[Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism

[jkirk]

There's a good discussion of Buddhadasa's political views on capitalism and 
Marxism in Jackson, Peter A., _Buddhadasa. Theravada Buddhism and Modernist 
Reform in Thailand_. Silkworm Books, 1987, 2003.
His entire Ch. 9 is about Buddhadasa's political writings, with pp. 236-238, 
"Buddhadasa on Capitalism and Communism." Can't quote extensively, but 
Jackson says:

"Because of the dominance of a materialist mentality, that is, of a deluded 
attachment to material wealth, Buddhadasa says that capitalists have used
the potentially beneficial social and technological development associated 
with industrialization and mechanization to greedily hoard wealth. [This 
systematic greed] has as a consequence created social conflicts between 
impoverished workers and the wealthy capitalist employers." (237)

"For  Buddhadasa, peace is not only attained through inner, moral and 
meditative practice but also by combining this with morally guided social 
action directed towards ending the power of certain exploitative and 
self-centered sections of society....However, [he] does not go beyond this 
analysis to suggest a concrete political program to overcome social 
conflicts. His solution...is moral and educational..." (238)

The context of Buddhadasa's political reflections should not be overlooked: 
he was alive and already famous (or infamous depending on the politics of 
commentators) during the time when the Thai government was fighting 
communist cadres in the northern mountain and jungle areas of the country. 
His criticisms of capitalism and his sympathy with poverty stricken farmers 
and workers led some national chauvinists to label him a communist even 
though he was distinctly not a communist.

While I sympathize with Buddhadasa's views on politics, I also find them so 
deeply influenced by his position as a monk, a renouncer, that it led him 
also to condemn typical methods of political organization and action as 
immoral. Jackson writes, "...Buddhadasa maintains that the party politics 
and political factionalism characteristic of Western democracies are outside 
his definition of politics, and are in fact a manifestation of immorality 
[quoting Buddhadasa]: 'When there is no morality politics necessarily splits 
into parties and factions.' (239) And quoting B. again: "Liberal democracy 
opens the way for full freedom but doesn't clearly define what freedom is. 
Then people's kilesa snatch the opportunity to be free according to the 
power of those kilesa." (240)
While I agree with his critique of the "freedom" idea as not adequately 
defined, I wonder how any kind of politics can escape social 
organization --whether of parties or of factions. (Even non-democracy under 
Hitler or Stalin was riddled with factions.) So far no method of organizing 
political interests other than via parties has been devised.

Jackson interestingly suggests that the Thai notion of "wun-wai or 
confusion" was part of Buddhadasa's objections to party politics, the 
cultural objection to undignified and messy public displays (which of course 
is what party politics is). Perhaps, but since monks are not supposed to 
involve themselves in partisan politics (even though some
have done so), I don't see how Buddhadasa could be expected to come
up with some political program. Like prophets crying in the wilderness (or 
jungle in this case), he could only analyze, moralize, and teach. But his 
views had a huge impact on Thai society in his time.
Joanna