Buddha or Karl Marx

by B.R. Ambedkar

Comparison between Gautama Buddha and Karl Marx by Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar (Father of Constitution of India).
A best seller book now available on Amazon Kindle.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Buddhism, India, History, Religion

38 pages, Kindle Edition

Published April 27, 2015

About the author

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born in 1891 into an “Untouchable” family of modest means. One of India’s most radical thinkers, he transformed the social and political landscape in the struggle against British colonialism. He was a prolific writer who oversaw the drafting of the Indian Constitution and served as India’s first Law Minister. In 1935, he publicly declared that though he was born a Hindu, he would not die as one. Ambedkar eventually embraced Buddhism, a few months before his death in 1956.

Reviews

[Shadin Pranto · Rating 4 out of 5]

৪.৫/৫

গৌতম বুদ্ধের জন্মের প্রায় চব্বিশ শ বছর পরের মানুষ কার্ল মার্কস। প্রায় সকলের ধারণা, মার্কস ও বুদ্ধ আলাদা জগতের বাসিন্দা। অন্তত চিন্তারাজ্যের বিচার সেই কথাই বলে। কিন্তু আম্বেদকর তা মাননে রাজি নন। মানবেতিহাসের দুইজন অসাধারণ কীর্তিমান ব্যক্তির চিন্তায় তিনি সাযুজ্য পেয়েছেন এবং তা ব্যাখা করেছেন তাঁর 'Buddha Or Karl Marx' শিরোনামে রচিত অসমাপ্ত প্রবন্ধটিতে৷ বাংলায় এই রতনের অনুবাদ করেছেন অদিতি ফাল্গুনী। অত্যন্ত সুখপাঠ্য অনুবাদগ্রন্থটির প্রকাশক 'ঐতিহ্য'।


মহৎ ব্যক্তিরা তাঁদের ব্যতিক্রমী চিন্তার মাধ্যমে সমৃদ্ধ ও আলোকিত করেন পুরো সমাজকে। আলোড়িত করেন মননকে। ভীমরাও আম্বেদকরের লেখা পড়ার আগে কোনোদিন ভেবে দেখিনি বুদ্ধ ও মার্কসের মধ্যে কোনো মিল থাকতে পারে। বরং কেউ বললে তা অযৌক্তিক ও হাস্যকর মনে হতো। অথচ আম্বেদকর অল্পকথায় স্মরণ করিয়ে দিয়েছেন গৌতম বুদ্ধের চিরন্তন শিক্ষাকে ও সংক্ষেপে বর্ণনা করেছেন মার্কসের চিন্তার মূলসূত্র। এরপর দুজনের দর্শনের সারকথা হিসেবে শোষণমুক্তিকে চিহ্নিত করার পাশাপাশি বুদ্ধের জীবনকে ঘিরে বিভিন্ন ঘটনাবলিকে উদাহরণ হিসেবে টেনেছেন। যা পড়তে বেশ ভালো লেগেছে।

বারবার পড়ার মতো প্রবন্ধ। যদিও অসমাপ্ত তবুও পড়ার পর ভাবতে বাধ্য হবেন।

[Anmol · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very poorly edited and an unreasoned jumble of similarities and differences between Marx(whom Ambedkar equates with socialism under the USSR) and Buddha(whom Ambedkar equates with rationality). Though the idea that Buddha established ideal/utopian communism under his Sangh is interesting and seems true, it is pointless in the end because Ambedkar's main thesis is that Buddha's doctrine of moral upliftment of all individuals through karma is a non-violent solution to the violent dictatorship of the proletariat espoused by Marx in his manifesto - he himself admits that the Buddha's practice may not be sustainable beyond his Sangh.

Though admittedly it is unfair of me to rate this essay in such a manner because Ambedkar never really finished it, or edited it. However, if that was the case he shouldn't have made references to this essay in his The Buddha and His Dhamma.

[Gowtham · Rating 5 out of 5]

 Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty.- Dr. BR Ambedkar. 


அண்ணல் அம்பேத்கர் எழுதிய Buddha or Karl marx என்கிற சிறு புத்தகம் இன்றைய சூழலிலும் மிக பொருத்தமானதாக இருக்கிறது. இன்னும் குறிப்பாக சொல்வதென்றால் இதை ஜனநாயகமா அல்லது சோசியலிசமா(Democracy or Socialism ) என்றும் ஒப்பிடலாம். இரண்டிற்கும் இடையில் ஒரே ஒரு ஒற்றுமை இருக்கிறது பல வேற்றுமைகள் இருக்கிறது, இரண்டும் சமத்துவத்தை(Equality) விரும்பும் கோட்பாடுகள். ஆனால் ஜனநாயகம் என்பது சுதந்திரம் மற்றும் சகோதரத்துவத்தை(LIberty and Fraternity) உடன் இணைத்து செயல்படுவதாகும். 


அம்பேத்கரும் இந்த நூலின் இறுதியில் சொல்வது அது தான் சமத்துவத்திற்காக சுதந்திரத்தையும் சகோதரத்துவத்தையும் காவுகொடுக்க முடியாது. புத்தர் மற்றும் மார்ஸ் ஆகிய இருவரின் நோக்கம்(Ends) ஒன்று தான். ஆனால் அவர்கள் சொல்லும்  வழி(means) வேறானது, அவற்றுக்கிடையே பெரிய அளவு வித்தியாசம் இருக்கிறது(same ends but different means). 


இந்த புத்தகத்தில் அம்பேத்கர், புத்தரின் கோட்பாடு என்ன?, மார்க்ஸின் கோட்பாடு என்ன? இரண்டுக்கும் உள்ள கருத்தியல் ஒற்றுமைகள் மற்றும் நோக்கங்கள் யாவை? அதை அடைய இரண்டு பேரும் பரிந்துரைத்த வழிகள் என்னென்ன? யாருடைய வழி சிறந்தது ? என்பன பற்றி சுருக்கமாகவும் தெளிவாகவும் விளக்கியுள்ளார்.  


புத்தரும் மார்க்ஸும் வேறுவேறு காலகட்டத்தில் வாழ்ந்தவர்கள், இருவருக்கும் இடையே 2381 ஆண்டு வித்தியாசம் இருக்கிறது, ஆனால் இருவரின் கோட்பாட்டிலும் பல ஒற்றுமைகள் தென்படுகிறது. இரண்டு பேருமே சுரண்டல் முறையை எதிர்க்கிறார்கள், புத்தர் அத்தகைய சுரண்டலை  தான் துயரத்தி(misery)ன் ஊற்றுக்கண் என்கிறார். தனியுடைமையை(private property) இருவருமே எதிர்க்கிறார்கள், சில அடிப்படை விசயங்களை தவிர எதையும் உடைமையாக்கி கொள்ள கூடாது என்று புத்தரின் சங்க நடவடிக்கைகளை மேற்கோளிடுகிறார் அம்பேத்கர்.


மார்க்ஸை பற்றி கூறும்போது, மார்ஸ் இரண்டு வித கருத்துக்களை நிறுவ முயற்சித்தார் ஒன்று முதலாளித்துவத்திற்கு(Capitalist) எதிரானது மற்றோன்று சோசியலிச கார்ப்பனவாதிகளுக்கு(utopian socialist) எதிரானது. சோசியலிசத்தை அறிவியலாக நிறுவிவுதில் அவர் ஆர்வம் கொண்டிருந்தார், இயங்கியல் போக்கில் எல்லா சமுதாயமும் சோசியலிசத்தை அடைந்தே தீரும் என்றும் சொல்கிறார். இரண்டு வரகங்களுக்கிடையான மோதலே வரலாற்றை ஆக்கிரமித்துள்ளது என்றும் சொல்கிறார், இந்த கூற்று தவறானது என பலர் நிறுவியுள்ளார்கள். சர்வாதிகாரத்தின்(Dictatorship) மூலமும் உழைக்கும் வர்க்க புரட்சியின்(proletariat classs revolution ) மூலமும் தான் கம்யூனிசம் மலரும் என்று என்று ரஷிய புரட்சி நிரூபித்துள்ளது, இதன்படி பார்த்தால் மார்க்ஸின் சோசலிசம் இயல்பாக நிகழும் நிகழ்வு என்பது அடிபட்டு போகிறது. இப்படி பல்வேறு பிழைகள் இருந்தாலும் அதில் சில விஷயங்கள் பொருந்தி போகிறது குறிப்பாக


  1.தத்துவத்தின் நோக்கம் உலகை புனரமைப்பதே ஒழிய , உலகின் தோற்றத்தை விளக்குவதற்கு அல்ல. 

2.வரகங்களுக்கிடையிலான மோதல் போக்கு 

3.மக்களின் துயரத்திற்கு காரணம் தனியுடமை தான். 

4.தனியுடமையை அழிப்பதன் மூலம் மக்களை மகிழ்ச்சியாக வாழ வைக்க முடியும். (இப்போதைய காலகட்டத்தில் இதில் முதலாவதை தவிர மற்றவை எல்லாம் சூழலுக்கு பொருந்தி போவது அல்ல. )


இந்த நோக்கங்களை அடையும் வழியாக புத்தர் கூறுவதையும் மார்ஸ் கூறுவதையும் பட்டியலிடுகிறார், மார்க்ஸின் தத்துவங்களை ரஸ்சியாவில் எப்படி செயல்படுத்தப்பட்டன, அதில் ஏற்பட்ட விளைவுகள் எத்தகையது என்பன பற்றி எல்லா தெளிவாக பேசியுள்ளார். ருசியா புரட்சியின் வழியாக அமைந்த சர்வாதிகார அரசு கம்யூனிச சமுதாயத்தை ஏற்படுத்த எத்தனை ஆண்டுகள் எடுத்துக்கொள்ளும்? அல்லது சர்வாதிகாரமே எத்தனை காலம் தான் தொடர்வது? சமத்துவத்திற்காக தனிமனித சுதந்திரத்தை எதற்காக இழக்க வேண்டும்? வன்முறையும் புரட்சியும் தான் கம்யூனிசம் அடையும் வழியா? இதை தாண்டி வேறு முறை ஏதும் இல்லையா? என்ற கேள்விகளை எல்லாம் விமர்சனங்களாக அடுக்குகிறார் அண்ணல். 


இறுதி பகுதியில், புத்தரின் கோட்பாடு என்பது மனிதனின் மனங்களிலும் பண்பிலும் மாற்றங்களை ஏற்படுத்தி சமுதாய  மாற்றங்களை அடைய விரும்பியதையும் அது வன்முறையை ஒரு நாளும் தூக்கிப்பிடித்ததில்லை என்றும் சில சூழலில் சக்தி ஒரு ஆற்றலாக(Force as energy) தேவையே ஒழிய அதை அடக்குமுறைக்கு(Force as violence) மட்டும் பயன்படுத்துவதை புத்தர் ஏற்கவில்லை என்றும் கூறியுள்ளார். புத்தர்கள் வழி மக்கள் விரும்பாததைச் செய்ய நிர்பந்திக்கவில்லை,அது அவர்களுக்கு சரியானதாக இருந்தால் அதை   செய்யுங்கள் என்றார். இதன் மூலமாக புத்தர் ஒரு ஜனநாயகவாதி(Democrat) என்றும் அவரின் கோட்பாட்டில் சமத்துவம் ஒரு அங்கம் தான், சுதந்திரமும் சகோதரத்துவமும் மற்ற இரண்டு முக்கிய கோட்பாடுகள் என்றும் குறிப்பிடுகிறார். 


ரஸ்சியாவில் அமைந்த சர்வாதிகார அரசு நிகழ்த்திய நல்ல மாற்றங்களை எல்லாம் புறம்தள்ளி விட முடியாது, பிற்போக்கு சமுதாயத்திற்கு வேண்டுமானால் அவை பொருந்தி போகலாமே ஒழிய, அதற்காக சர்வாதிகாரத்தை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள முடியாது என்றும் கூறுகிறார். மனிதனுக்கு எந்த அளவிற்கு பொருளாதார வசதிகள்(Material/external Comforts) தேவையோ அதே அளவுக்கு ஆத்மீக வசதியும்(Spiritual/internal comforts) தேவை.புத்தர் அத்தகைய வழிமுறையை தான் போதித்தார். கம்யூனிஸ்டுகளின் சர்வாதிகார வழியை விட புத்தரின் ஜனநாயக  வழி சரியானது என்று முடிக்கிறார். 


நோக்கம் ஒன்று தான் வழிகளை நாம் தான் தீர்மானிக்க வேண்டும். சமத்துவத்திற்காக சுதந்திரத்தை பலிகொடுக்க முடியாது. சுதந்திரம், சமத்துவம், சகோதரத்துவம் ஆகிய மூன்றும் இணைந்து செயலாற்றுவது தான் சிறந்தது. சோசியலிசமே தீர்வல்ல, அதை தாண்டி கோட்பாடுகள் ஏராளம் இருக்கிறது. சோசியலிச மாயையில் இருந்து வெளியே வந்து நாம் பிற தத்துவங்களை எல்லாம் புரிந்துகொள்ள வேண்டும் என்பதை இந்த கட்டுரையின் மூலம் தெரிவித்துக்கொள்கிறேன். 

  

[Shotabdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

বিষয়বস্তু খুবই চমকপ্রদ। বুদ্ধ আর মার্কসের তুলনা। ভাবনার খোরাক জোগায়। আফসোস যে অসমাপ্ত রয়ে গেল। অদিতি ফাল্গুনীর অনুবাদ চমৎকার।

[Laya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very simply put, in this essay, Ambedkar identifies the core principles of Marxism and Buddhism, and identifies the common point that they are radical constructive philosophies which seek to put an end to exploitation/suffering by abolishing private property. From here, underlining that they have the same 'ends', he moves to talk about the 'means' to these ends. While Marxism depends on force and violence, he argues, Buddhism is more about a religious and moral revolution which is against the use of force. Since force cannot be used forever and is antithetical to personal liberty, it is advised to take the Buddhist path.

What I did like in this speech is the criticism of economic determinism of orthodox Marxism, and its blindspot to pay religion and culture. But apart from that, although I get the point of the speech, I couldn't dwell on it for much time. With the benefit of additional knowledge that has been produced since the writing of this speech, it is easy to see where the arguments are fallible and raise many practical questions. This is also the only speech I read regarding Ambedkar's thesis on Navayana Buddhism, so I might be missing more knowledge that might answer these questions. A constructive approach to religious revolution in India is definitely an area that I am now looking forward to explore.

[Akshay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Title: Buddha or Karl Marx 
Author: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 
Genre: Political Philosophy / Comparative Ideology / Ethics & Society 
Rating: ★★★★★ (5/5)

“Buddha or Karl Marx” is a brilliant and compact philosophical treatise in which Dr. B.R. Ambedkar juxtaposes two towering figures of liberation: the mystic-reformer Buddha and the materialist-revolutionary Karl Marx. Both systems, he argues, aim to end human suffering and exploitation—but their methods, moral foundations, and views of the human condition differ profoundly.

Ambedkar divides his essay into three core sections:

Buddha’s approach to suffering and social justice
Marx’s critique of capitalism and class struggle
A final comparative analysis favoring Buddha’s method

“The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste time in explaining the origin of the world.” – B.R. Ambedkar

To fully understand this work is to psychoanalyze the author himself. Ambedkar, born into a caste deemed ‘untouchable,’ was not just theorizing justice—he was psychically haunted by its absence. Thus, every idea he espouses here is tinged with deep existential resonance.

Repression and Sublimation: Ambedkar transforms his righteous fury into a constructive framework. Marx represents the revolutionary id; Buddha, the ethical superego.
Father Figures and Identification: While Marx offers material liberation, Buddha is embraced as a spiritual father—a guide who rejects hierarchy and honors inner dignity.

Ambedkar’s philosophical preference is not accidental—it is rooted in a need for moral safety in a world historically designed to humiliate him. Marxism, to him, is too cold, too structural, too willing to trample the individual for the collective good.

Comparative Analysis with Contemporaries

Ambedkar’s essay sits uniquely alongside political texts of the 20th century:

Karl Marx – Das Kapital / Communist Manifesto:

Marx reduces all injustice to class struggle. Ambedkar critiques this as dangerously simplistic in the Indian context where caste supersedes class.



Gandhi – Hind Swaraj:

While both embrace non-violence, Ambedkar rejects Gandhi’s defense of the caste system and spiritualizes social equality through Buddhism instead.



Frantz Fanon – The Wretched of the Earth:

Fanon champions cathartic violence; Ambedkar seeks moral reconstruction through ethical transformation.



John Dewey – Democracy and Education:

Dewey's pragmatic, educational philosophy deeply influences Ambedkar. Both believe in rational, non-theistic ethics.

Stylistic and Intellectual Strengths

Concise but rich: Every line is loaded with philosophical clarity.
Emotionally restrained: The argument is methodical, Socratic, and never polemical.
Culturally rooted: While deeply Indian in its references, the text speaks to global debates on liberation.

Criticisms and Limitations

Idealization of Buddhism: Ambedkar may overlook historical flaws in Buddhist societies.
Reduction of Marxism: He compresses Marxist revolution into a narrow critique of violence, ignoring nuanced socialist ethics.

Ambedkar doesn’t merely choose Buddha over Marx—he reconstructs Buddha as a revolutionary ethicist, not a renunciant mystic. This reinterpretation is the heart of his Neo-Buddhist legacy.

Final Thoughts

“Buddha or Karl Marx” is not just a comparative essay—it is a moral declaration. Ambedkar isn’t choosing between two thinkers. He is forging a third path: one that honors both material justice and the sacred dignity of the human soul.

Essential reading for anyone interested in:

Postcolonial justice
Comparative religion and politics
Dalit and caste studies
Alternatives to Western Marxism

Verdict: Timeless. Philosophically radical. Morally urgent.

[Alex Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Buddha or Karl Marx' is less of a comparison and more of an urge to the followers to come together despite the differences for the end goal of Buddhism and Marxism are same. Ambedkar has an inclination towards Buddhism and considers that though the path of Buddha is difficult it will bring better results for it works on changing mindset through persuasion and not force. Ambedkar, by the end of his life himself, embraced Buddhism and his wide knowledge of Buddhism and Marxism makes this a comprehensive analysis. But one should be aware and cautious of his inclination towards the religion as a better means.

[Krishnanunni · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dissatisfied.
According to Ambedkar, Buddha executed Communism even before Marx conceptualised it. He makes an attempt at enumerating differences between the Marxist approach and the Buddhist approach to communism. Ambedkar observes that Buddha was an egalitarian.This is visible in Buddha denying to take up the position of a dictatorial head of the Sangham when it was opportune, and also when Buddha advocated everybody everybody to wear uniform clothes. In a way this seemed to me as hardcore egalitarianism.

Also Ambedkar makes an attempt to point out that Marxist Socialism had been falsified,but he seems to have hesitated from providing empirical evidence. Why is it so? Did he not find compelling evidence on the failure of marxism? or was he afraid that debunking marxism would be detrimental to the Indian cause at that point of time?

This essay fell short of my expectations. Ambedkar's arguments in this essay arent as cogent as the ones in his other books. Maybe it is his soft corner for Buddhism that prevented in from cutting deep into Buddhism. But I find myself struggling not to give this piece 4 stars(because, Ambedkar.) - but doing so would be defenestrating the value system(ie,A value system grounded on individual worth as opposed to birth ) for which he stood for.

[Aniket Patil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr.Babasaheb ambedkar has put his thoughts in very studious manner. After reading this book, we come to know about his Intellect, yes he was a voracious reader as well. This book is 32 page book, out of these 32 pages actual pages about theory are 26/27. on page 1, he notes down all the principles of buddha and then second page is about principles of marx. Then point by point he tried to compare them in different contexts. I like the way, he tried to convey his points.

This book is for those, who loves to study ideologies, who want to read and comapre buddha and marx, who are studious. Those who wants to read fiction stories wont like it at all, this one is serious academic book, based on Dr.Babasaheb ambedkar's unpublished essay.

[Karthick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a comparative study between Buddha and Karl Marx by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.
He discuss about their original creed and ideological stand and what survived. Also, he delves deep into their method of means and the difference in them.

Ambedkar about Buddha :

1. Buddha is generally associated with Ahimsa / Dhamma
2. From Tripitaka, he says religion is necessary for a free society. But man and morality should be the center of religion than soul salvation, god or rituals.
3. Function of religion should be to reconstruct the world, not explaining the origin of universe.
4. war is wrong unless it is for truth and justice

Ambedkar about Karl Marx :

1. Marx wanted to establish the brand of socialism as scientific.
2. He disliked capitalist & Utopian socialist
3. Marx said purpose of Philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not explaining the origin of universe.
4. He believed the course of history shaped by economic force
5. Marx want to put end to nationalism by abolishing private property.
6. As workers outnumbers the owners, it may lead to establish the dictatorship of proletariat.

What survives in Marxian creed ?

Ambedkar highlights that Marxism creed intend to propagate revolution but unfortunately it led to lot of violence and bloodshed stepping to the way of dictatorship. Also he refuse to accept that the economic interpretation of history is the only explanation of history. The only residue of Marxism fire exist is the function of philosophy as defined by Karl Marx and conflict between the classes.

Conclusion :

Buddha established communism long before Marx but on a very small scale without a dictatorship (which Linin failed to do). He summarize the revolution in three words : Fraternity, Liberty, Equality. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty.

In Buddhism, all three can coexist, whereas in communism it can give one, but not all.

[JC · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s a great South Asian gelato and chaat spot in my neighbourhood that makes a street food snack sandwich I really like called ‘vada pav’. It’s a beloved Maharastrian staple in Mumbai – essentially a potato fritter sandwich with various chutneys and pomegranate seeds. When I first tried this sandwich, I felt compelled read more about its history; it started as a working-class favourite and was transformed into a political campaign tool weaponized by the fascist Shiv Sena party. While perusing through some of the Mumbai textile mill strikes that were going on during the time this sandwich was making a name for itself, I encountered a communist named Bharat Patankar who wrote a paper on these strikes. He’s part of the Shramik Mukti Dal party (translation "toilers’ liberation league") that draw on the intellectual and political legacy of Jyotirao Phule and B.R. Ambedkar, anti-caste activists and Dalit revolutionaries integral to modern India (including the Dalit Panthers). That is actually how I first encountered Ambedkar, and have since noticed him being discussed in various leftist podcasts (though I haven’t listened to podcasts very much in 2021).

This was a really interesting comparative essay examining parallels and divergences between Buddha and Marx. It was really fascinating to hear Ambedkar’s views on Buddha and how he saw his teachings as essentially advocating communism. Two of the creedal points of Buddha Ambedkar specifies include:

“That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another.”

“That it is necessary for the good of Society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause.”

Ambedkar had lots of interesting critiques of Marx, some of which I agree with some of which I disagree with. One that I did agree with, in some sense, was the issue of Marxist determinism:

“There is hardly any doubt that Marxist claim that his socialism was inevitable has been completely disproved. The dictatorship of the Proletariat was first established in 1917 in one country after a period of something like seventy years after the publication of his Das Capital the gospel of socialism. Even when the Communism—which is another name for the dictatorship of the Proletariat—came to Russia, it did not come as something inevitable without any kind of human effort. There was a revolution and much deliberate planning had to be done with a lot of violence and blood shed, before it could step into Russia. The rest of the world is still waiting for coming of the Proletarian Dictatorship. Apart from this general falsification of the Marxian thesis that Socialism is inevitable, many of the other propositions stated in the lists have also been demolished both by logic as well as by experience. Nobody now I accepts the economic interpretation of history as the only explanation of history.”

This issue of determinism was a part of the cultural turn of the Frankfurt school, the Situationist tendencies, as well as the Brenner debate, which I am encountering now while reading Ellen Meiksins Wood’s book The Origins of Capitalism. I think I approach this by way of Kierkegaard’s double movement of faith, that of course logically it is not inevitable, but only by way of some theological faith, one believes it will come to pass. That is precisely the point of Walter Benjamin when he talks about the ugly dwarf (theology) hiding under the puppet costume that Marxists call “historical materialism”.

Ambedkar also levels critiques of Marxist emphasis on ends over means, and this is also something I partially agree with:

“What about the value of the means? Whose means are superior and lasting in the long run? Can the Communists say that in achieving their valuable end they have not destroyed other valuable ends? They have destroyed private property. Assuming that this is a valuable end can the Communists say that they have not destroyed other valuable end in the process of achieving it? How many people have they killed for achieving their end. Has human life no value? Could they not have taken property without taking the life of the owner?”

There’s an excerpt of a dialogue of Buddha that Ambedkar includes regarding private property that I found really interesting:

“On the question of private property the following extract from a dialogue between Buddha and Ananda is very illuminating. In reply to a question by Ananda the Buddha said:

"I have said that avarice is because of possession. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be understood after this manner. Where there is no possession of any sort or kind whatever by any one or anything, then there being no possession whatever, would there, owing to this cessation of possession, be any appearance of avarice? " 'There would not. Lord”.

'Wherefore, Ananda, just that is the ground, the basis, the genesis, the cause of avarice, to wit, possession. 
 'I have said that tenacity is the cause possession. Now in what way that is so, Ananda, is to be understood after this manner. Were there no tenacity of any sort or kind whatever shown by any one with respect to any thing, then there being whatever, would there owing to this cessation of tenacity, be any appearance of possession? ' 'There would not. Lord.’

'Wherefore, Ananda, just that is the ground, the basis, the genesis, the cause of possession, to wit tenacity. ' On the fourth point no evidence is necessary. The rules of the Bhikshu Sangh will serve as the best testimony on the subject. 


According to the rules a Bhikku can have private property only in the following eight articles and no more. These eight articles are: — 

1 I 

2. Three robes or pieces of cloth for daily wear.
3. I 

4. A girdle for the loins. 

5. An alms-bowl. 

6. A razor. 

7. A needle. 

8. A water strainer. 



Further a Bhikku was completely forbidden to receive gold or silver for fear that with gold or silver he might buy some thing beside the eight things he is permitted to have. 
These rules are far more rigorous than are to be found in communism in Russia.”

There’s a lot of interesting commentary in this very short text, and I found the whole thing really enjoyable to sit with. The conclusion in this book shows Ambedkar’s affinity for the Buddha over Marx, but I think there are still things he admires within the Marxist tradition. I don’t know that much about Buddhism, but it’s interesting to read a non-Marxist communist interpretation of that particular spiritual tradition.

[Nikki Metztli · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting essay. Ambedkar has a strong understanding of Buddhism, but a very poor understanding of Marxism here. Somewhat understandable considering that the communists he opposes also have a poor understanding of Marxism. He falls into the trap of critiquing Marx’s conception based on liberal and Marxist-Leninist state distortions of it. He also makes the claim that Marx has been disproven (based on Popper’s falsification and neoclassical economic claims), which is not true. He caricatures Marx as an economic determinist, which is also not true. I like the nuance he adds about violence here, but a simple reading of the Manifesto by him would’ve made this a lot stronger.

[Tanroop]

The copy I found online was really poorly edited, but I could make things out. A really short read, but one with some interesting points to make and valuable insights into Ambedkar the thinker. While I wasn't a fan of the extended excerpts of Buddhist writing (not my style, and the poor editing definitely didn't help), I was really struck by the last paragraph in particular, which I found to be incredibly well-put:

"It has been claimed that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian Dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. Humanity does not only want economic values, it also wants spiritual values to be retained. Permanent Dictatorship has paid no attention to spiritual values and does not seem to intend to. Carlyle called Political Economy a Pig Philosophy. Carlyle was of course wrong, for man needs material comforts. But the Communist Philosophy seems to be equally wrong, for the aim of their philosophy seems to be fatten pigs as though men are no better than pigs. Man must grow materially as well as spiritually. Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation was summarized 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 emphasized 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."

[Zander · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like this essay a lot. I can't say I agree with it entirely; a lot of Ambedkar's criticisms of the Soviet state, while valid, are extrapolated onto the whole of Marxist ideology, which I think is a mistake. However, I agree that the tendency of leftists to ignore spirituality is a detriment to the efficacy of leftist movements. Whether anything spiritual or supernatural is real is immaterial. The majority of people have spiritual beliefs and desire spiritual fulfillment, so a leftist movement must provide for that in some way. A leftist who reads Ambedkar may well decide that Buddhism might an ideal way to accomplish that. I wish Ambedkar had lived a few decades earlier and been able to have some influence on the communist movements in China or Mongolia.

[Kandachamy Vijayakumaran · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Buddha and Marx were concerned with human sufferings. They wanted to end suffering. But their means to that end were different. We have experienced the Marxian means did not bring end to suffering, rather it often increased. We are yet to experiment fully with the Buddhist means. It would remain the only hope for humanity.

[Tony Sheldon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an ok book.The comparison brought up some good points about both ideologies but some arguments were not so good.4 stars for the information but 1 star less since there was a little bias and some forced points with no data backing them up.

[Surjeeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a shitshow of a book. Go watch a Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson video and you'll get the same shit that Ambedkar peddles here about Marxism. Total intellectual dishonesty and supreme cringe when he claims he has read more Marxist texts than any actual Marxists.

[PRETENTIOUS COMRADE · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ambedkar is wrong.

Yes, the contempt for the status quo is profound in both philosophies, but Marx and Marxism contemplate existence with substantial means within a material world, where equality is fundamental. Buddha, on the other hand, teaches a more spiritual and beggarly way of life to achieve salvation, i.e. freedom from misery through a change in oneself, unlike Marx, who proclaims a radical overthrow of society and the state. How moral or uplifting may Buddha's spiritual manifestation of utopia be, it is, in the strictest sense, unfathomable and unachievable. It may come as hypocritical in relation to the Communist idea of utopia, but the Commune contains substance and pith of reality.

The most intense and cerebral of the discussions that Ambedkar went into was on 'Violence', to quote from the essay:
"Take violence. As to violence, there are many people who seem to shiver at the very
thought of it. But this is only a sentiment. Violence cannot be altogether dispensed with. Even in non-communist countries, a murderer is hanged. Does not hanging amount to violence? Noncommunist countries go to war with non-communist countries. Millions of people are killed. Is this no violence? If a murderer can be killed, because he has killed a citizen, if a soldier can be killed in war because he belongs to a hostile nation, why cannot a property owner be killed if his ownership leads to misery for the rest of humanity? There is no reason to make an exception in favour of the property owner, why one should regard private property as sacrosanct.
The Buddha was against violence. But he was also in favour of justice, and where justice required,
he permitted the use of force."

Ambedkar's subscription to Buddhism and critiques of Marx come with problems of their own, but it was thus an endeavour of great intellectual exercise and a need for introspection.

[Dinesh]

புத்தரா கார்ல் மார்க்ஸா
மற்றொரு நாவல் வாசிப்பின் மிகுந்த தாக்கத்தினால் ஏற்பட்ட இடைவெளியில் இதை வாசித்தேன். பார்ப்பதற்கு மிக எளிய நூலாக தெறிந்தது, அளவிலும் கூட. ஆனால் இதில் பேசப்பட்டுள்ள இருவரின் கருத்துகளும் அறிவூட்டுவதாகவும் இருந்தது.
மிக்க நன்றி.
இவ்வி���ுவரயும் ஒப்பிட்டு ஆராய்வதின் நோக்கம் எனக்கு தெரியவில்லை, ஆனால் அதன் அவசியத்தை சிறிது உணர முடிகிறது, ஏனெனில் எந்த அவசியமும் இன்றி ஏன் ஒருவர் இவ்வாராக ஆயவேண்டும். ஒரு காலத்தில் இது முக்கியமான தேவையாக இருந்திருக்கலாம் என்றே தோன்றுகிறது.

இதை படிக்கும் போது அம்பேத்கர் அவர்கள், இவ்விருவரைப்பற்றி படித்தும், பின்பற்றியவராயினும், அவர் ஒப்பீடு செய்யும் நோக்கத்தினால், இருவரில் யாருடைய கருத்துகள் இக்காலத்திற்கும் எல்லோருக்கும் ஏற்ற மற்றும் தேவையான கருதுவது, என்பதில் புத்தரின் கொள்கைகள் ஈராயிரம் பழமை வாய்ந்ததாக இருப்பினும், அது ஒப்பிடுகையில் மிக சிறந்தாக கருதுகிறார். ஏனெனில் புத்தரின் நிலைப்பாடு மனிதனின் அறநெறிகளை அவனே ஏற்று எந்த வித உந்துதலுமின்றி மாற்றமடைவதற்கு உள்ளதாக கருதுகிறார், ஆனால் கார்ல் மார்க்ஸ் அவர்களின் கொள்கைகளில் அந்த சுதந்திரம் மனிதனுக்கு இல்லாமல் போவதின் காரணத்தினால் இது வன்முறைக்கு வித்தாக நேர்ந்துவிடுவதாக கருதுகிறார்.
மேலும், இதை வாசிக்கும் போது எனக்கு புத்தர் மற்றும் கார்ல் மார்க்ஸ் அவர்களின் கொள்கைகள் மற்றும் அவர்களின் கோட்பாடுகளின் தேவையை அறிய முடிந்தது. அவர்களைப்பற்றி மேலும் படிக்க ஆவலாய் இருக்கிறது்
இதையே நான் இரு முறை வாசிக்கத்தேவைப்பட்டது, இந்த இருவரின் கருத்துக்களை மேலும் உட்கொள்ள நான் மீண்டும் வாசிக்க வேண்டுகிறேன்.
நன்றி-

[Christiane · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was intrigued by the title of this essay, wondering what the Buddha and Karl Marx could possibly have in common. To understand the author’s reasoning it is important to know that Mr. Ambedkar died in 1956 and that this work was published posthumously.

The way Mr, Ambedkar saw it, both Marxism’s and Buddhism’s goal was a just and equal society of free beings but the means to achieve this end were quite different. Marx felt that change was inevitable and that one day the proletariat would rise up against the capitalists, there would be a violent upheaval and existing structures would be obliterated. The Buddha on the other hand advocated change through the betterment of every single being,

The Buddha’s teachings, e.g. “The Four Noble Truths”, the Noble Eightfold Path” etc. lay the responsibility on every member of society who should strive to become equanimous and free themselves from craving and aversion so that as a whole society would be free from greed and envy which were the most important obstacles on the path to enlightenment.

At the end of the essay Mr. Ambedkar asks himself what will fill the vacuum once the permanent proletarian revolution has achieved its goal of creating the “new man” and reasons that possibly Buddhism could take its place.

History has taught us the answers.

[Pratik Aghor · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting take on the subject:

"Man must grow materially as well as spiritually. Society has been aiming to lay a new foundation as summarized 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.

...the Russian Revolution... aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasized 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."

[Raunak Bose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Ambedkar presents the most unlikely comparison in social science history, the one between two of the most brilliant thinkers in history, Buddha and Karl Marx. This book should dispel away all questions regarding whether Dr. Ambedkar held Marx in high regard and what he thought about the ideological structure purported by Marx, and at the same, it talks about the fabric of the inspiration Dr. Ambedkar draws from the Buddha and helps us understand better the brand of Buddhism (Navayana) he goes on to formulate.

[Jatin Mathur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again Ambedkar and his great ideas dismantles the binary that modern politics presents you with.
Either Marx or Right wing but it is Ambedkar who critically analyses and compares him with Buddha's principles and brings about problems that Marxism may have.
So it presents the alternative to binary.

[Anton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book would have been better if Ambedkar had a better understanding of Marx, or even looked past Marx's theory into Lenin. Despite this he makes good points. My version of the book was also horribly edited and rather difficult to parse at times.

[Palwai]

Completed reading
" #Buddha or #KarlMarx "
by #DrBRAmbedkar!
---
All Right wingers and Left leaning Communists must read these short chapters spread over just 50-pages to know the difference between peace , tolerance ; and violence in the name of establishing equality.

[Mehedi Hasan Bappi · Rating 3 out of 5]

যদিও অসম্পূর্ণ বই, তবু কার্ল মার্ক্সকে নিয়ে একটু আলোচনা আশা করাই যায়। ফান্ডামেন্টাল কয়েকটা লাইন ছাড়া বিশেষ কোন আলোচনা নেই মার্ক্স কে নিয়ে। বুদ্ধের দর্শনের আলোচনা আছে ৭০ শতাংশের মতো, সেটাও ঠিক কতোটা আলো ছড়াতে পেরেছে এইটা প্রশ্নের বিষয়।

[Dhurai · Rating 5 out of 5]

real thinker

[xylan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nicely juxtaposes the visions of Marx and Buddha. Although the goal is quite the same, the path and ways are not so. A short and pleasant read indeed.

[Harikrishna · Rating 4 out of 5]

His understanding of Buddha's teaching and Marxism around the world

[Kamal Vaghela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful Analysis by Dr. Ambedkar

It was truthful analysis done by dr. Ambedkar..
True wisdom of Dr Ambedkar's worked..
Every one should read this essay....