"If you meet Marx on the road, kill Marx."

[white_wolf]

If any of you are familiar with Zen Buddhism you might recognize the reframing of the famous quote "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha." Zen teachers use it to teach the students the dangers of getting trapped in dogmatism and past conceptions. It is used to teach the student to consider new ideas and concepts.

I think the left could benefit from a dose of this Zen teaching. As I read socialist websites or watch socialist videos, I've found that when it comes to our problems today, too many socialists are retreating into the classics and trying to apply old theories to new problems. Too many ask themselves what would "Marx, Lenin, Trotsky,Stalin, Mao, etc. do" in our situation. The problem is that our society is very different from the semi-feudal state Russia was in when Lenin was developing his theories or the early capitalism of England in which Marx wrote and worked. I'm not saying we should ignore the past, because past thinkers did have profound insights, but I have to ask where are the modern theorists? Where is the modern-day Marx or Lenin, or Proudhorn?

I'm not saying I have the answers, and I don't expect anyone to have them, yet, but I do feel that the left has became mired it its own strange form of conservatism, at least in terms of ideas and theories. Modern-day American Maoists are a good example of this problem. Mao's theories were developed for the semi-feudal state of China and to be honest when I see Maoists in America talking about a "People's War" I can't help but shake my head and think how ridiculous they sound (and yes I have seen it a few times.) The point of this post is this: We are in a new century, a new era with new problems and we need new solutions. So perhaps we should take some Zen advice and abandon or at least rethink past conceptions.

Does anyone agree with me or am I totally off base here?

[Lint Head]

1. You are correct in several ways. Evolution is all around us not just in animals but also society.

As mankind evolves so does his association with concepts and technology. The same basic concepts of how to control people to gain power is still the same but now technology is in the mix. Radical forms of dogma and fascism are now more easily foisted upon us in new and deceitful ways. We need new innovative solutions to fight the radicalization of corporate bigotry and theological fascism. The people need to be vigilant and keep the internet open to all. It has been one of the best defenses against the new rising form of dictatorial control of human beings.

[Starry Messenger]

2. I think the theory gets applied dogmatically because people neglect materialism.

Actual materialism, where current events and forces are looked at. It is good to examine history, but trying to apply the solutions of one phase of history to the now doesn't make any sense. As you say "We are in a new century, a new era with new problems and we need new solutions."

Things are always shifting. Marx and Lenin wrote a lot about this too, I'm not sure why some Marxists skip over the "practicum" part of their respective works. I read other socialist boards too and the arguing reminds me of DC vs. Marvel flamewars on fandom boards.

*We* are the modern theorists. I think those of us on DU realize that the current government of the US is a factor in what we need to consider, and that it is important not to neglect the electoral arena. That gives us a leg-up from armchair philosophy already, imo. How can we build from there?

[TBF]

3. What is different?

Each generation seems to think they have these complex new problems, and although conditions may have changed somewhat, what is really different? The very rich are robbing us blind. That statement applies now, as it applied 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 300 years ago, etc ... That's why the theory still applies. How we organize might be different, we may have different tools, but I fail to see "new problems". Just my two cents.

[socialist_n_TN]

4. Marx, Engels, Lenin and, yes even Trotsky...........

should NEVER be applied dogmatically. They woud all spin in their graves if you tried to make a dogma out of their works. That doesn't mean you ignore them however. The overall THEORY of Marxism (a materialist reading of historical processes) is correct enough and flexible enough to encompass all situations. And Lenin and Trotsky both led a successful revolution based on Marxist theory, so you can't discount their insights into revolutionary processes either. But you can't apply their insights dogmatically in every situation. What's more, they wouldn't have either.

As an specific example, since I'm a Trotskyist, I believe in the working class having the ultimate power to make a socialist revolution and to make it permanent. Which is why I'm not a big fan of Che Guevera as a revolutionary. He was something of a Trotskyist in that he saw a United Socialist States of Latin America during a time when all Communists were required to support the USSR even over and above their national interests, BUT he tried to make his revolutions based on guerilla warfare based on the rural peasantry rather than the working class. It worked in Cuba because the character of that revolution was nationalistic from the beginning and not socialist. It only BECAME socialist (or Stalinist) after Castro took power. Imposed from above. A Trot would not have tried to apply Castro's solution for Cuba to Bolivia. But a Trotskyist WOULD have tried to apply the OVERALL theory of the working class making the revolution with the SUPPORT and help of the rural peasantry to ANY country. IOW, the impulse for socialist revolution must come from the working class. A populist revolution might come from the peasantry and a populist revolution might be turned into a socialist revolution (theory of Permanent Revolution), but it wouldn't BE a socialist revolution until the working class became involved in a leading role.

This should be an example of how Marx, et. al. (and especially Trotsky of course), SHOULD be applied, IMO. The general theory is that no socialist revolution can be permanent unless the impulse comes from the bottom up within the working class itself. But the SPECIFICS as to HOW that impulse is stoked and applied would change from situation to situation and country to country.

[BOG PERSON]

5. why reinvent the wheel?

how has capitalism changed, in a fundamental way, since marx's days? does the law of value no longer obtain? have the bourgeoisie figured out some magical, non-backfiring way to abolish crises of overproduction?

[HiPointDem]

6. I believe marxist philosophy emphasizes the dialectic, the upshot being that as conditions are

constantly changing, so theory & practice (must & do) change to meet changing conditions.

Georg Lukas defined (Marxist) orthodoxy as fidelity to the "Marxist method", not fidelity to "dogmas".

Stephen Jay Gould: "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine."

Dialectics is an old philosophical term dating back to Ancient Greece where it signified the idea that truth can be arrived at through dialogue, the clash of opposing arguments. At the end of the eighteenth century, Hegel, inspired by the French Revolution, used a much advanced dialectical method to attempt an account of the whole history of human consciousness and thought as developing through internal contradictions, but in Hegel the dialectic remained confined to the realm of ideas.

Marx took over and transformed the Hegelian dialectic, giving it a materialist foundation. For Marx the driving force of history, both human and natural, was not conflict between opposed ideas or concepts but conflict between opposed material and social forces.

The philosophical starting point of dialectics is that everything, everything in the universe, is moving and changing. This is now established scientific fact and it has profound political implications – think how often you hear people say ‘You will never change such and such’ or ‘ There will always be…racism, inequality, rulers or whatever’ – but it also has philosophical implications because dialectics is the logic of change.

http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2007/03/marxist-dialectic.html


So I guess I don't see why the nod to Zen adds anything. Marxism is all about constantly "rethinking past conceptions."

Zen was the Buddhism of the ruling class (aristocrats & military).

Buddhism...was introduced into Japan in the sixth century A.D... It gained the patronage of the ruling class, which supported the building of temples and production of Buddhist art. In the early centuries...the Buddhist influence was limited mainly to the upper class. From the late Heian period (A.D. 794-1185) through the Kamakura period (1185-1333), Pure Land (Jodo) and Nichiren Shoshu sects, which had much wider appeal, spread throughout all classes of society. These sects stressed experience and faith, promising salvation in a future world.

Zen Buddhism, which encourages the attainment of enlightenment through meditation and an austere life-style, had wide appeal among the bushi, or samurai--the warrior class--who had come to have great political power. Under the sponsorship of the ruling military class, Zen had a major impact on Japanese aesthetics. In addition, as Japan scholar Robert N. Bellah has argued, Buddhist sects popular among commoners in the Tokugawa period encouraged values such as hard work and delayed rewards, which, like Protestantism in Europe, helped lay the ideological foundation for Japan's industrial success.

http://countrystudies.us/japan/61.htm

[socialist_n_TN]

7. RE: Zen in Japan..........

Zen came to Japan comparatively late, so you can't call it the "Buddhism of the ruling classes" anywhere, but Japan. And remember the ruling classes will take anything that shows a truth and bend it to the aim of keeping themselves in power. Witness how today they morph the legacy of M. L. King into a caricature of what his message actually was.

Zen originated in India (like all Buddhism does) as a Hindu heresy, but it was actually developed in China as Ch'aun. Shao Lin was the original Zen and it wasn't a ruling class religion or philosophy. The monks were very egalitarian. They took in anybody that met their criteria. The martial aspects of Shao Lin is probably why the warrior class in Japan adopted Ch'aun and morphed it into Zen. As with MOST of medevial Japanese culture, they would take the surface parts of Chinese culture and adopt them WITHOUT taking into account the rich cultural basis and subtlies of the culture that they adopted from.

Now as to whether Zen can teach anything to Marxism, I don't have any thoughts on that as a general rule. I'm somewhat unique in I've had 40 years of Marxist training and 31 years of traditional Kung Fu training which is Zen based, so I'm going to approach Marx in a Zen fashion anyway. But then I approach ALL my life in a Zen fashion. And it's not a religious thing, because you can be a materialist and follow Zen. Zen (like all Buddhism really) makes no provisions or teachings on an afterlife or even God. Buddhism is strictly a method (or philosophy) for living in this world of the here and now. To fundamental Buddhism, the afterlife or God isn't an issue to be concerned with.

To me, there are some similiarities between Marxism and Buddhism. As you mentioned, nothing is dogma in either philosophy. They both are concerned with the here and now and not with an afterlife. As a rule, they're both egalitarian. There are also differences, to me primarily with the acceptance of "what is". But if the Buddhist concept like the adage above leads a Marxist to question whether he's applying general Marxist teachings or is making a dogma of it, then that's not a bad thing.

[HiPointDem]

8. Disagree with you on several points, but I'll just go into one, otherwise things would get too

pedantic.

"Shao Lin was the original Zen and it wasn't a ruling class religion or philosophy. The monks were very egalitarian."

Shaolin lasted in some form or another for over 1000 years. So when you say "the monks were very egalitarian" I hear "sweeping generalization".

Shaolin had imperial patronage early on -- within 30 years of its founder's arrival in china. The first Temple was built with funds from an emperor on land granted by an emperor (of northern china in a period of warring states). 50 miles midway between 2 great capitals (18 dynasties between them & one the beginning of the silk road), 30 miles from the yellow river, in a longstanding spiritual/cultural center -- other monasteries & government academy nearby etc.

They were involved in imperial politics ever after, and always tried to be on the side of the rulers or the warlord they wanted to become ruler. When you see large temple complexes, those = surplus production diverted from other uses, typically through the patronage of the ruling/wealthy classes.






You can say the monks were egalitarian like you can say the military & the catholic church are egalitarian. Those take most comers too. There's a sense in which it's true & another in which it's not.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. There are several things that you are overlooking IMO.......

in your analysis of Shaolin in China.

True, the monks enjoyed, at times, Imperial patronage, but it's also true that at times they were persecuted. In fact, the (perhaps legendary) Bodhidarma, putative founder of true Shaolin (the martial and yogic aspects anyway) was rejected by the Emperor he met and basically "took it to the people" or at least the monks in the temples that were currently in place at that time. The monks also rejected his interpretation of Buddhism at first until he convinced them by his dedication that his way was best. That's another aspect of Buddhism that a lot of people don't quite understand. There is no "dogma". Even the Buddha himself said basically, "Try it, you'll like it, but if you don't then don't follow the Middle Way". It's experiential, in that you are free to reject the teachings if they don't work for you. And you won't go to "Hell" if you DO reject them.

Another MAJOR rejection of Shaolin by another Emperor a few centuries later led to the destruction of the temples and the exile of the monks from those temples over Buddhism itself and that very egalitarianism that you pass off as not important. Egalitarianism is NOT a tenet in feudalism which was the historical ruling system of that time in China. Ergo, that very egalitarianism WAS revolutionary for it's time, as was the philosophy of Buddhism.

Also the Boxer revolution which was a rejection of the partitionig of China by the Western powers and Japan was led by the descendents of Shaolin monks. Although not a socialist revolution, it WAS a fight for national self determination and against the imperialism of the West and Japan. Which made it a progressive movement EVEN IF IT'S GOAL WAS THE RESTORATION OF THE CHINESE DYNASTIES. And it DEFINITELY set the stage and was a precursor and inspirer of both Chang Kai Chek's Nationalist fight AND Mao's Stalinist revolution.

In Marxist terms, in my interpretation, Shaolin was progress over the feudal system that was in place at that time, just like capitalism was progress over the feudal system that was prevalent in Europe. It doesn't have to be socialism to be progress, even to Marx. It just has to be a forward movement.

Now, to get back to the gist of the OP. To me the two philosophical systems are not exclusionary for the most part. Actually they rarely overlap. Firstly, one is personal property (Zen) and could be considered micro and one deals with sweeping historical, economic and social processes and and is macro. As long as you don't bring your religion/philosophy into governing I consider it "personal" property (like your shirt or an individual homestead) and it's none of ANY government's business.

[limpyhobbler]

10. mostly no, some yes

Marx's description of the workings of capitalism is still the definitive text on the subject.

Primitive accumulation, class struggle, theory of surplus value, the trend toward monopoly, etc. are all needed concepts to describe our modern world.

In fact I'd say in our era of hyper-capitalism, Marx's ideas are more important and relevant than ever.

Not everything Marx ever wrote, but just in general.

On the other hand, we could be evolving into a neo-feudal society where the working class can be more accurately described as serfs or slaves than proletarians. If the fundamental class structure changes like that, Marx's ideas may lose some of their practical use. But his analytic method should still be valid.

The others (Lenin, etc.) I don't subscribe to in the first place, so I can't speak to that.

[white_wolf]

11. I am mainly refering to Lenin, etc. here.

Marx's framework of the basic capitalist structure is still valid and sound, but I feel that those who came after am aren't as relevant to our time, because they were adopting to very specific circumstances whereas Marx was working on capitalism in general.

[limpyhobbler]

12. Yeah I think that makes sense.

I don't know who are some modern theorists you might like.

Slavoj Zizek maybe?
I've listened to a some video lectures by him and he "seems cool".

I also like the book "Chomsky on Anarchism" for theory.
Also there is a Chomsky audio recording out there called "Government in the Future".
It's worlds away from the others you mentioned but still, it's pretty theoretical.

[white_wolf]

13. I like Chomsky a lot, but as for Zizek he is very interesting...

but I sometimes get the feeling a lot of what he does is for shock value. I, sometimes, doubt his sincere his views are, I could be wrong, of course.