer, but in short, they “live” separately and Buddhism has nothing to do with Marxism.
For the whole of Buddhism, it is impossible to answer, opinions will be very different. But here, for example, Tenzin Gyatso, the XIV Dalai Lama, treats Marxism quite positively. He says that Marxist economics is built on moral principles (as opposed to pure profit in capitalism) and generally seeks justice and relief from suffering. He considers the historical “Marxist” regimes (the USSR, China, Vietnam) not entirely Marxist: in pursuit of good goals, their leaders focused on hatred of the ruling class and ignored compassion. “The collapse of the regime in the Soviet Union was, in my opinion, the collapse not of Marxism, but of totalitarianism. That's why I still consider myself half Buddhist, half Marxist.”�(Source)
I will not be modest, and I will be responsible for all Buddhism, and not only in relation to Marxism, but also in relation to absolutely any economic or political system.
So: this does not contribute to liberation (or enlightenment, if you like).
But it also doesn't interfere much if you don't stick to it.
In general, another manifestation of Samsara.
In fact, Marxism is a complex, extensive socio-economic doctrine that is extremely influential in the West today. For example, such major contemporary social theorists as the Briton John Urry and the American Emanuel Wallerstein worked in the Marxist tradition.�
Non-Western cultures were permeated by Marxism, but what it became there (especially in its Maoist form) has a rather vague relation to the original European Marxism. Actually, in the European environment, Marxism was initially an extremely progressive and humanistic teaching, which formed, for example, the idea of social alienation as a property of modern capitalist society. This alienation was interpreted both in purely economic terms (the alienation of the worker from the results of his labor both under factory and post-industrial capitalism) and in cultural terms (especially in the works of theorists of the “Frankfurt school” of social philosophy, for example, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse).
What we usually associate with Marxism, namely Stalinism-Zyuganism, is openly hostile to European Marxism, because Marxists are European leftism, i.e. the rights of migrants and sexual minorities, feminism, secularism, etc. In general, this is the one that is now hated in Russia “Geyropa”.
Taking into account all the above, we can say that Buddhists may well support the humanistic pathos of Marxism. But the vast majority of Buddhists probably treat the essence of Marxism in the same way as the moral philosophy of John Rolls or the cultural sociology of Geoffrey Alexander, that is, in no way, because they don't know anything about it. Because, as the Buddha said, “I teach only about suffering and the cessation of suffering” … �
Probably only learned Buddhist humanitarians like Bhikku Bodhi (who studied classical philosophy at the university) or half-educated know-it-alls who call themselves Buddhists know anything meaningful about Marxism. That's like me )))