Buddha or Karl Marx


Book Description

A comparison between Karl Marx and Buddha may be regarded as a joke. There need be no surprise in this. Marx and Buddha are divided by 2381 years. Buddha was born in 563 BC and Karl Marx in 1818 AD Karl Marx is supposed to be the architect of a new ideology-polity a new Economic system. The Buddha on the other hand is believed to be no more than the founder of a religion, which has no relation to politics or economics. Please give us your feedback : www.facebook.com/syag21 Your opinion is very important to us. We appreciate your feedback and will use it to evaluate changes and make improvements in our book.




Marx and Ambedkar


Book Description




Re-reading Ambedkar


Book Description




Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India


Book Description

This book offers a reading of Bhimrao Ambedkar’s engagement with the idea and practice of socialism in India by linking it to his lifelong political and philosophical concerns: the annihilation of the caste system, untouchability and the moral and philosophical systems that justify either. Rather than view his ideas through a socialist lens, the author suggests that it is important to measure the validity of socialist thought and practice in the Indian context, through his critique of the social totality. The book argues its case by presenting a broad and connected overview of his thought world and the global and local influences that shaped it. The themes that are taken up for discussion include: his understanding of the colonial rule and the colonial state; history and progress; nationalism and the questions he posed the socialists; his radical critique of the caste system and Brahmancal philosophies, and his unusual interpretation of Buddhism.







India and Communism


Book Description

"In the early 1950s, Ambedkar started work on a book he wanted to call India and communism. The book was never finished. The present volume assembles what survives of his book, along with a section of another unfinished book, Can I be a Hindu?"--Page 4 of cover.




For the solution of the ‘Caste’ question Buddha is not enough Ambedkar is not enough either Marx is a Must


Book Description

For the solution of the ‘Caste’ question Buddha is not enough Ambedkar is not enough either Marx is a Must This is neither Buddha's biography nor Ambedkar's. Further, it is not Marx's biography either. This is a discussion concerning the 'Dalit' question based exclusively on Ambedkar's writings. However, I have confined myself only to those writings that deal with the 'Dalit' question and Caste system. Ambedkar had also discussed other issues like Division of labour, Division of Labourers, poverty, unemployment and economic exploitation. These issues are connected with the Dalit question and the Caste system. Hence all these issues find place in this book. Ambedkar had also written on other themes like the 'Problem of the Rupee' and Large Scale Industry. But I have not included those issues which are not directly connected with the Dalit question. Even regarding Gandhi, I have not considered issues other than those Ambedkar cited in connection with the Dalit question. For the purpose of this essay, I wanted to rely only on Ambedkar's writings. But, in couple of contexts where I could not find relevant information in Ambedkar's works, I had to turn to a few references from his biographies. I have given these details in the respective contexts. The world needs the theory that is powerful enough to illuminate the path. It is irrelevant whether that theoretician is Buddha, Marx, Ambedkar or someone else. That which remedies the disease alone is a medicine! That which emancipates from sufferings alone is the higher path. If it is Buddhism, we are obliged to follow it, to revere it. The question, however, is to ascertain which is the higher path! This is the thing, which we must ascertain. We are obliged to follow the thing which we ascertain to be the higher path. We need to read Ambedkar's writings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of many issues which he discussed: the caste system, untouchability, poverty, Buddhism, Marxism, etc. We have to read them carefully and seriously. Whatever we read, we have to take everything that is useful. We have to follow it. We have to correct whatever needs correction. We have to abandon whatever is not useful. To do all this, however, we must first understand Ambedkar's ideas correctly. Problems like castes and untouchability are not things that have arisen, so to speak, yesterday or today. They have been entrenched for thousands of years. But we don't have any written literatureother than religious texts and some inscriptionsthat tells about them. The available sources may not be useful in many contexts. Yet they may be useful to some extent in some contexts. When we don't find clear-cut bases for the problems, however, there is no way out except attempting to understand them by means of our own logic.




Imagining the Public in Modern South Asia


Book Description

In South Asia, as elsewhere, the category of ‘the public’ has come under increased scholarly and popular scrutiny in recent years. To better understand this current conjuncture, we need a fuller understanding of the specifically South Asian history of the term. To that end, this book surveys the modern Indian ‘public’ across multiple historical contexts and sites, with contributions from leading scholars of South Asia in anthropology, history, literary studies and religious studies. As a whole, this volume highlights the complex genealogies of the public in the Indian subcontinent during the colonial and postcolonial eras, showing in particular how British notions of ‘the public’ intersected with South Asian forms of publicity. Two principal methods or approaches—the genealogical and the typological—have characterised this scholarship. This book suggests, more in the mode of genealogy, that the category of the public has been closely linked to the sub-continental history of political liberalism. Also discussed is how the studies collected in this volume challenge some of liberalism’s key presuppositions about the public and its relationship to law and religion.




Marx, Marxism and the Spiritual


Book Description

While Marxian theory has produced a sound and rigorous critique of capitalism, has it faltered in its own practice of social transformation? Has it faltered because of the Marxian insistence on the hyper-secularization of political cultures? The history of religions – with the exception of some spiritual traditions – has not been any less heartless and soulless. This book sets up a much-needed dialogue between a rethought Marxian praxis of the political and a rethought experience of spirituality. Such rethinking within Marxism and spirituality and a resetting of their lost relationship is perhaps the only hope for a non-violent future of both the Marxian reconstruction of the self and the social as also faith-based life-practices. Building on past work in critical theory, this book offers a new take on the relationship between a rethought Marxism and a rethought spirituality (rethought in the life, philosophy and works of Christian thinkers, anti-Christian thinkers, Marxian thinkers, those critical of Marxist Statecraft, Dalit neo-Buddhist thinkers, thinkers drawing from Judaism, as well as thinkers drawing critically from Christianity). Contrary to popular belief, this book does not see spirituality as a derivative of only religion. This book also sees spirituality as, what Marx designated, the "sigh of the oppressed" against both social and religious orthodoxy. In that sense, spirituality is not just a displaced form of religion; it is a displaced form of the political too. This book therefore sets up the much needed dialogue between the Marxian political and the spiritual traditions. The chapters in this book were originally published in Rethinking Marxism – A Journal of Economics, Culture and Society.




Thoughts on Buddha and Marx


Book Description

A comparison between Karl Marx and Buddha could be interpreted as a sarcastic remark. This should come as no surprise. Marx and Buddha are 2381 years apart. Karl Marx was born in 1818 A.D., while Buddha was born in 563 B.C. Karl Marx is credited with creating a new ideology-polity--and thus a new economic system. On the other side, the Buddha is thought to be nothing more than the creator of a religion unrelated to politics or economics. The title of this essay, "Buddha or Karl Marx," suggests a comparison or contrast between two such persons separated by such a long period and occupied by such disparate realms of thought. Marxists will readily mock it and scorn the notion of putting Marx and Buddha on the same footing. Marx is so contemporary, whereas Buddha is so ancient! Marxists may argue that the Buddha is unsophisticated in comparison to their master. What can possible comparisons be made between two such individuals? What is there for a Marxist to learn from the Buddha? What can a Marxist learn from Buddha?