I’m Buddhiſt. The concept of Paṭicca-samuppāda, or Dependent Origination, is quite ſimilar to the ideas preſented by dialectical materialiſm. I don’t directly know many articles or books that talk about the two, but in learning enough about and practiſing both Marxiſm and Buddhiſm, I have found that a Marxiſt-Lenniniſt world view is compatible with Buddhiſm ; there’s even a ſpecifick kind of Socialiſm, called Dhammick Socialiſm or Buddhiſt Socialiſm, which incorporates elements from both Buddhiſm and Marxiſt theory—we could underſtand it as either as Marxiſm with Buddhiſt Characteriſticks or Buddhiſm with Marxiſt Characteriſticks depending on which element one wants to give more emphaſis.

I ſhould alſo like to note that reincarnation iſn’t a Buddhiſt belief—that’s more of a Hindu concept. In Buddhiſm, we do have the concept of rebirth, but that ties in with the concept of annatā (*anatman in Sanſkrit) or non-ſelf, which itſelf relies on Dependent Origination. Baſically, it ſtates that no conditioned phenomena exiſts independently from other conditioned phenomena ; thus, any notion of a permanent, unchanging, independent ſelf, ſoul, or exiſtence is untenable. For example, a flower is made up entirely of non-flower elements without which it could not exiſt—there is no flowerneſs to be found anywhere in it. The concept of rebirth, when underſtood properly and within its context, actually iſn’t at odds with a Marxiſt view—it’s more a different way of referring to certain phenomena which do have a material baſe. Juſt as a wave exiſts dependent on (or to uſe Marxiſt language, in contradiction with) the ſurrounding ocean and wind, ſo too a perſon exiſts dependent on their material conditions—phyſical, environmental, hiſtorical phenomena which ſhape and maintain them. A perſon is thus a pile of conditions, and there’s not any independent, perſiſtent, unchanging ſelf underlying that to be found.

To ſomewhat addreſs the queſtion, ſome reſources to look into might be the works of Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu or Han Yong-un ; and though not directly touching on Marxiſm, the works and and talks of Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Brahm, or Ajahn Chah might be good points of inveſtigation—the Suttas themſelves are alſo a good place to look to gain a better underſtanding of Buddhiſt teachings, though it would be wiſe to keep in mind that they are very old and intended for the audience and place at the time ; not all elements are as eaſy to interpret or directly relevant to modern times without underſtanding the context ſurrounding them. The Buddha tended to adapt what he was teaching to the people, their level of underſtanding, and the context of the times. Buddhiſm in general tries to do that.