A Vedic Critique of Marxism

A Vedic Critique of Marxism
By Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya

Indian Marxist
The following article is from chapter 3 of the groundbreaking new book “The Dharma Manifesto“, by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya. This paper represents the first seriously philosophical, Vedic critique of Marxism ever written in history. The book can be purchased at:



If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.”

– Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Marxism is arguably the most monstrously destructive and morally reprehensible worldview the world has ever known. The perpetual violence that has been instigated by Marxist movements, totalitarian Communist dictatorships, bloody guerrilla wars, and terrorist bloodshed has been responsible for more deaths and suffering during the twentieth century than any other rival ideology of that era, including National Socialism. Marxism has led to the destruction of cultures, the dehumanization and misery of large segments of the global population, and the degeneration of the human spirit. Marxism is an atheistic and materialistic philosophy that views human beings as purely mechanistic, characterless and utilitarian automatons. For Marxists, human persons are to be reduced, both philosophically and in practice, to nothing more than soulless and bland laborers, whose existence only has meaning in direct proportion to their degree of utility by, and enslavement to, the state.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German citizen of Jewish descent who in his youth had been interested in the views of the German idealist philosopher and theologian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Though Hegel’s philosophical system was theistic, and most of his followers at that time were themselves primarily religious individuals, Marx’s introduction to Hegel’s thought was via the Young Hegelians, a group dedicated to misusing Hegel’s philosophical methods to undermine and eradicate religious thought itself, rather than uphold it. The two main leaders of the Young Hegelians were Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) and Bruno Bauer (1809-1882).

Karl Marx had initially (pre-1844) subscribed to the Feuerbachian program of the critique of religion. While he continued to employ the notion of a philosophical anthropology – the attempt to discern the human meaning behind every experience – he went further than LudwigFeuerbach with his attempt to perform a critique of political economy. In the following section, we will briefly examine what led Marx to attempt such a critique, and talk about the ways in which political economy is thoroughly resistant to such a Marxist critique.

Fueurbach and the Young Hegelians felt that the very apex of both the philosophical and the theological enterprises had been achieved by Hegelianism and German Lutheranism, respectively. Thus, in their monumentally insular view, the end of the philosophic enterprise had suddenly commenced in their lifetime.[1] Now, the only project left was the creation of a philosophical anthropology – an attempt to show that all philosophical ideas were dependent upon what is essentially human in the purely biologically behavioral sense. Once a general account of humanity would be attained, so their belief went, then such an account could be applied to all things. The primary tool of this project was the use of the process of criticism, which would purportedly reveal the conditions for the very possibility of any object under observation.

The Young Hegelians, including Feuerbach and Marx, had applied this process of critique to the nature of the theology of the so-called Right Hegelians, who were primarily Lutheran theologians loyal to Hegel’s theistic philosophical underpinnings. Feuerbach, specifically, felt that religion was merely an unreal projection of essential, alienated humanity. Furthermore, for Feuerbach, God was no more than the construction of human beings, and actually represented the conceptual personification of what were in actuality very human traits. By critiquing God and religion, Feuerbach thought, a greater knowledge of human beings could be attained. Marx would later fervently agree with this general premise.

While Feuerbach felt that there was at least a trans-historical human essence, however, Marx felt that such an idea was too much of a concession to the “metaphysical”, and that man’s essence was only ever revealed under real world, materialist conditions. Human beings, for Marx, are in essence, primordially, producers and makers. Work, for Marx, was both the raison d’être and essential attributive nature of the human person. Therefore, on Marx’s account, self-actualization consisted in nothing more than having the freedom to perform meaningful work. Production, for Marx, was labor that is transformative towards creating a certain outcome, a praxis. Political economy was a body of theories formulated by the classical economists (such as Adam Smith) that sees human beings as essentially productive animals. Therefore, political economy – the realm of production and exchange – now became the central object of any Marxist critique.

The French Revolution supposedly succeeded in creating political emancipation, so Marx insisted, but state equality displaced inequality into the social sphere. In the social sphere, human beings were subject to an overwhelming sense of alienation. The proletariat (the working class) was separated from what they essentially are – biologically-determined producers unleashed to create, as an expression of their own essence. Political economy was thus seen as nothing more than the projection of our collective human praxis.  Instead of political economy serving human purposes, however, Marx felt that humanity was presently serving the needs of political economy. But the present political economy is nothing more than our own creation. Now a human revolution was needed. In order to begin this purportedly emancipatory process, Marx felt that the economic system of his time needed to be translated into a philosophical anthropology.

Marx’s attempt to translate the critical program to political economy proved immediately problematic for three reasons. 1) While God is immaterial, economies are very material; 2) It was impossible at Marx’s juncture in history to imagine a world without alienated labor; 3) Marx used Adam Smith as his primary economic theorist, though many of Smith’s ideas no longer applied.

Thus, while Marx made the attempt to translate Fueurbach’s failed critique of religion into a critique of political economy, such an application was itself a complete failure, to say the least.

The Failures of Marxism

We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.”[2] – Karl Marx

The failures of Marxism are legion and have been well documented for many decades by a wide variety of scholars, researchers, thinkers, economists and political scientists. Marxism eliminates all incentive for people to engage in any form of labor, whether intellectual, artistic or physical. By eliminating wages directly reflective of the value of individual instances of labor, people living under Marxist regimes are forced to work for a rationed amount of food and basic resources. Without a fair wage to work for, people naturally lose the motivation to work at all, thus leading to economic stagnation and a sense of hopelessness. We have seen such instances of economic failure in every Communist nation in history, and we are now beginning to see such economic breakdown occur in Europe and America as a direct result of the incremental introduction of crypto-Marxist economic policies.

A nation under the bondage of Marxism is destined to failure because such a state provides its people with no reason to strive for anything higher than being a personless atom in the social mass. With no distinctions, diversity, hierarchy, or classes to order the varying social strata of society in a sane and reasonable manner, a doctor will be paid the same wage as garbage collector, and a factory laborer has no hopes of ever earning a better life even if he acquired a Ph.D. All people are paid equally for work that requires unequal levels of skill, talent, education and personal natural propensity, so the person who aspires to be a doctor has no motivation to go to school for so many years of hard work only to be paid the same amount as someone who has not gone to school at all.

Marxism is predicated upon the idea of radical egalitarianism. Consequently, Marxists strive to utterly eliminate any sense of ethnic and national diversity, pride or celebration. The policy of eliminating a people’s natural and inherent sense of distinct cultural identity is designed to deprive people of any identity-sourced empowerment to dissent against the totalitarian, atheistic government. It is precisely for this reason that we must hold on to our ethnic and cultural identity at all costs, expressing a healthy pride in who we are, and in the ethnic heritage that made us who we are. Marxists, both those who have already gained power and those who seek to force their way to power in non-Marxist societies, promote and force ethnic amalgamation at the direct expense of ethnic diversity, often in the very name of ethnic diversity. We must never allow any government to eliminate the rich and beautiful diversity of the many cultures, languages, ethnicities, races and unique peoples that make our world the fascinating and meaningful place it is.

Marxism enforces its own beliefs and forcefully prevents all free speech that departs from their own belief system. Marxism is based upon fanaticism, hatred, doctrinaire closed-mindedness, dogmatic slogans, and blind faith in unsound historical, social and economic theories. Those found dissenting against the Marxist system are taken from their families and put into re-education centers or Gulags for merciless and systematic brainwashing. Those who continue to dissent are often summarily executed, with the family expected to pay for the bullets. The nightmarish Marxist model of the state represents the very opposite model that is presented by Dharma.

Comparison of Marxism with Sanatana Dharma
(Please compare both lists side by side)



Biological Determinism.

External environment creates human essence.

Nurture trumps Nature.


Radical egalitarianism.


Class, gender, race and social conflict.


Ethnic disintegration.

Eradication of gender differences.

Destruction of Tradition.

Culture reflects the lowest common denominator.

“Socialist realist” art.

Destruction of the family structure.

Exploitation of Nature, and degradation of the environment.

Relativist ethics (the ends justify the means).

Lack of civil freedoms.

Personhood subsumed in the amorphous masses.

Democratic centralism.


Abortion on demand.

All means of production controlled by the state.




Human beings create their external environment, which in turn can have an effect
upon the natural development of the person.

Will trumps both Nature and Nurture.


Qualitative Hierarchy.


Class, gender, and social harmony and cooperation.

Ethnic Plurality.

Ethnic integrity.

Celebration of gender distinctions.

Celebrating Tradition.

Culture reflects the highest ideals.

Aesthetics inspired by ideal forms, transcendent insight, eternal archetypes,
and inspiration from Nature.

Upholding the traditional family.

Preservation and reverence for Nature.

Firm non-relativist ethics.

Human values based upon transcendent truth.

Inherent freedom of the human person.

Human personality never subsumed in the amorphous masses.

Leadership principle.


Respect for innocent life.

All means of production controlled by free and creative human persons and

Marxist philosophy, and the Communist movement in general, is without doubt the most destructive ideology humanity has ever been subjected to. Marxism represents the exact antithesis of Natural Law, of religion, of positive culture, of any form of national ideal, and of healthy tradition. Marxism is the polar opposite of life itself. It is the embodiment of the final, quintessential stage of the 4000-year-old failed Abrahamic experiment.

Communism has been responsible for the death, murder, torture and pain of more human beings than any ideology in world history (with, arguably, the possible exception of Islam). In China, the former USSR, and the former Communist nations of Eastern Europe, it has led to environmental degradation that is unprecedented. Marxism is a culture-destroyer. Far from being “progressive” and leading societies toward greater advancement, Marxism has led the nations under its rule back to the dark ages. In each and every significant way, Marxism is the very exact opposite of everything that Dharma and Natural Law has ever stood for. This explains why for the last 150 years of history, communists have been one of Vedic civilization’s very greatest enemies, and have tried to destroy us every chance they get. Marxism is the natural enemy of Dharma. Every follower of Sanatana Dharma must oppose Marxist materialism with every breath we have.


This article is the most in-depth critical analysis of Marxism from a Vedic perspective ever written. It is taken from chapter 3 of the groundbreaking new book “The Dharma Manifesto“, by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.  The book can be purchased at:


The Dharma Manifesto serves as the first ever, systematic revolutionary blueprint for the nascent global Vedic movement that will, in the very near future, arise to change the course of world history for the betterment of all living beings. The Dharma Manifesto signals the beginning of a wholly new era in humanity’s eternal yearning for meaningful freedom and happiness.


About the Author

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya has been acknowledged by many Hindu leaders throughout the world to be one of the most revolutionary and visionary Vedic spiritual masters on the Earth today.

With a forty year history of intensely practicing the spiritual disciplines of Yoga, and with a Ph.D. in Religious Studies, Sri Acharyaji is one of the most eminently qualified authorities on Vedic philosophy, culture and spirituality.

He is the Director of the Center for the Study of Dharma and Civilization – the very first Hindu think tank in American history.

His most historically groundbreaking politico-philosophical work, “The Dharma Manifesto”, is now offered to the world at a time when its people are most desperately crying out for fundamental change. Available here:




[1] Which was, on the face of it, merely another ego-driven manifestation of what I have termed the psychological defect of temporal-centrism – or, believing that the historical era in which one is presently living represents the apex of all human achievement.

[2] Neue Rheinische Zeitung (May 18, 1849) ”Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, Vol. VI, p. 503.

Clash of Civlizations: A Hindu Response

Clash of Civlizations: A Hindu Response

By Dr Ramesh N. Rao

Clash of Civilizations

In his controversial 1993 essay in Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote that the fundamental source of conflict in the modern world would not be driven by economic factors but by ideological factors and that the “Dominating source of conflict will be cultural”.  He asserted that nation states would remain “The most powerful actors in world affairs”, but that “The principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations”.

He argued that civilization identity would be shaped by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations – Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African.  The causes for the conflict, he said would be because, “Differences among Civilizations” are both real and basic and that “Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and most important, religion”.  He argued that the differences will not disappear soon and that while all differences don’t necessarily lead to violent conflict, “Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts”.  The most violent conflicts in the present, he said would be between the West/Christian and Chinese and the West/Christian and Islamic nations.

This is the gist of his thesis which was elaborated later in a book titled “The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order”, published in 1996.

The response to this thesis has been wide, varied and furious.  Most of it has come from Muslim scholars, humanists, Marxists and internationalists of various hues.  Very little has been said by scholars representing the Hindu viewpoints.  We know that part of the clash of civilizations has to do with the emergence of nation states after de-colonization, the fall of the Soviet Union and the resulting “Imbalance” in the political dynamics of the world.  Democracy and free market capitalism seemingly won the battle over Communism and state-controlled markets, but we now know that the challenges to democratic governance are many.

After the events of September 11, 2001 and America’s invasion of Afghanistan to rid it of its Taliban regime and then of  Iraq to dethrone Saddam Hussein, debate now rages in many policy circles about the nature of our modern world.  Huntington has added more fuel to the controversy recently with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal (June 16, 2004) in which he argues that the United States is primarily a Christian nation, that its liberalism is grounded in Christianity and that non-Christians will remain “Strangers” in the US.

Appropriating liberalism in the cause of Christianity, Huntington concludes his essay by saying, “Americans tend to have a certain catholicity toward religion: All deserve respect. Given this general tolerance of religious diversity, non-Christian faiths have little alternative but to recognize and accept America as a Christian Society”.

The clash of civilizations that Huntington predicts was foreseen by Bipin Chandra Pal more than a hundred years ago in the book “Nationality and Empire”.  Pal predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West in its war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations.  Pal proposed his theories despite the fact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity.  He was a great admirer of Islam’s spiritual values. Pal thought that Islam was going to be influential through its power of propaganda and not through war, but he was scared of Islam’s political manipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered an aberration.  Pal is not on Huntington’s reading list, or if he has read him, he is not telling us.

Hindu Responses

The survival of pluralism is linked to a complete understanding of the subversive influence of religious traditions and political ideologies exclusively appropriating claims to God or to a good life.  Certain sections of the Muslim society at present win easy acceptance among gullible believers around the world for their monopolistic claims to represent God.  Christians are more sophisticated and have a more powerful colonial tradition to carry on their proselytization businesses, without the shrill cries ofjihadthat accompany many Muslim initiatives to make the world Muslim.  Next, the monopolistic claim to usher in “Equality” as dreamed by Marx has come unhinged everywhere in the world except, it seems, in parcels of the academic landscape.

In India, religious conflict has become more and more fierce, more so after the partition of the country.  Despite India’s openness there is also native to the Indian tradition a powerful culture of inquiry and resistance to the marketing of spurious ideas and claims.  That Jesus is the only son of God and Mohammed the last prophet are claims that Hindus look at skeptically.  Islam and Christianity dismiss if not abhor the idea of incarnation of Gods and of imagery and image worship.  Without image, there is no worship.  Hindus worship their Gods – they bathe them, dress them, kiss them, adorn them and adore them.  For Christians and Muslims, God is a distant being/idea.  However, they demand that the rest of the world accept their God or be doomed as “Sinners” or as “Kafirs”.

The practitioners of many pluralist religions are not driven by religious intolerance as the practitioners of the two “Great” monotheistic faiths.  So, how should one deal with these aggressive and intolerant religions?  Confronted with the paradox of religious freedom and the intolerance espoused by certain religions, the “Objection to conversion from any indigenous religious leadership is an urgently necessary and long-overdue assertion, not a violation, of human rights”, argues Swami Dayananda Saraswati.

David Frawley argues (“Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations”, 2001) that India is a sacred land whose kings and people did not seek to conquer others’ lands.  He proposes the idea of India as the “World’s Mother” – the source of evolutionary transformations.  While bemoaning the fact that over time many customs calcified and became dominated by authority and rituals, he believes that India is ready to re-emerge as the world’s spiritual guide to help people transcend time and space to a universal consciousness.

Rajiv Malhotra has argued that the West, China and Islam all represent top-down monocultures.  These civilizations adopt a “Chauvinistic Grand Meta-Narrative of History” and their trajectory is “Global Dominance”.  He sees threats to Indic civilization from all three global competitors – the West, Islam and China.  The West seeks to undermine India through its control over Indian churches, through the activities of non-governmental organizations, through propaganda in English language media and with the help of “Academic Mercenaries”.  The threat that Islam poses is the propagation of Arabism through madrassa education.  And China seeks to subvert India through the activities of Maoists and Naxalites and by flooding India with cheap goods.

Huntington’s thesis is a neo-Christian/Western program which should be seen for what it is: A continuation of the colonial program which sought to lift the rest of the world out of misery because it was the “White Man’s Burden”.  Collaborations that he proposes between the West and some specific others, including India, to fight global Islamism and the Chinese putsch, are based on the old supremacist ideology of Western/Christian domination.

Within the framework of the nation-state system, India will have to collaborate selectively with neighbors and distant partners.  The great civilizational divide is between the aggressive monotheistic (and mono-atheistic) traditions and the world’s pluralistic traditions.  As such, the fight between the West and Islam is a fight between ideological partners for the world’s collective soul, whereas the fight between the West and China is for territorial and economic gain.  Marxism is on the wane in most parts of the world but not in India, where Marxists collaborate with Islamists and Christian fundamentalists to subvert Hindu pluralist traditions.

Indian governments and leaders have been naïve, short-sighted, over eager, or plainly idealistic in many of their attempts to build relationships with individual nations, regional associations and civilizational groups.  Thus, we had Nehru accept the “Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence” (Panchsheel) proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1954 and end up a disappointed if not a defeated man when the Chinese invaded India in 1962.  Fifty years after the panchsheelwas accepted, we have former President K. R. Narayanan proposing (India Abroad, June 25, 2004) a new Indo-Chinese cooperation phase and explicitly ignoring Chinese expansionist plans, its occupation of Tibet, its aggressive nationalism and its brazen militarism.  Naïveté, inexperience, eagerness and other weaknesses displayed by Indian policy makers and leaders sap India of material strength and moral sagacity.  Similarly, the BJP leaders’ eager attempts to offer support to the Americans immediately after the events of September 11, 2001 fell almost flat on their face because they overlooked the fundamental relationships that shape the modern world dynamic.

So, in conclusion, it is important to be aware of the designs of the world’s two most aggressive religions – Christianity and Islam – and the world’s most aggressive mono-atheism – Marxism.  They are still the important markers in the civilizational divides and the aggressive nationalism of the Chinese is a close second.  However, what might, hopefully, come to the aid of pluralists all over the world as well as to Indic traditions is science, which one hopes will reaffirm and support the findings of Indian sages about beginningless time, of cyclical time, of individual liberation, of perennial access to the transcendent, of progress not yoked to history, of multiple ways to attain transcendence, of reincarnation and so on.  If that happens, then the individual and collective quest for temporal power may recede and the opportunistic and specious speculations of historians and political scientists will cease.  Science as a handmaiden of Western imperialism, though, could still be used to undermine pluralist traditions.  In the short run though, while all the criticisms of the Hungtington thesis is valid, there is also quite a lot of “Reality” embedded in his thesis.