How compatible are Buddhism and Communism?

I would say not at all, but in all honestly I bet any of us can take our own perspective and pick the Buddhas words to make our argument. Seems to be from my perspective that the Buddha mostly stayed out of politics with the rare exception of counseling kings who came to him and even then the advice was mostly about the ruler themselves performing skillful actions just like the rest of us, not about grand political maneuvers.

I actually wonder if the scope of this question is even appropriate for this website, considering it is a basic Q&A about Buddhism and this could turn into a political debate.

First of all, the Buddha did not envision an ideal human society, but the end of human society or rather: the end of everything human, which means suffering in the first place. Therefore, except for the rules that govern the life and community of monks and nuns for the time being, i.e. until enlightenment, there is no social teaching in the original word of the Buddha. So here, in the social sphere, my answer would be a straight no.

In later Mahayana Buddhism, though, the focal point shifts away from individual enlightenment, the new ideal being no more the Arhat, who achieves enlightenment for himself, but the Bodhisattva, who postpones his own enlightenment and strives to help and enlighten all other beings first. So in this stage, there is a social teaching, which does not contradict communism, I guess.

But maybe it would be useful, if you could specify exactly which tenets of communism/marxism you are having in mind, since for example quite obviously, there is no arguing on an economic basis in Buddhism. I guess, you did expect that.

There are two more things which come to my mind. First of all, again for early Buddhism, it denied the reality of class boundaries, which were in this specific context, the caste boundaries. The hierarchy within the order was based on age of service, i.e. time elapsed since ordination and there are stories from early Buddhism where hierarchies were turned upside down, the former low-caste dark-skin servant of some high-class person being all of a sudden his preceptor.

The other is a point where Buddhism is maybe much better compatible with marxism than any other religion could ever be: Buddhism denies the existence of the soul, of an all-powerful creator-god, rather it emphasizes cause and effect and a scientific approach to reality. This is not totally clear to me, but maybe even the mind can be seen as material.

Since Buddhism is a personal path of liberation, the litmus test of anything being Buddhist is the state of mind in which that thing is done. As such, any claims that would pertain to a fixed conclusion about something (whether or not they came from a Buddhist) would not be Buddhism per se.

For instance, when encountering any question such as "Should I support System X?", the real question here is what is your mind-set when evaluating that decision? Are you attached, reacting, trying to satisfy the needs of your self-image, or are you non-attached?

In a way, this side-steps such evaluations because it returns the focus not on the goodness of any given thing, but rather on how it affects the mind making it.

I highly recommend you look at Skillful Means. While applied in the context of liberation, I have also seen many Buddhists use it as a way of making more "objective" decisions.

But if you are looking for a more open-and-shut answer, then I'm not aware of any credible Buddhist doctrine about this, and would suspect anyone making such a pronouncement to be reflecting their personal opinion.

Did the historical Buddha or the later sutra writers hit on any of the same concepts that Marx did in any substantive way?

No, not that I can think of.

• The Buddha said some things about caste, but they weren't IMO like what Marx said about classes.
• The Buddha IMO talk about individual salvation, whereas Marx writes about societies.
• The Buddha defined some social rules (e.g. the Vinaya) but Marx defines nothing similar to that.
• Communism restricts private wealth for the whole society, Buddhism only does so for monastics.

I expect it's possible to be a Marxist and a Buddhist, but they're different/distinct categories.

Similarly it's probably possible to be a Physicist and a Buddhist, but (IMO) Physics doesn't say much about Buddhism and Buddhism doesn't say much about Physics.

A "Marxist" might or might not have views about "social justice" that a Buddhist might agree with.

If "communism" means something like "tribal ownership instead of private ownership of land" or "worker's cooperatives instead of exploitative capitalist owners", then maybe (theoretically) "communism" could be a form of right livelihood (but I don't know because I'm not much of a political scientist/historian).

I suppose "not wanting to accumulate private wealth" could possibly be seen as similar in both, but I find it a reach/stretch to see anything in common (although that's partly because it's been so long since I read any Marx, and when I did I think it was only Das Capital and maybe the Communist Party Manifesto).

Despite communism as practiced (as opposed to what Marx might have had in mind) being the source of some of the largest slaughter of lay and monastic Buddhists ever (except maybe the Imperial Chinese)... are the principles of Buddhism and communism (or socialism) compatible?

I'm not sure that they need to be incompatible, although they have been.

Is it true that monastics are accused (by communists) of being parasitic landlords/oppressors of the peasants? I think you know that monastics in Japan work (in the fields). And the Chinese government now allows (state-sanctioned) Buddhism (in China). The persecutions you reference aren't (IMO) especially the fault of Buddhism. For example I guess that the Khmer Rouge were anti-intellectual (not just anti-Buddhist); and the Chinese Cultural Revolution was anti-culture and anti-history (not just anti-Buddhist). Note that communism has sometimes been anti-religion-in-general, for example also persecuting Christians.

Communism is taken to mean a lot of different things, but at its essential core is simply the notion that the means of production -- i.e. land, factories, and so on -- should be collectively, not privately, owned.

So yes, Buddhism is compatible with Communism, but only in the same way that Cheesecake is compatible with woolen socks, or Windows 8 is compatible with a pony.

Practically, Buddhists should treat Communism as they do anything = as in ask whether what is said goes against the Buddha's teaching.

On a more positive note, I believe Communists can be Buddhists because solidarity is an idea which can be found in scripture.

If you joined the Buddha's community, you lost your former caste status. Apart from that; the Buddha did not overtly oppose the idea of the four castes (priests, warrior/ruling, business & workers), apart from asserting the Brahman caste had no inherent superiority due to birth; but instead, focusing on moral karma. Thus, the Pali suttas are replete with positive statements about the four castes, as though they are a natural order.

The Buddha taught people have different dispositions (MN 12) and thus the Buddha had the view of social diversity. For example, in DN 31, the respective obligations of employers & employees towards each other is clearly stated. This shows Buddhism does not have any communist ideals.

In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir:

(i) by assigning them work according to their ability, (ii) by supplying them with food and with wages, (iii) by tending them in sickness, (iv) by sharing with them any delicacies, (v) by granting them leave at times.

The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their master show their compassion to him in five ways:

(i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they uphold his good name and fame.

DN 31

Therefore, Buddhism, socially, does not adhere to a monolithic social order of only workers. The idea of a monolithic culture is Judaic, as shown in the Old Testament. Marxism possibly unconsciously (Marx was a rabbi's son but an atheist) modelled itself on the Judaic ideal. For example, the original Kibbutz culture of modern Israel appears not Marxist but traditionally Jewish.

In addition, while original feudal Capitalism was based on theft (i.e., the military seizure & ownership of land by the nobility war lords), Industrial Capitalism was based in technological innovation thus Intellectual Property (IP). In other words, the seizure of IP by the working classes under the Marxist model is theft, which is contrary to Buddhism.

In short, Buddhism as about the interconnectedness of the diversity of society. In Buddhism, business is grateful to labour and labour is grateful to business.

Where as the modern dialectic (?) political philosophies of Capitalism & Marxism are each selfish ideologies that lack gratitude for their self-declared yet needed 'nemesis'. They divide society.

Many people today look on life in all sectors as a struggle between conflicting interests—the “bosses” against the “workers,” the “government” against the “people,” the “rich” against the “poor,” and even the “women” against the “men,” or the “children” against the “parents.” When the aim of life is seen as material wealth or power, society becomes a struggle between conflicting personal interests, and we are in need of an ethic to protect those interests. It is a “negative ethic”: society is based on selfish interests—“the right of each and every person to pursue happiness”—and an ethic, such as “human rights,” is needed to keep everybody from cutting each other’s throats in the process.

The Buddhist teachings are a “positive ethic”: well-being, rather than power or riches, is the aim; society is seen as a medium through which all people have equal opportunity to maximize self-development and well-being, and ethics are used to facilitate those ends

Buddhist principles for a fruitful and harmonious life by P. A. Payutto

Aspects of Communism may be compatible with Buddhist teaching on greed, but any ideology (including Buddhism itself) can become dogmatic in a person, and that is often likened to drunkeness. An adherent is drunk on ideas and a prosyletiser like a drunk encouraging others to drink with him.

Did the historical Buddha or the later sutra writers hit on any of the same concepts that Marx did in any substantive way?

To me, yes he did. Principles of Buddhism and Communism are definitely compatible.

On what basis do I say this? - I have not gone through material originally written in Pali or Sanskrit or Tibetian etc. I have not studied "tripitak". I have tried to study "Dhammapad" but that too in Marathi (one of the local Indian languages) - a translated work. But I have read work on Buddhism and its philosophy, message by others like P. Lakshumi Narsu, Dharmanand Kosambi, Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Sangharakshit etc.

Book by Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar is major source of my answer - Buddha and His Dhamma.Dr. Ambedkar was student of Buddhism. Dr. Ambedkar has written a separate book on the issue - Buddha and Karl Marx . If you are interested I can post the links here.

I came across THIS article. Though is not written to address the issue mentioned in the question, while talking on something else, it also speaks about relationship between Marxism (Communism) and Buddhism. I am not expressing my personal opinion about the article. Just posting it for adding more information to carry on this useful discussion.

Communism cannot free you from suffering, it only prepares you for more different kind if you will suffering where as Buddhism promises freedom from all kind of mental afflictions.

Answer is greatly depend on what communism is. There is many opinions on communism, and in the course of history it have appropriated many unfortunate misconceptions (like vulgar atheism and dialectical materialism). I would define communism as idea of scientifically improving humanity (society as a whole and each person in particular). This most general idea does not contradict with Buddhism. Improving society is barely touched in Buddhism, but improving persons is. Alas, actual communist traditions have accepted ideas that really contradict Buddhism. For example, Leninism state that 'everything that is good for working class is moral'. That is directly contradictory to Buddhist discipline.

Also, curious quote from Dalai Lama:

"Still I am a Marxist," the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said in New York, where he arrived today with an entourage of robed monks and a heavy security detail to give a series of paid public lectures.

"(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits," the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

And another:

Midway through the conversation, His Holiness, much to their surprise, told them "as far as socio-political beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist ... But not a Leninist," he clarified. [...]

When one student asked if this didn't contradict the Dalai Lama's philosophy, he replied: "Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class."

Buddha did preach on tenfold virtue of the ruler but this cannot be taken as endors*m*nt of any particular system of politics though people may try to argue as so which they have freedom to do. So references by later authors should be examined in the context of the scriptures to see if they are accurate.

Marxism is strictly materialistic. It builds on the idea that if you distribute all goods evenly, people will stop suffering. That was a reasonable assumption to make when the vast majority of the population suffered from uneven distribution of goods.

Buddhism on the other hand does not regard changing the outer conditions as being important in overcoming suffering. More precisely, it suggests that transcending the outer conditions is the key to overcoming suffering, so in essence it denies the core question that Marxism seeks to give an answer to.

So I would say that they are pretty much orthogonal. Buddhism could probably act as a formidable complement to the Marxist theories when trying to build a society. But to individual Buddhists, Marxism is not necessarily useful.