By Mike Slott

In my twenties and thirties, I believed that a radicalized labor movement led by revolutionary socialists would eventually have the power and unity to transform and overthrow capitalism. This would then lay the basis for a society in which a multiracial working class would implement a participatory economic and political democracy based on the satisfaction of human needs and the full development of each person.

Although I still believe in the need to build a democratic mass movement for radical change, I’m less certain about how that change will be enacted, by whom, and with what results. I’m now much more focused on the obstacles to radical change (including those identified by Buddhists), and the difficulty in identifying appropriate strategies and tactics in specific historical moments and eras. I’ve also sharpened my sense of the ways in which capitalism and other forms of systemic oppression reinforce each other in complex ways. 

Perhaps the biggest change in my thinking is that I now believe no one theory or strategy provides all the answers. We need to see radical change as encompassing a variety of perspectives and movements and utilizing a range of strategies in a coordinated way. 

These shifts in perspective were the product of many years of activism in the labor and political movements, as well as my more recent recognition of the value of key secular Buddhist ideas in daily life and in contributing to social change. 

Reflections on a problematic model

Fortunately, I’ve never been involved in political groups that exhibited the worst symptoms of dysfunctional left politics: the dominance of a leader or leadership clique; the demand for unquestioning agreement with all the group’s principles, strategies, and tactics; an internal regime of personal abuse and degradation; and a kind of cut-throat, do-or-die competition with other left groups. Nevertheless, even the best-intentioned groups contain seeds of destruction. (The following observations are not unique to me, and have been made by many others, among them Erik Olin Wright, Stephanie Luce, and Deepak Bhargava.)

While I highlight two problematic assumptions in left politics, we can never forget the enormous damage done to the Left by the advent of neoliberalism, which became hegemonic throughout the capitalist world of the Global North starting in the late 1970s. Neoliberals enacted laws and pursued policies that substantially reduced regulations and controls on corporations, expanded free trade deals, limited workers’ rights, and cut government spending on education, health care, and income support for the poor. 

However, left groups were hampered in their ability to combat neoliberalism by two basic but problematic assumptions about radical politics and the role of activists in organizations.

The first faulty assumption is that a group’s effectiveness depends on whether it espouses the “correct”’ theory and strategies. Instead of recognizing that a fruitful set of theories and practices emerge from dialogue between several perspectives, a binary division between a right and a wrong way of seeing and acting in the world holds sway. Left groups often compete with each other over who has the one true approach. Theoretical debates become quite heated as each group puts forward its particular perspective.

Supposed ownership of the “right line”’ closes a group off from other perspectives and locks in a particular theory and practice. Thus, if the results of an action are not what were expected, demoralization and disillusionment set in, and internal conflicts follow.

The other self-defeating assumption common in left groups concerns the model of the dedicated political activist. Perhaps the most well-known exponent of what I call homo radical politicus was V.I. Lenin, who argued that a successful political movement required a cadre of fully committed and politically correct activists. The cadre compose the core of radical political groups.

Today the cadre don’t necessarily go into factories to convert workers or tithe to the organization, but in too much of the Left the essential skills and virtues of the radical activist remain argumentation, rationality, fearlessness in confronting the status quo, and total dedication to political activity.

The missing link

What’s missing here? For starters, there is no room for our inner, personal life, our emotions, our intimate and familial relationships, and our friendships. The complex motivations and concerns that affect the relationships that we have with others go unrecognized, including our need for security and love, the prevalence of anger and envy when we feel harmed or disrespected, and the shifting patterns of status and interpersonal power in the way we actually live day to day. Further, the model suppresses any concerns about the great questions of life and death as extraneous “spiritual”’ issues.

Finally, the model pays no attention to our vulnerability and limitations. It fails to recognize how little control we have over what happens in our life, and that our knowledge in any situation is almost always incomplete. It promotes gendered notions of rationality and strength. The paradigm, whether acknowledged or not, is too often the heroic male. The radical activist is fiercely determined and undeterred by obstacles. He willingly goes up against powerful, even violent forces. He puts aside all other aspects of his life to fulfill his political duties, including his family and his own needs. And he knows how to get to the heart of the matter, to slice through confusions and falsehoods to identify and articulate the ‘correct’ view. Based on his willingness to fight against even the most powerful opponents, together with his piercing rationality and argumentative skills, he can function politically at the highest level. He is the political hero.

These stereotypically male qualities have been highly prized within the Left. Not surprisingly, male domination of leftist groups has been widespread. Only in recent years has such domination met serious challenge. These qualities are not confined to cis men, but are encouraged in everyone who takes leadership in a left organization. And yet, when we ignore our limitations and vulnerability,the wide range of our needs and interests, our tendency to react to perceived or real threats, we lose the ability to resolve the inevitable disagreements that political life throws up.

For example, the drive for power and dominance, and our egoistical search for recognition and praise, often fuel political disputes. At the same time, if our capacity and need for compassion and care go unrecognized, then we’ll probably fail to treat our comrades with mutual respect and kindness. We’ll deny each other the support we need to deal with the risks and uncertainties of a life of political activism. Combined with the challenges we face in the “external” political environment, the effects of this emotional and spiritual impoverishment have proved disastrous. Political debates turn vicious and lead to internal conflicts and splits; left groups become undemocratic and hierarchical; and a sense of disillusionment and anger arises over mistreatment by others.

How Buddhist insights and values can help sustain political activism

I am not suggesting that political organizations turn themselves into therapy groups or support groups, but I do believe that insights from Buddhism can provide the Left with a fuller understanding of the needs, motivations, and tendencies of human beings, and how to address them. Buddhism offers us an effective contemplative practice – mindfulness and other forms of meditation – to counteract the three destructive poisons of greed, anger, and delusion.

The three poisons as described in Buddhism form part of our biologically evolved human nature, which we entrench in habits of behavior and thought. Buddhism teaches that we have the capacity to counter them by cultivating wisdom, meditative practices, and ethics. Wisdom exposes the causes of suffering and advances the remedy for mitigating suffering. Meditation generates mindfulness–the art of maintaining a non-reactive, moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment–and the ability to focus our minds in a tranquil, collected way. 

To reduce suffering and promote flourishing, Buddhism prioritizes the values of care and non-harming as the basis of an ethical life. In short, Buddhism’s remedy for the three poisons is the cultivation of mindful awareness, understanding our interconnectedness, and being compassionate in everyday life.

So, how does this emphasis strengthen the work of political activists and the overall movement for social justice? Expanding on the arguments made by Travis Donoho in a recent article in this blog, I suggest that meditation, the recognition of interconnection, and compassion facilitate our sustained activism in the following ways: 

• By developing our capacity to be more mindful and non-reactive through meditation, we can deal with the ups and downs of movement activity, stay focused on our strategies and ultimate goals, and exercise patience and perseverance in our efforts.
• An awareness of our limitations, complexity and vulnerability enables us to have more compassion toward each other in political settings. A recognition of these basic facts of human existence leads to a more realistic perspective of what we can accomplish together and how we can help each other.
• Buddhism’s recognition of uncertainty and change promotes what the Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki calls “beginner’s mind,” an openness to new perspectives and a refusal to get too attached to any one point of view. This promotes healthy debates and discussions among political comrades.
• Based on the notions of interdependence, impermanence/change, and compassion, Buddhism offers a worldview that complements a socialist economic model based on cooperation, democracy, and ecological sustainability.
• Buddhists understand that, given the interconnected and changing nature of life, we don’t have complete control over events, and the results of our efforts are often not what we wished for. What we accomplish will depend on the efforts of our fellow activists and all the “causes and conditions” that provide the context for our activity. When we lose sight of these insights and have an overly self- absorbed focus on our own role, we can easily lose sight of our goals.
• Recognizing our limits and lack of control, and the need to cultivate mindfulness and compassion, political activists recognize the importance of practices of self-care to sustain our political activism. Mushim Patricia Ikeda urges practitioners to reflect on the following: “Aware of suffering and injustice, I am working to create a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world. I promise, for the benefit of all, to practice self-care, mindfulness, healing and joy. I vow to not burn out.”
• While anger as a response to social injustice and harm is natural and understandable and is an important impetus to engaging in radical politics, activism based mainly on hatred– particularly hatred toward our opponents – often attracts negative consequences. We can learn to recognize the common humanity of our opponents on the field of conflict and not demonize them, while still being steadfast in our fight against their actions. We recognize that the capitalist system is our primary enemy, and that demonizing corporate leaders or those who support this system often drives away more potential allies than it attracts.

This article is adapted from a chapter of DSA member Mike Slott’s forthcoming book, Mindful Solidarity: A Secular Buddhist-Democratic Socialist Dialogue, which will be published in October 2024 by Tuwhiri, a publishing imprint based in New Zealand that now has a presence in the United States. The book may be preordered at Kickstarter: Mindful Solidarity.

Image credit: Tuwhiri