Continued from Previous Page

Greek Dialectics, Dialectics of the Buddha:

Dialectics is the first meaning of dialogues. Socrates, Nagarjuna and others had philosophical discussions in the form of dialogues. Philosophical discussions from Buddha to Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Jiddu Krishnamurthy used to take the form of dialogues. Over time the term dialectics became established. It is translated in Telugu as Gatitarkam instead of Gatitatvam (movement) as mentioned earlier.

Gatitarka in Greek is partly inspired by Buddha’s Gatitarka. Buddha was the first philosopher, social scientist, political scientist and revolutionary who widely discussed the fundamental kinetic principles of contradiction, evolution, quality and lack, applied them to life and practiced them as a worldly perspective. Socialism and dynamism taken from Buddha give us darshan in today’s different socialist and Marxist ideologies. We as Indians have to rewrite the history of world socialist society from Buddhism. The injustice done to Asian countries needs to be rectified.  Materialism of the Charvakas, Marxists accepted materialism as well. Buddhism opposes materialism. Buddhism has made it possible to protest against materialism while seeking material development.

Uniqueness of Buddhism:

Buddhism practices socialism through love, wisdom, education, healing and unity. Some socialists in Europe have proposed the same. Marxism, on the other hand, proposes socialism through enemy- hunting, hatred, imperialism and confrontation.  Psychology and subconsciousness as said by Freud, was a part of the worldview of philosophy in our country since the time of the Buddha. That is why our philosophies have simultaneously made man, mind, society and class fundamental.

Buddhism examines the individual, the class and the society in a holistic way and removes the need for the state from the society and the individual. Thus, the way to the disappearance of the kingdom is easily possible through socialism for the Buddhist taluk. Christianity and Islam adopted the concepts of social practice through education, medicine and love from Buddhism.

Social equality movements in many forms:

Socialism and social equality movements continued in the form of religious movements and cultural movements in the world and in our country. Due to the absence of state power as a foundation, social movements lost their political form and took the form of religious, religious, moral and cultural movements. In how many years, how many generations, how many initiations, Ajanta and Ellora caves were created! Bambian sculptures and houses in Afghanistan are carved! We can only say it was possible only with a strong will and a stable life existed at that time with basic technology. We should imagine the kind of hard work and the passion to build Sarnath, Sanchi Stupam and Amaravati. If we could remember that in seventy years we could not even build our own parliament building, it is needless to say how the buildings have been built over centuries attracting millions of people.

Many European countries have long been barbaric nations and races where tyranny and the use of force became their politics. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam born in Asia were responsible for the cultural revolution in Europe.

Even today social and political movements in our country are going on in the form of religion and caste. B. sp. A recent example is the movement starting from Ashoka till Basavadi, religions were spread for political purposes. Jyotibaphule’s possession of Balichakravarti and Ambedkar’s possession of Buddha indicate the pattern of social movements here.

Ambedkar’s specialty:

Knowing the limitations of Europe and recognizing the importance of Asian countries, Ambedkar added Buddhist Dharma and Buddhist culture movements to his proposed socialism. We can also see the integration of Christianity and Islam into social movements and politics in recent struggles in South America, Afghanistan and Iran.

RSS and BJP raised hundreds of slogans like Ram Janmabhoomi. For the past 30 years, history books have been rewritten accordingly. The hatred fueled by Marxism took its toll as well. Marxist socialism models depended on political domination, so it turned into a socialist culture that exploits people rather than through love, compassion, benevolence and service. A socialist culture should be the one that abolishes state power. It is not possible to build a socialist culture with Marxism based on state power. Buddhist Dharma, Buddhist Culture, Buddhist Socialism will correct the shortcomings of European Socialism.

Distinctiveness of Ambedkarism:

Ambedkarism is a modern form of socialism that has adopted the democracy of Buddhist socialism and the socio-economic arguments of Marxism in its own way. Ambedkarism serves as a worldview for building world socialism. Our discussion of Buddhism is part of Ambedkarism. Thus Buddhism-Socialism also means socialism from Buddha to Ambedkar.

Marx’s Imperialism:

Buddha was also a great statesman. There is one thing that Marx said in addition to Buddha. That is the argument of state power. Ambedkar rectified these errors and democratized the ideology of Rajyadhikar. Along with the democratization of statehood, Ambedkar emphasized the importance of Buddhism in social culture. Thus, Ambedkarism became one of the most modern models of world socialism.

Marx believed in labor power. Aimed at kingship. Buddha believed in man. He believed in the humanity of man. From Angulimalu, he has lifted many from darkness, from hardened hearts to the human heart. Marx forgot the labor force of women. Thus, Marx’s theory of economic surplus value is incomplete and only with half-truth. Scientists have made many scientific discoveries. Marx did not take their labor power and intellectual power under his purview. Thus, the economics and philosophy of Marxism have become a reality. It has gone from half-truth to a quarter-truth. By believing in the ideo-logy of state power, Marxism turned into authoritarianism.

It was also said that it was clearly a dictatorship in the name of the workers. The efforts made by the communists for the workers are tremendous. It should not be forgotten that many of the comforts and conveniences enjoyed by the workers and the middle-class today are the result of the revolutions of Marx, Engels, Russia and China. In addition to these, Ambedkarism promoted the humanistic values of Buddhism and the democratic system. Ambedkar also made it very clear that state power is the key to unlocking all locks. But it is not the dictatorship that Marx said. They are a democratic socialist system.

Buddhism is a socialist system:

Buddhism was a socialist system that promoted society by emphasizing an atheistic rationalist, anatma scientific way of thinking. It also includes level differences like Holtimers, People etc. The socialist system of Buddham Taluk is a patriarchal and male-dominated socialist system. Neither Marx’s socialism nor Buddhist socialism in the sense of today’s feminism is comprehensive socialism. Buddha was sympathetic towards women. It is necessary to recognize that Buddu, as a man of the day, had a historical limitation of masculinity.

Buddhism is not interested in state power, property or material comforts. Marxism relies on these three. Buddhism focuses on wisdom and benevolence. Therefore, instead of wanting to gain power, it has moved forward with a service perspective as the basic goal of providing knowledge to all, serving social culture and providing life. During the Buddhist period the requirements were less. By the time of Marx, Engels, due to less wealth and more industrial production, division of labor, class division increased. The needs have increased. Laws have increased. Hence, like Marx and Engels, Ambedkar also said that state power is the key to unlocking all locks.

Temple domes are for:

Vedics, priests and casteists created thousands of temples for their food and social supremacy to get honor more than the kings for generations. They got thousands of villages as donations from the kings and the authority to collect taxes from them. The wealth of thousands of villages was enjoyed by them for thousands of years. Bahujan Bhakti movements protested and opposed the looting of temples and shrines. Bhakti movements emphasized that God is not in temples and stones but in the heart of man and humanity.

Such upper castes say beautifully “Brahmin Bhojan Priya”. When they joined the Buddhist communities and the Buddhists became so, there was no difference between the Buddhist communities and the Brahmins. As a result, people lost special interest in Buddhism and became restricted to castes-based works and castes. Jainism and Buddhism lost their appeal. Such Buddhists and Jains were harshly suppressed by Muslims and Varnaists. Some socialist sentiments are seen in the Shaivite and Vaishnava devotional movements of Basaveshwara, Ramanuja etc.

After that in England in 1380 socialist feelings started to grow. Basavayya propagated Chapa Kudu’s theory of social equality without distinction between castes to establish Veerashaivism to expand his political power. Kabir, Guru Ravidass, Guru Nanak, Potuluri Veerabraham and Vemana promoted social equality in the spirit of Sufis.

Hypothetical Socialists: (PRASAD)

After the Buddhist tantric and devotional movements in our country, the utopian writers in Europe in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries expressed communist sentiments. Sir Thomas More (1478-1539) expressed socialist sentiments. Peter Chamberlain wrote a book called “Advocates for the Poor” (1649). He wanted to nationalize the king, property, churches, and declare forests and mineral wealth to be collective property for the poor people.

During the Saiva and Vaishnava Bhakti movements, socialist revolutions were carried out in the form of devotion by the lower castes in our country. Practicing socialism within the caste was natural. Bhakti movements protested the Buddhist Jains but worked to build socialism within the caste into socialism between castes. They advocated social equality of those who adopted their religion that they were all equal regardless of caste. As the revolutionary and romanticism of the devotional movements weakened, the socialism achieved among the castes shrunk into a socialism limited to the caste. Thus, the Saiva Vaishnava societies split and split and contributed to the increase in the number of castes.

Socialism limited to caste:

One may be doubtful whether there will be socialism limited to caste. There is also socialism limited to the family. A mother can see all her children equally. If someone else comes hungry, she would not fast and serve him the food. Members of an organization, members of a class, members of a party, members of a caste can practice socialism limited to themselves. The fact that he is not a member of our party and that he can be considered as anything else indicates that his party has a limited socialist practice. If all brothers in the family on property have equal rights, then is a practice of socialism limited to the family. It will be true family socialism if their sisters also have equal rights in it. Without it, socialism is confined to the men of the family.

Male dominated devotional movements:

Bhakti movements were subject to the constraints of maintaining male hegemony. That was the time limit of that day. Bhakti movements helped male gods take the place of female deities. Women who invented agriculture like Pochamma, Ellamma, Kattamaisamma are being worshipped without knowing the names of their husbands. Their popularity was damaged by Bhakti movements. They were looked down upon.

Bhakti movements reduced the importance of women. The sexual process was performed by the gods. While one is glorified as the husband of 16 thousand gopikas, it is said that the penis of the other has played with all the heavens. He who amused thousands of women was worshiped. Likewise, Rambha, Urvashi, Menaka and Tilottham, who entertain lakhs of people all the time, should be worshiped many times. But Bhakti movements could not do this.

Bhakti movements transformed women’s language into a male- dominated one. The expression that shifted from songs to poems became male-dominated. The poetic structure of expression is against the language of the oppressed castes, the language of women. When the upper castes came to the leadership of Bhakti movements, their progressiveness came to a standstill. Nannaya came forward as part of the suppression of Indian, Buddhist and Jain feminism.

Muhammadan invasions:

Muhammadan invasions are associated with Bhakti movements. Equality among Mohammedans is socialism, Sufism attracted the people. A sort of social equality continued with backward consciousness in the tribal tribes as well. On the other hand, the egalitarianism built by Buddhism was still lingering. All these had an impact on Bhakti movements. Bhakti movements also opposed Muslim fundamentalism. That’s how the Sufi way was born.

While Islam and Christianity came to our country, Buddhism came in new forms. But both of these are different from the Buddhist theory of knowledge. Guru Nanak’s Sikhism, Akbar’s Sufi path and Bhakti movements were formed with the propositions of social equality. Social equality in Islam and Sikhism attracted people. Socially degraded castes, ex-Buddhists, untouchables, and wild tribes who were socially degraded in the caste system joined Sikhism, Islam, and Christianity in millions. Although they were discriminated against in the first generation, they did not want to go back and return to the caste system as they gained social equality and brotherhood in their respective dharma after the second generation. Christianity is basically a branch of Buddhism.

The words integrity, integration and equality are words that are untouchable for the varna system. Therefore, apartheid could not keep the country united. There were two emperors who united India as a single country. One is Ashoka. Another is Akbar. Ashoka was a Shudra. Akbar was a Mohammedan. History is proof that if BC, SC, ST and minorities come together, the country will be united.

Shudras who ruled India:

In the book Bharatiya Charitra Shudra Drikpatham, it has been extensively explained that the makers of Indian history were Shudras and that Indian kings and emperors were originally Shudras and Atishudras. Shudras and Atishudras only developed wealth, services and skills. Brahmins, Kshatri-yas and Vaishyas are the three varnas who never created wealth except they were wealth-eaters. In India, the kings and emperors appeared to be Kshatriyas due to their baptism by Brahmanism, but in reality many of them were Shudras and tribals. Brahminism based on the supremacy of the ideology, dominated the society. They were in the position of guiding the kings as royal gurus and ministers. In today’s terms, they used to take over the central and state government secretariats and government departments. Ambedkar recognized the importance of Sudras and Ati-Sudras gaining a foothold in the bureaucratic government machinery.

Buddha was a Tribal:

Buddha was a tribal, a folk. The period when Buddha lived was the period of the Janapadas. At that time, kingdoms and big kingdoms were not formed. If Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and tribals brought together revolutions under the leadership of Buddhism for centuries, then the devotional movements, Islam, Christianityand Sikhism were revolutions brought under the leadership of Shudras. Especially today the castes belonging to the BC groups took the lead in all these.

Shudra Revolutions:

The Sudra revolutions in the form of devotional movements and adoption of paganism developed the languages of the respective ethnic groups in India many times over. First the Buddhist revolution and then the Sudra revolutions did immeasurable service to the development of Indian languages. Seeing the development brought about by the Shudra revolutions in oral, folk and lyrical literature, it became necessary to bring Teluguness etc. in their poems.

Varnas who live by resorting to authority:

The Shudra revolutions, which were supposed to grow into the industrial revolution, remained incomplete. Jyotiba Phule, a Sudra, continued the course of history and sowed the seeds of the Avarna Revolution. With the leadership of Ambedkar, the Bahujan revolutions took a new turn in modern India. Ambedkar converted himself to Buddhism. Thus, the Buddhist socialism born under the leadership of tribals seems to have shifted to the leadership of Dalits.

In all three of the Kshatriya and Shudra Avarna revolutions in India, Brahmins played the role of revolutionaries as a group. When the results came in, they took the lead and profited. But it is true that Brahmins played a progressive role as some people.

Surviving by resorting to authority is the skillfulness of Brahminism. They resorted to the Shudra, tribal and Atishudra kings who came to power and elevated their caste. For example, Maurya, Ashoka, Satavahanas, Kakatiyas, Pallavas, Chalukyas, Vijayanagar kings, Reddy kings, Shivaji were all Shudras. Brahmins named them as Kshatriyas. As a result, casteization took place and ties between the castes where they were born and brought up were severed. It was easy for the Brahmins to win the king who was divided by caste with their words and deeds. This caused a lot of damage to the people. In the same way, the Shudras, who have recently become leaders, are being upcasted in the name of Marxism and are severing their religious ties with the castes they were born and brought up in. It became easy for the upper castes to win over the Shudra leaders who were separated by caste with their words and deeds.

Pushing the Shudras back...:

With the introduction of capitalism, the upper classes rushed to own the results of its development. So they started trying to reform themselves. English education and foreign contact contributed to this. Under capitalism, Shudras and Ati Shudras have lost in the competition of commodity production. With capitalism, the castes, who had been away from production for thousands of years, entered for new employment and ownership. As a result, Shudra and Atishudra castes suffered a lot. They are relegated to the lower levels of access and respectability. Foreign capitalism was a boon to the upper classes but a curse to the productive classes.

Even though Brahmanism penetrated the capitalist spheres of production, they could not elevate the social prestige of the Shudra and Atishudra castes, which were till then the sphere of production. The additional social respect that caste brought to the upper castes continued. Therefore, there is no need for the upper castes involved in the production to increase the social respect of the productive castes. It was the Shudras who undertook that work. Jyotiba Phule is a symbol of that.

Due to European investment, goods, commercial exploi-tation and wars, the Sudra revolutions led to loss of economic, social and wealth. As a result, the Shudra revolutions that were supposed to grow as capitalists, skilled workers and scientists were reduced to introverted devotional movements. They were reduced to scrambling for survival while fending off foreign invasions, looting and trade. The increased production and wealth of the Middle Ages were used by Hindu and Muslim kings and people for temples, domes, stone walls and wars. Even due to the destruction of Ganabajanas, fortress walls and festivals, the Shudra revolutions could not turn into new agricultural revolutions and capitalist revolutions. e.g. It would have been revolutionary if ponds and dams had been built instead of the Taj Mahal.

Industrial Age – European Supremacy:

Under European domination, modern industrialization took place in Europe. We have abundant human and natural resources. Had the Shudra Atishudra revolutions here evolved into industrial revolutions; they would have been a guide to the world. Science and technology developed in a way that depended on human effort. The European industrial revolution was based on machines. Human resources have become unemployed. Moved manufactured goods to areas dependent on human resources. As a result, Shudras and Atishudras became unemployed here. Employers and workers benefited there. Thus, European capitalism is imperialist by birth.

The industrial revolution brought forth competition for the productive classes. The work done by man started to be done by machines. The name Shudras was given by others to the productive castes. However, Indians are called Hindus by others. ‘Thus, some of the production castes and tribes were named Shudras. Many Shudras do not like to be called Shudras. Thus, they are forced to be called

Shudras. Even today the Vishvakarma castes, the representatives and symbols of the Mineral Age, oppose being called Shudras. As mentioned earlier, they led the case in Madras state that they were better than Brahmins.

Yuga division, Ramayana, Mahabharata:

The Yuga division of Krit Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga and Kali Yuga is also related to Vaishnava tradition. It is not even 10-12 thousand years since humans started growing into civilized humans. But these yuga divisions, Ramayana, Mahabharata, history goes back a few hundred thousand years and wrote as if they all seem to exist. If they are written like that, it is clear that all of them belong to the post- modern metal age and mineral age writings. Weapons, jewelry, travel, agriculture etc. used in Ramayana, Mahabharata are all from AD. And existed by the sixth century. Not earlier than the B.C. sixth century. Hence Palini’s Sanskrit grammar, which came out after Buddha, was written in the middle period of B.C. second century, and second century AD. All of the Sanskrit works which strictly follow Palini’s Sanskrit grammar, date back to AD. After the second century. The poem Jayi with 8500 slokas was transformed into 24 thousand slokas in the 8th and 9th centuries as Mahabharata of lakhs of slokas. Production castes appear here and there in Ramayana and Mahabharata. The reason why caste discrimination appears in Ramayana and Mahabharata is that between the second century and the ninth century AD, the influence of Buddhism declined, and the influence of the Varna Vadis increased, adding up.

Period of Bhakti Movements:

The period of Bhakti movements and the period of Shudra revolutions are considered by some as the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages. Who made it the blind age? It is good to see who caused the light. The Dark Ages began with the entry of Europe into the lives of the Shudras. The productive castes were transformed into workers in the second stage. In the meantime, they were close to poverty. Industrial revolutions brought light to the upper castes who pushed Shudras into the dark ages. Hence, it was possible for the upper castes to take the lead in the social and economic spheres of modern India. Their ‘caste supremacy’ became another reason for their leadership in capitalist development.

Europe developed by robbing the world:

The industrial revolution of Europe started with the money looted from Asia, Africa, Red Indians and America. Especially since the 14th century, wealth as well as ideological, social, cultural and economic revolutions have shifted from Asia to Europe. Asia’s eminence lagged behind. As the development in Europe was done with the wealth of Asia and other countries, the development of science there was done by taking the wealth of Shudras and Atishudras. European modern ideas are born from the riches of Sudra and Atishudra labor. But because of the superiority of Europe, the development of science was the superiority of Europe. Some of these details need to be checked.

European supremacist socialist concepts:

Modern socialist sentiments in Europe, subject to European supremacy, began to blossom in the French Revolution of 1789. Vemana and Potuluri Veerabrahmangaru spread the ideas of socialism within the confines of the backward system, with backward caste limitations. In Europe, the movement created by Babouf, who was hanged in 1797, is called the neo-socialist movement by Europeans. Cabet Ykarian Communists tried to create an ideal communist society by building a colony with a population of 1500. It is like a Buddhist community. It survived for 47 years. Cabet said that the new society should be built by persuading the people by force of argument and by popular consent, not by tyranny. His sentiments are close to Buddhism.

The writings of British radicals (1756-1836) such as Goodwin Charles Hall (1756-1836) are a major development in the spread of European socialist sentiments. The concept of class struggle in its present sense was first expressed by Charles Hall, who wanted to nationalize the land. His explanations of the causes of war became a guide for later socialists. Poets like Wordsworth and Shelley also tried to spread socialism in their works like Vemana.

The next notable development in the spread of European socialism came in France under Napoleon. Saint Simon (1760-1825) suggested that the proletariat could be used as a tool for the establishment of a new society. In the case of property relations, he foresaw the theory that was developed by Marx and led the way for the change. Charles Fourier (1772-1837) sought socialism and proposed phalancaries (self-supporting cooperatives) similar to the self-supporting rural society of our caste workers.

British Socialism:

Robert Owen (1771-1857) was the father of British socialism. He is also the father of the rationalist movement. Robert Owen wanted to achieve ‘communism’ by persuading the people. He also proposed a rural society like our Indian hamlets as a model of communism. He said that a village should have 1500 acres of land. He bought 30,000 acres in Indiana, USA and established a colony called Nava Sammelanam (New Harmony) and made it a symbol of the communism he wanted.

The theory of European socialism also originated as social classism. It took a turn for economics. Formulations of European economists provided the basis for modern socialism. Socialism seems to be narrowed down from political and social science to economics. Sismandy (1773-1842) was hailed in the Communist Manifesto as the father of petty-bourgeois (small-scale) socialism. David Ricardo’s economic writings contributed to the development of socialist economic theory. David Ricardo laid the theoretical foundations for the theories of surplus value and labor value. Based on these, socialists could deny that all profit is raw exploitation.

Hudskin (1783–1869) based on Ricardo’s theories made it clear that the worker is the sole creator of commodity value. William Thomson also said that he was an appraiser. John (1809-1895) was an American economist who adopted and further developed Karl Marx’s formulation of commodity value in his theory of surplus value.

French economists Auguste Blanc (1805-1881) and Louis Blanc (1811-1882) proposed socialism with a slight difference. Blanky is the leader of the rebellion. He has no faith in elections. Louis Blanc advocated representative democracy based on universal suffrage. He wanted the revolution to come through the consent of the masses and winning through arguments.

Joseph Pierre Prodhon (1806-1865) played an important role in the spread of European socialist ideas. He was born in a poor farmer’s family and educated himself. Proudhan was against the concept of ‘government’. This fulfilled Marx’s wish that the state should fall. Buddha said that the kingdoms would disappear, two and a half thousand years ago. Proudhan says that politics is about domination, centralization of power and destruction of individual freedom. Socialist states also confirmed Proudhan’s words. Communist and Naxalite politics also confirm Proudhan’s prediction.

In this way, socialist theories such as Fabianism, Marxism, Guild Socialism, Feminism etc. were formed based on the theories developed by European intellectuals, leaders. Despite their faults, they were the mothers of European-style socialism.

Ambedkar Study Distinctiveness:

Even knowing all this, Ambedkar said that Marx said nothing more than Buddha. It means that Buddhist socialism brought such a great revolution. When it comes to Gati-tarkam, it took 1000 years in Europe to achieve the development in our country that was achieved during the period of Acharya.

Gatitarkam of Kant, Hegel, Marx was developed in our country during the times of Buddha and Nagarjuna. Capitalist economics could not develop in our country. Caste system, Brahminism, wasteful kings and people, foreign invasions and looting destroyed the economy here. Hence capitalist economics could not develop.

The field of Asian ideological ideologies was enriched by the likes of Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phule, Narayana Guru, Ambedkar, Mao, MN Roy and Ramamanohar Lohia. Europe, America and other countries are not ready to accept this word. If Ambedkarism, MN Roy, Lohia and feminism were combined in Indian Communism, India would have provided the ideological foundation and leadership for the subsequent world socialist movements. In Indian Communism this was hindered by the varnaism. However, this remains to be achieved. Buddhist socialism is very helpful as a historical basis for that.

Marx’s Economist Socialism:

Some, such as Marx, have discussed sociology and state socialism as models of economics. But many in Europe discussed economics, the state, and models of socialism as a form of sociology. Recently, there has been criticism that the communists and Naxalites have indulged in economicism. In quiet, normal conditions, the revolutions that Marxism advocate shrink into economicism. The Russian and Chinese revolutions were national revolutions. Their relation to Marxism is like the relation of Bhagavad Gita to our national movement. Many young people even got hanged in the fight for freedom of this country with the inspiration of Bhagavad Gita!

Marxism says that socialist revolutions will come only if Marxism is practiced. Buddha said , on the contrary, “know yourself, know this world, don’t believe what someone says and only believe what you have proved to be true”. There is a difference between Buddhist socialism and Marx’s socialism. This difference is reflected in party structure principles, world view, social practice and system structure.

Let us recall once again:

Both Buddhist Socialism and Marxism Socialism are based on Gatitarkam (mobilism). Buddhism considers all inter-relationships with the vision of Pratyya Samutpada. Marxism and Engels, as supreme human beings, sought the construction of a new human society, but the clash of Marxism was fundamental in the conflict of unity. Buddhism says unity is fundamental. “I say relationship is fundamental in conflict”. Buddha said that force should not be used as a foundation but wanted to bring about change through the consent of the masses. That is why in Buddhism the emphasis is on the intellect. In Marxism, confrontation is fundamental and force is the decisive factor. Buddha wanted to win through love, by loving people. He wants to win even the enemy through love and truth. Marxism achieves unity among people by achieving unity in hating enemies. Thus, when the enemy is defeated, the foundation of unity disappears and the unity among the people breaks down.

Marxism wins people’s hearts through sacrifice. Buddhism wins the hearts of people by imparting knowledge through sacrifice, service in medicine, education and other fields. Marxist socialism relies on state power. Buddhist socialism relies on human beings. Marxism says that the state should disappear while relying on the power of the state. Buddhist Socialism based on man is necessary for the disappearance of the state. Buddhist socialism is based on human being. Buddhist socialism thus constructs a worldview of life, society, and culture in such a way that the state disappears in life. Therefore, by merging Marxism, Socialism - Buddhist Socialism, a new society, social relations and culture will emerge where the state will disappear. Ambedkarism, which developed Buddhist socialism according to today’s conditions, is related to world socialist construction. Ambedkarism is socialism achieved in a multiparty democratic system. These shades can be clearly observed in the Constitution of India. To make the Constitution of India a secular socialist constitution, the influence of socialist revolutions in Europe, Indian roots and developments in the history of Buddhism played a major role.

In the light shown by Buddha and Ambedkar, Marxism included feminism and Bahujanism and eradicated internal colonialism. A true advanced democracy would be socialism. This is what we mentioned in 1992 as a ‘United Platform of Dalit Writers, Artists, Intellectuals’ working against all caste, caste, gender, race, religion, region, country, language, discrimination and inequality.

First Published serially in Yudhbhumi Monthly 2021-2022 issues