Buddha or Karl Marx” is a 1956 essay by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar comparing Buddhism and Marxism.
While acknowledging both seek a just, equal society, Ambedkar critiques Marxism’s reliance on violence and advocates for Buddhism’s ethical, non-violent approach (based on Prajna, Karuna, and Samata) to achieve lasting social change
Marx and Buddha both sought to end suffering and inequality, but their methods diverged sharply. Marx attributed “Dukkha” to economic exploitation and class struggle, advocating for the state-enforced abolition of private property through the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and, if necessary, violence.
Conversely, Buddha promoted a mental and moral revolution. While he enforced strict non-possession for monks, his path for society relied on persuasion and love rather than force. He valued the triad of liberty, equality, and fraternity, arguing that true equality cannot exist without the others. Ultimately, Buddhism offers a democratic transformation of the mind, whereas Communism risks sacrificing freedom for material parity.
According to Marx, the forces that shapes the course of history are primarily economic. The society is divided into two classes: owners and workers. And there is a class conflict going on between the two classes.
Communism starts with the theory that there is exploitation in the world, that the poor are exploited by the rich because of the property that they hold, and they enslave the masses, that enslavement results in suffering, sorrow, and in poverty.
The remedy that Karl Marx provides is that in order to prevent poverty and the suffering of one class, it is necessary to remove private property.
The worker does not get the surplus value which he produces. It is appropriated by the owner.
Solution- That Government must be by the exploited classes and not by the exploiting classes, which is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat.
In order to prevent exploitation, the state must own the instrument of production, that is, property. Land must belong to the state, industry must belong to the state, so that no private owner might intervene and rob the worker of the profits of his labour.
They deprive all people who own property, of political rights. They cannot have representation in the legislature. They cannot have right to vote, they must remain what they call second grade subjects of the State, the ruled, not sharing authority or power.
Communists say that they don’t like dictatorship, and it’s only for interim period. But they cannot answer, “For how long?”, or “What happens when dictatorship disappears?”
Buddha used the word Dukkha instead of exploitation, opening doors for everyone, not just the labours. He also said that no monks should have private property. Infact the Buddhist possession idea is far more stricter. The Bhikkhu is allowed to have only seven things- a razor, a Lota for getting water, a Bhikshyapatra, and three Chivaras, and the needle for sewing things (Vinayapitaka).
The means that the Communists wish to adopt in order to bring about Communism, “by which I mean the recognition of Dukkha, and abolition of property, is violence and killing of the opposed. There lies the fundamental difference between the Buddha and Karl Marx. The Buddha’s means of persuading people to adopt the principles is by persuasion, by moral teaching, by love.”
According to Buddha, the world cannot be reformed except by the reformation of the mind of the man, and the mind of the world. That makes Buddhism Democratic.
Buddha does not prohibit all types of war or violence, especially if it is in the interest of truth and justice. He believed that an offender must be punished and innocent must be freed. “A man who fights for justice cannot be accused of Ahimsa. If all the means of maintaining peace have failed then the responsibility for Himsa falls on him who starts war. One must never surrender to evil powers. War there may be. But it must not be for selfish ends.”
But the reason violence is discouraged, and the last resort, is that “you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you fought for is the thing which you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the contest.”
Dhamma is the supreme commander of the Sangh.
In Parliamentary Government you have a duty and a right; the duty to obey the law and right to criticise it. In Dictatorship you have only duty to obey but no right to criticise it.
Burma is a good example. Why were the Burmese so free with their property? When government asks for land for roads they give with without even thinking about money, because it is for greater good. Why did they not care for it? It is because the Buddha has taught “Sarvam Anityam.” Everything you see, is impermanent. Why fight for impermanent things? It is all right if you want the land, take it.
Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation was summarised by the French Revolution in three words, Fraternity, Liberty and Equality. The French Revolution was welcomed because of this slogan. It failed to produce equality We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that in producing equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha.
Communism can give one but not all.
