Buddhism and anarchism: surprising convergences

BUDDHISM AND ANARCHISM: SURPRISING CONVERGENCES

At first glance, Buddhism and libertarian communism or libertarian municipalism appear to be worlds apart. Buddhism is often perceived as a philosophy of resignation, focused on personal liberation rather than social change. Anarchism, on the other hand, is a revolutionary ideology aimed at dismantling capitalism and restructuring society from the bottom up, based on mutual aid and communal organisation. However, a closer examination reveals significant points of convergence between these two philosophies. Drawing primarily from the Pāli Canon, I will highlight key areas where Buddhism and anarchism intersect.

1. Rejection of Imposed Authority and Coercive Hierarchy

Anarchism advocates for a decentralised social structure based on voluntary cooperation rather than coercive hierarchy. Similarly, the Buddha challenges authority that is founded on force or social status.

In the KĆ«áč­adanta Sutta (DÄ«gha Nikāya 5), a brahmin consults the Buddha about conducting a grand sacrifice. Rather than recommending ritual offerings, the Buddha proposes a model of social justice: the best way to pacify society, he argues, is to ensure fair access to resources and to address economic exploitation. Similarly, in the Cakkavatti SÄ«hanāda Sutta (DÄ«gha Nikāya 26), a king’s neglect of economic justice leads to theft, then violence, and ultimately to societal breakdown. These suttas suggest that coercion is not the solution to social disorder, but rather a root cause of it.

Moreover, the Buddhist monastic community (saáč…gha) operates without a centralised authority, relying instead on consensus-based decision-making. Though organisational structures exist, power within the saáč…gha is neither coercive nor hierarchical, resembling principles of libertarian federalism.

2. An Implicit Critique of Oppressive Economic Systems

Buddhism does not explicitly oppose capitalism, as it emerged long before its development, but it strongly condemns greed (lobha), one of the three roots of unwholesome action (akusala-mƫla), along with hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha).

In the Sigālovāda Sutta (Dīgha Nikāya 31), the Buddha discourages excessive wealth accumulation and urges ethical use of resources. The economic vision he promotes is based on sharing and sufficiency, rather than on profit maximisation. Similarly, in the Dhammapada (verses 204 and 405), he upholds contentment and voluntary simplicity over material wealth.

Libertarian socialism, as a critique of capitalism, aligns with this opposition to institutionalised greed and seeks to establish a mode of production and distribution based on need rather than accumulation.

3. An Ethic of Mutual Aid and Solidarity

Anarchist thought, particularly in the works of Kropotkin, places great emphasis on cooperation and mutual aid. Buddhism likewise upholds these values.

The brahma-vihāra (the “four divine abodes”)—loving-kindness (mettā), compassion (karuáč‡Ä), sympathetic joy (muditā), and equanimity (upekkhā)—constitute the ethical heart of Buddhist practice. In the Karaniya Mettā Sutta (Sn 1.8), it is stated:

“Just as a mother protects her only child, even at the risk of her own life,
so too should one cultivate an unlimited love for all beings.”

In the Vaáč‡ijjā Sutta (Aáč…guttara Nikāya 5.177), the Buddha explicitly condemns five professions, including the arms trade, human trafficking, and the selling of intoxicants. This suggests a preference for an ethical economy aligned with mutualist and cooperative principles.

4. Autonomy and Decentralisation as Fundamental Principles

Libertarian socialism emphasises autonomy and decentralisation, rejecting externally imposed control. Buddhism, in turn, encourages individual self-reliance in the pursuit of liberation.

In the Attadīpa Sutta (Sutta Nipāta 3.8), the Buddha exhorts:

“Be an island unto yourself, a refuge for yourself,
seeking no external refuge.”

This emphasis on inner autonomy resonates with the anarchist ideal of self-management and resistance to imposed authority.

5. A Critique of Power and Violence

The Buddha not only denounces war and domination but also expresses scepticism towards political power itself. In the Dhammapada (verse 201), he states:

“Victory breeds hatred, the defeated live in suffering;
the wise abide in peace, beyond victory and defeat.”

In the Jātaka (No. 151), he likens power to honey on the edge of a razor—seductive but dangerous. This wariness towards power aligns closely with the anarchist critique of state institutions as inherently coercive.

Conclusion

While Buddhism does not advocate the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, it shares anarchism’s critique of hierarchy, power, greed, and institutionalised violence. Its communal model, emphasis on cooperation, and call for self-reliance make it a philosophical ally of libertarian socialism. Engaged Buddhism could thus find common ground with anarchist ideals by promoting gradual societal transformation through ethical living and the construction of autonomous alternatives.

5 Likes

A recent discussion on the topic.

1 Like

In my view there is a major difference. Buddha and his teachings was/ are peaceful. Anarchism has nothing to do with peace. Not the way I experienced it anyway :grinning:

1 Like

Anarchism though is such an umbrella term as to include spiritual anarchists, pacifists and then violent terrorists. Probably the only things that they all share in common is their rejection of any sort of hierarchical relationship. It can even be argued that violent anarchism is a contradiction in itself, since it recreates subjugation and power dynamic. But people call themselves all sorts of things. :slight_smile:

Also obligatory pasta:

:smiley: :lotus:

4 Likes

Hello Alex70, The Buddha was non-violent, but many buddhists have been or are violent. On the other hand, some anarchists have been or are violent, but a lot of anarchist thinkers are non-violent. The aim of this text is to inquire into theoretical convergences. Best regards, AD

2 Likes

As I recall socialism and anarchism influenced China and Japan in the first half of the 20th Century

“My socialism does not derive from that of Karl Marx. Nor does it follow from Tolstoy’s pacifism. I do not seek to interpret it scientifically and propagate it throughout the world, like Katyama [Sen], Kosen [Sakai Koshihko], or [Kƍtoku] ShĆ«sui. I have a faith that is mine alone."

Takagi Kenmyƍ Born: June 24, 1864 - Died: June 24, 1914
(Takagi 2000, 54) From the chapter Takagi Kenmyƍ and Buddhist
‱
Rambelli, Fabio (2013). Zen Anarchism: The Egalitarian Dharma of Uchiyama Gudƍ. Institute of Buddhist Studies and BDK America, Inc.
‱
Socialism A [Meiji]
(Meiji - Wikipedia)
‱
Misfit and Martyr in Swanson, Paul L. Modern Buddhism in Japan. Edited by Paul L. Swanson. Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture, 2014. p. 154)

2 Likes

The political compass and other tests always put me among the anarchists and recommend that I read Kropotkin (which I haven’t).

But it has at least led me to to discover christian anarchists in Taiwan and a whole lot more. :+1:

Given the human condition Anarchism is what I consider basic common sense.
Too bad a majority disagrees. :wink:

But maybe I am already doing my part for Libertarian Socialism to become a reality?

1 Like

The compass usually places me in the upper right quadrant, among the authoritarian conservatives. (Though only just – I’m actually very nearly in the centre).

Notwithstanding this, I remember finding Prince Kropotkin’s autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, a very enjoyable read, even if his version of anarchism is a little milquetoast compared with Bakunin’s.

To quote a Marxian historian:

It is difficult, however, to avoid the feeling that in this mild latter-day anarchism of Kropotkin something has been lost of that fierce dynamic of revolt which animated the anarchism of Bakunin. Bakunin’s indignation at the wickedness of the tyrant was no doubt accompanied by a naive faith in the constructive capacity and untutored goodness of the masses. In Kropotkin this faith has got mixed up with the Victorian belief in the inevitability of progress. His anarchism, no less than Marx’s communism, claimed to have a scientific foundation. It was “more than a mere mode of action or a mere conception of a free society”; it was “part of a philosophy, natural and social”, and “must be treated by the same methods as natural sciences”.

In pursuit of this conception Kropotkin wrote what was once probably the most famous of all his works, Mutual Aid, in which he demonstrated, in contradiction to the Darwinian theory of progress through the struggle for existence, that animal life, as well as primitive human societies, survived not through processes of mutual destruction but through processes of cooperation. Towards this conception human society was constantly and continuously evolving. To-day such conceptions seem as faded and irrelevant as the pseudo-scientific political applications of Darwinism which they were intended to refute. And with them goes the pseudo-scientific optimism about the progressive evolution of human nature which was the basis of Kropotkin’s anarchist creed.

– E. H. Carr, Kropotkin (1951), published in From Napoleon to Stalin and Other Essays (1980)

1 Like

That’s confused idea. Buddha and Dhamma, as well Vinaya is the authority on which one should based one’s own actions.

No matter how many modern monks will reach consensus that there is no problem with using money, it doesn’t matter, they are wrong according to Vinaya authority. It looks like you simply have a predilection towards anarchism, and than you try to use Dhamma, to justify it. I don’t mind anarchism, just political idea, but if one likes, one can write about surprising convergences between Dhamma and monarchy, democracy, and so on.

There is no contradiction between the statement that “the sangha operates without a centralised authority, relying instead on consensus-based decision-making” and the statement that the Dhamma and Vinaya are the sangha’s authority.

The term “a centralised authority” would mean a human institution like the Vatican Magisterium or the General Synod of the Church of England. It wouldn’t apply to the Vinaya Pitaka.

Sure, but to say that sangha decision-making is (or ought to be) consensus-based is not to claim that the range of issues on which the sangha can lawfully make decisions is unlimited in scope.

There are, however, all kinds of things that need to be decided in monastic communities where one can’t really appeal to the Dhamma or Vinaya in support of one’s own preference, e.g., the schedule for routine activities like sweeping the grounds, cleaning the sālā, reciting the Patimokkha, etc.

4 Likes

Dear Bhante. One of the fundamental distinctions in philosophy is the distinction between being and “must-be” or fact and value. Even if nature were to show a relentless struggle for existence, this would not be a refutation for those who wish to practice solidarity . Similarly, dukkha is a fact, but the path leading to the cessation of dukkha is a “must-be”.
Respectfully, AD

Venerable, do you know, precisely, what Carr meant by “pseudo-scientific”?

Alain, here are some bits to chew on to assist you in refining your convergence theory.

  1. Invoking Hume’s Fork (the ought/is distinction, or fact/value dichotomy) comes with the weight of being able to counter Putnam’s challenge (in his seminal essay The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy) to the idea that Hume’s Fork is important enough to be considered “fundamental” to philosophy.

  2. Please supply evidence from the Suttas to support a distinction between the First Noble Truth as an “is” (fact) and the Fourth Noble Truth as an “ought” (value)?

  3. Speaking of truth, Leibniz recognized two kinds: factual and absolute. He thought the former to be empirical, and therefore subject to change in light of new scientific discoveries, and the latter to be lawful and incontrovertible. (This, perhaps, foreshadows Putnam’s collapse, as it re-categorizes the terms.) How might this inform your claim that dukkha is a fact but the Eightfold Path is a value? Does this suggest any revisions to your reply to Venerable Dhammanando?

  4. Since Kant was working out the implications of Hume’s philosophy, reflecting on His synthetic a priori and categorical imperative might yield some insights not only for your reply to Venerable, but also your general endeavor to highlight “surprising convergences” between Buddhism and anarchism.

  5. Finally, your title invokes Buddhism, but your introduction indicates your aim to derive your observations mainly from the Pāli Canon. I recognize that you posted this in The Watercooler, where the EBT-centric guidelines are significantly if not totally relaxed, but perhaps you might get more traction if you re-conceptualized your scheme in terms of EBT both in title and content?

Respectfully.
~l

1 Like

SN 56.29 comes to mind:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is to be fully understood? The noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood; the noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned; the noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be realized; the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed."

1st Noble truth is the definition of what is suffering (is) and fourth noble truth describes the N8P to be developped (ought).

I believe he’s probably using the term in its common English sense, not in any special sense of his own. Both social-Darwinism and the opposing view in Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid try to pass themselves off as science despite lacking the rigour, evidence, and methodologies that true science demands.

Thank you for the clarification, Bhante. That helps me situate his meaning within the greater context of the demarcation problem.

Perhaps Change you are right. Nevertheless I see things differently, authority is authority as long I decided to obey it.

Certainly, but such things are decided in all political systems more or less in the same way. You don’t need introduce liberal anarchy to clean the sāla well.

Generally I dislike to use Dhamma to justify one’s own political predilections and ideas how society should be govern. And my reasons are as follows:

A sensitive and honest-minded man, if he’s concerned about evil and injustice in the world, will naturally begin his campaign against them by eliminating them at their nearest source: his own person. This task will take his entire life.

Fernando Pessoa

This is how ariyas see their task to be performed. One of many reasons puthujjana remains puthujjana is the altruistic desire to improve others or social systems, instead of egotistically try to improve himself.

It galls my intelligence when someone imagines that things will change by shaking them up. Violence of whatever sort has always been, for me, a flagrant form of human stupidity. All revolutionaries, for that matter, are stupid, as are all reformers to a lesser extent – lesser because they’re less troublesome.

Revolutionary or reformer – the error is the same. Unable to dominate and reform his own attitude towards life, which is everything, or his own being, which is almost everything, he flees, devoting himself to modifying others and the outside world. Every revolutionary and reformer is a fugitive. To fight for change is to be incapable of changing oneself. To reform is to be beyond repair. (
) A reformer is a man who sees the world’s superficial ills and sets out to cure them by aggravating the more basic ills.

Fernando Pessoa

Anāthapiáč‡ážika was a great capitalist. We need more such capitalists, we really do not need to change capitalism as such, but to teach Dhamma to the capitalists, so they change the attitude.
Anyway, whatever the political system is, it is bound to collapse if the basic and fundamental things which should be cultivated and maintain are ignored:

“I will teach you, Licchavis, seven principles of non-decline. Listen and attend closely. I will speak.”“Yes, Bhante,” those Licchavis replied. The Blessed One said this: “And what, Licchavis, are the seven principles of non-decline?

(1) “Licchavis, as long as the Vajjis assemble often and hold frequent assemblies, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

(2) “As long as the Vajjis assemble in harmony, adjourn in harmony, and conduct the affairs of the Vajjis in harmony, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

(3) “As long as the Vajjis do not decree anything that has not been decreed or abolish anything that has already been decreed but undertake and follow the ancient Vajji principles as they have been decreed, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

(4) “As long as the Vajjis honor, respect, esteem, and venerate the Vajji elders and think they should be heeded, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

(5) “As long as the Vajjis do not abduct women and girls from their families and force them to live with them, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

(6) “As long as the Vajjis honor, respect, esteem, and venerate their traditional shrines, both those within [the city] and those outside, and do not neglect the righteous oblations as given and done to them in the past,1476 only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

(7) “As long as the Vajjis provide righteous protection, shelter, and guard for arahants, [with the intention]: ‘How can those arahants who have not yet come here come to our realm, and how can those arahants who have already come dwell at ease here?’ only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

“Licchavis, as long as these seven principles of non-decline continue among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are seen [established] in them, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.”

AN 7: 21

Partly related musings on dialectic: bread or books:

This view, of course, is quite familiar to us—it is the Socialist argument we sometimes hear, that since one cannot practise the Dhamma if one is starving, there-fore food comes first; and therefore food is more important than the Dhamma; and therefore it is more important to produce food than it is to behave well; and therefore any kind of violence or deceit is justified if it helps to increase food production.

As Sartre puts it, it seems plausible—it is better to feed the poor than to entertain the rich. But when we look at it more closely we see that certain difficulties arise. To begin with, it assumes (as all socialists, Sartre included, do assume) that this life is the only one, that we did not exist before we were born, and shall not exist after we die. On this assumption it is fairly easy to divide mankind into two groups: the rich oppressors, and the poor oppressed, and the choice which to support seems easy . But if this is not the only life, how can we be sure that a man who is now poor and oppressed is not suffering the unpleasant effects of having been a rich oppressor in his past life? And, if we take the principle to its logical conclusion, should we not choose to be on the side of the ‘oppressed’ inhabitants of the hells, suffering retribu-tion for their evil ways, and to condemn the fortunate ones in the heavens, a privileged class enjoying the reward of virtue, as the ‘idle rich’? And then this view ignores the fact that our destiny at death de-pends on how we behave in this life. If bad behaviour in this life leads to poverty and hunger in the next, can we be sure that bread is more important than books? What use is it providing the hungry with bread if you don’t tell them the difference between right and wrong? Is metaphysics so unimportant if it leads men—rich and poor, no matter—to adopt right view and to behave accordingly?

Of course, the very fact that Sartre’s philosophy does not have anything to say about the hungry and oppressed is a blemish on his philosophy; and it might be argued that Sartre is therefore better occupied standing up for the hungry and oppressed than in propagat-ing his metaphysical views; but that still does not justify the principle.

And, in the last analysis, the Buddha’s Teaching is for a privileged class—those who are fortunate enough to have the intelligence to grasp it (the Dhamma is paccattam veditabbo viññƫhi (M. 38: i,265)— ‘to be known by the wise, each for himself’), and they are most certainly not the majority! But Sartre’s attitude is symptomatic of a general inadequacy in modern European thought—the growing view that the majority must be right, that truth is to be decided by appeal to the ballot-box. (I read somewhere that, in one of the Western Communist countries, it was decided by a show of hands that angels do not exist.)

Nanavira Thera

Local and temporary improvement is always possible and was achieved again and again under the influence of a great king or teacher; but it would soon come to an end, leaving humanity in a new cycle of misery. It is in the nature of all manifestation that the good and the bad follow each other and in equal measure. The true refuge is only in the unmanifested.

Q: Are you not advising escape?

M: On the contrary. (
) Only the people who have gone beyond the world can change the world. It never happened otherwise. The few whose impact was long lasting were all knowers of reality. Reach their level and then only talk of helping the world.

Q: It is not the rivers and mountains that we want to help, but the people

M: There is nothing wrong with the world, but for the people who make it bad. Go and ask them to behave.

Q: Desire and fear make them behave as they do.

M: Exactly. As long as human behaviour is dominated by desire and fear, there is not much hope. And to know how to approach the people effectively, you must yourself be free of all desire and fear.

Or

M: Just like a deficiency disease is cured through the supply of the missing factor, so are the diseases of living cured by a good dose of intelligent detachment. (viveka-vairagya).

Q: You cannot save the world by preaching counsels of perfection. People are as they are. Must they suffer?
M: As long as they are as they are, there is no escape from suffering. Remove the sense of separateness and there will be no conflict.

But what you seem to be expressing here is not a different view regarding the subject under discussion (centralised authority) but rather, a view on an altogether different subject: authority in general.

Good morning friend, Anathapindika was not a capitalist, as capitalism was born in 16th-17th century Europe. Don’t confuse rich and capitalist. Capitalism is a system of capital accumulation that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few individuals who get richer and richer while the rest of the population gets poorer and poorer. It has an expansionist character that regularly leads to conflict. Through its logic of growth and competition, it destroys the planet and turns everything, including human beings, into commodities. In ethical terms, it is based entirely on greed, appropriation and competition. In short, it is the antithesis of the Dhamma.
Best regards, AD

Greetings Dogen,

You linked to Venerable Sujato’s translation, but what you pasted in your reply omits the “should be” in Venerable’s translation, which includes the ought (value) imperative qualifier of Hume’s Guillotine* for all four Truths.

Did you remove Venerable’s “should be” and replace it with “is to” or is what you pasted in your reply from a different translation? Or perhaps something else occurred that I’m not apprehending?

Respectfully,
~l

*Forgive me for confusing Hume’s Fork with Hume’s Guillotine. I am an old and sick man, and my memory is not what it used to be. So, when you see Hume’s Fork in the above posts please insert the correct phrase. Thank you for your understanding (and helping me save face if that happened too).

1 Like

Good point about capitalist and the reach man, my knowledge is too limited to feel save to argue with you, however it seems to me, that what you describe is how capitalism developed. If associated with spiritual values, I don’t see why capitalist would insist on becoming reacher and reacher. It is because in itself it became kind of religion: Invisible Hand of Market as a goodness, it went wrong way.

And later we have Ann Rand the “greed is good” idea.

I think that it is natural that people want to be reach, and in my definition capitalist is a guy with lot’s of capital :grinning: But if he is inteligent, most certainly he would disagree with apotheosis of greed.

With metta