One thing I care much much less about these days is anything ‘political’ within the rapid decay of the Civilized.
I’m leaning quite hard into non-dualist approaches to life and spirituality from the Vedic (and even earlier) to postmodern physics (per Kastrup). From my perspective, the most compelling counterargument to these things is having the charge of ‘quietism’ leveled against them by Marxists and other materialists. Consider the counterarguments, and the non-dualist answers to them.
“This is a profound philosophical tension that sits at the intersection of metaphysics, ethics, and political theory. The charge of “quietism” is indeed the most potent weapon wielded by materialist and Marxist critiques against non-dualist traditions (Advaita Vedanta, certain schools of Buddhism, and modern idealist interpretations like Bernardo Kastrup’s).
The Materialist/Marxist Charge of Quietism: The critique generally rests on three pillars …
1. The Ontological Erasure of Suffering: Materialists argue that suffering is not an illusion but a concrete, biological, and socio-economic reality. To tell a starving person that their hunger is “mental” or “illusory” is a form of ideological violence that serves the status quo. It shifts the locus of change from the material world (which can be altered) to the mind (which must accept).
2. The Conservation of Power: Historically, religious and spiritual elites have used non-dualist rhetoric to pacify the oppressed. If the universe is a unified whole, then the current hierarchy is “natural” or “divine will.” This discourages the friction necessary for social evolution.
3. The Paradox of Action: If the agent is an illusion, who acts? If the outcome is predetermined by the unfolding of the One, then effort is futile. This leads to akarma (inaction) or a passive acceptance of injustice.
The core of the argument is structural: If reality is ultimately one, and the individual self is an illusion (maya or dissociated consciousness), then social struggle, class conflict, and material redistribution appear to be fighting shadows. Why organize a revolution if the “revolutionary” and the “oppressor” are the same underlying consciousness playing out a dream?”
***
Suffering remains an unsolved and tentatively unsolvable ‘problem’.
Ultimately and in context, I still think Marxism is a valid critique of capitalism. But that entire context is an ugly tempest in a broken teapot, from the point of view of humanity 14,000 years-before-present, or even five thousand years ago in northern India.
Enough for now.