Gandhi on Communism

[Howard509]

Gandhi on Communism

Gandhi was an advocate for socialism and communism, but warned that it was not the same as that imagined by the Europeans and Americans. Writing in the English Daily Amrita Bazar Patrika on August 2-3, 1934, he said, "Socialism and communism of the West are based on certain conception which are fundamentally different from ours. One such conception is their belief in essential selfishness of human nature. I do not subscribe to it for I know that the former can respond to the call of the spirit in him, can rise superior to the passions that he owns in common with the brute and, therefore, superior to selfishness and violence, which belong to the brute nature and not to the immortal spirit of man ... Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on nonviolence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant."

Gandhi categorically rejected class war as being incompatible with nonviolence: "The idea of class war does not appeal to me. In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence. Those who talk about class war as being inevitable, have not understood the implications of nonviolence or have understood them only skin-deep."

He believed that communism could be built without abolishing the class-structure of society. He thought it possible to convince capitalist and worker to cooperate instead of being in conflict: "I am working for the co-operation and co-ordination of capital and labour, of landlord and tenant ... I have always told mill owners that they are not exclusive owners of mills and workmen are equal sharers in ownership. In the same way, I would tell you that ownership of your land belongs as much to the ryots as to you, and you may not squander your gains in luxurious or extravagant living, but must use them for the well-being of ryots. Once you make your ryots experience a sense of kinship with you and a sense of security that their interests as members of a family will never suffer at your hands, you may be sure that there cannot be a clash between you and them and no class war."

At the same time Gandhi believed in struggling against exploitation: "I never said that there should be co-operation between the exploiter and the exploited so long as exploitation and the will to exploit persists. Only I do not believe that the capitalists and the landlords are all exploiters by an inherent necessity or that there is a basic or irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the masses. All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refuse to obey the exploiter." For Gandhi struggle should be conducted through nonviolence, and he warned that one must never be passive in the face of evil; that violence was better than cowardice.

Gandhi foresaw a socialist India achieved through nonviolence. As he wrote in Harijan in 1940 (quoted in My View of Trusteeship, "Antagonism between the classes will be removed. I do not envisage a dead and artificial level among the people. There will be a variety among them as there is among the leaves of a tree. There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day. I have no doubt whatsoever that if non-violence in its full measure becomes the policy of the State, we shall reach essential equality without strife."

Gandhi's analysis was paradoxical. On the one hand he rejected class struggle and foresaw cooperation between the classes. On the other hand, he called for perpetual struggle against exploitation and foresaw the day when there would be no more social classes. In the end it would seem that his strategic vision was a classless society not unlike that foreseen in the Communist Manifesto but that the means for arriving there was through nonviolence rather than violence.
http://sfr-21.org/gandhi-communism.html

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

That's not socialism, that's fascism...


Only I do not believe that the capitalists and the landlords are all exploiters by an inherent necessity or that there is a basic or irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the masses.

There's no inherent necessity for them to exploit as long as they don't mind going out of business and ceasing to be capitalists just like there's no inherent necessity for people to work for a capitalist if they don't mind starving or living in poverty. There's a name for people who believe who believe in the possibility of "class collaboration" but it's not communist or socialist...



All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refuse to obey the exploiterI think a lot of libertards would take a shining to Gandhi if they read this. This is one of their favorite arguments.

[Chow Foo]

Yes, great man. Martin Luther King was also pretty 'socialistic'

[Revy]

To the British:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

On the Jews during the Holocaust:

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Clearly, a wacko extremist pacifist. Also, while he experienced discrimination in South Africa as an Indian, he held the view that Indians and whites were superior to blacks.

[Manzil]

Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on nonviolence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant.

TRANSLATION: "Our socialism or communism is, therefore, nothing of the sort."

Gandhi was not a socialist. He was a religious fool, albeit thankfully a non-violent and humanitarian one. This is the same man who once said, "I can no more tolerate the yoke of Bolshevism than of capitalism." The idea of a society which was not based on private property was anathema to Gandhi. His brand of class collaboration between nascent Indian capitalism and the workers, farmers and landless people who made up the bulk of both India, and his own supporters, was designed to undermine the real socialists in the Communist Party of India, who understood that its principles were not "imagined by the Europeans and Americans" but universally applicable to the world then emerging.

This sort of 'socialism' was common to Third World liberation leaders - it's understandable really, that having fought for the territorial unity of their states, they would equally value the social and economic cooperation of their peoples also. But it is in no way a left-wing ideal, however much regard we may hold for their part in anti-colonial struggles.

[Pogue]

Ghandi had some fucking stupid, unrealistic views with no relation to the real world.

[fabilius]

Gandhi was a nationalist, caught up in a hindu nostalgia. A religious fundamentalist AND a great man.

The thing is, Gandhi had racists, even fascist attitudes but he was able to sacrifice himself, risk everything he had for the cause he believed. For that he was admirable.

Anyway, some of his methods are sometimes useful. Sometimes they´re not obviously. We will not bring about communism by nonviolent means but a nonviolent method can be used for some causes. (It sometimes works).

Interesting character, but I don´t recommend worshipping him rather than any other man and hope none of you share his vision of humanity.

[Random Precision]

A really good overview of Gandhi's politics from a socialist point of view (http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml)

[Rakhmetov]

Gandhi seems to me to be a proponent of anarcho-primitivism. He despised technological innovations and he liked to sleep beside young girls in order to test his spiritual powers of abstinence. Anyone catch that Penn & Teller video on youtube when they speak of Gandhi and Mother Teresa??? Very informative.

[n0thing]

Gandhi was a tit.
Pacifism is a motherfucker.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Gandhi seems to me to be a proponent of anarcho-primitivism.

I highly doubt that, seeing as he adhered to the beliefs of the caste system which includes rulers, priests, leaders. This kind of social structure would be something that anarchists and primitivists would be wary of.

Besides, his minimalist appearance was well-placed. His use of modern communication was the basis for his movement. In essence, "I am a simple man, we are peaceful people, we are poor, look at us get beaten." Without his invitation of technology in the matter, it's highly doubtful his movement would have gone anywhere. However, as poor and simple as he looked, it was a highly maintained political action that was obsessively groomed to perfection. As Sarojini Naidu remarked: "It took a lot of money to keep Gandhi in poverty."

As Siddartha Shome pointed out in his article on Gandhi: the anti-modernity and pro-poverty actions were to suit the need of a NATIONALIST uprising of the Indian people. Also, technology to him was a materialistic issue dealing with his religious beliefs. However, this is not the same as primitivism which critiques social relationships, and technology's destruction of what they think is "the natural man". And above all, an anarchist, he was not.

[gorillafuck]

He was a total whacko who was more tolerable than a lot of whackos because he didn't murder anybody with his stupid ideas.

[GPDP]

It's sad how such a fuckhead is so revered in the Western world. They lump him in with MLK all the time, who, while not a revolutionary, was still very much sympathetic to genuine socialism, and is an admirable figure worthy of respect. I can say nothing of the sort for Ghandi. MLK was not racist, and he eventually came to understand the relationship between racism and capitalism, and would have likely taken his conclusions even further had he not been assasinated. Ghandi, meanwhile... well, read the thread.

Of course, both have been whitewashed significantly in mainstream culture, but while they gloss over MLK's more left-wing leanings, they omit Ghandi's racism and his more extreme remarks, such as the one about Jews throwing themselves towards death rather than resist.

Now, I wonder why the ruling class would glorify a figure who advocated complete and total pacifism, even in the face of exploitation and oppression...

[Sam_b]

Yes, great man

I don't call a man who encouraged Indians to fight for the British Army a great man. Nor a man who says: "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race".

[Howard509]

Like Gandhi, I'm an anarcho-pacifist. I oppose the state for being the cause of most violence in the world.

[Vargha Poralli]

^^^^ It is a shame RP I can thank your post only once.

Some Past Threads about Gandhi where I have tried to dispell left wing myths about him

Thread 1 (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50297&highlight=Gandhi)
Thread 2 (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54717&highlight=Gandhi)
Thread 3 (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=58825&highlight=Gandhi)

One of the thread I have given entire context of his "alleged" Racism. Still I wonder how those things are repeated mindlessly. I think one of the poster counterblast in those threads was very much right. People are just letting their political ideas to filter their judgments.



I don't call a man who encouraged Indians to fight for the British Army a great man.

Could you provide evidence for this very Bold Claim ? Since he started his political work in India around 1915 and he launched Quit India movement the most definitive phase of the Indian Independence movement during the height of the World War 2 ? Or no evidence is needed just because you don't agree with his methods ?


Nor a man who says: "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race".

the point is he was considered a great man because he overcame such prejudices he had. He had those prejudices because he was brought up in a society which treated many of the people worser than the Europeans treated Africans in SA. His journey to South Africa was the once which changed his life and his path.


In India, Gandhi is often used by every bourgeois party to prop up their rotten politics.


Have you ever wondered why ?


Thats the reason the British rulers felt safe and convenient to leave India under his guidance.

:rolleyes:

Great work you have done in analysing the struggle of your own people for to get their Independence.


He wouldn't oppose the global order of capitalism in any way, but would just be an apologist for the current order of things.

He had opposed the alienating nature of the capitalist mode of production and had OPPOSED attempt in all ways to divide the Indian People in to 2 separate nations AGAINST the interest of the Capitalists of both India and Pakistan. He was dead right on this but unfortunately he cannot get what he wanted on this.


Now, I wonder why the ruling class would glorify a figure who advocated complete and total pacifism, even in the face of exploitation and oppression...

When the fact is he did not advocate that.He advocated his folowers to resist and fight against exploitataion and oppression without using violence He was not a pacifist.

[Vargha Poralli]

Like Gandhi, I'm an anarcho-pacifist. I oppose the state for being the cause of most violence in the world.


Well in fact Gandhi was not an anarchist or a pacifist. He didn't even claim him self to be a Socialist in the first place.

And th rest of you the correct spelling is Gandhi not Ghandi.

[Angry Young Man]

Like Gandhi, I'm an anarcho-pacifist. I oppose the state for being the cause of most violence in the world.

Well what are you doing here, then? Go forth and politely ask the state to dismantle!

[gorillafuck]

Like Gandhi, I'm an anarcho-pacifist. I oppose the state for being the cause of most violence in the world.
Gandhi wasn't an anarchist.

[khad]

Gandhi wasn't an anarchist.
What do you expect from a confused liberal who calls himself anarchist while being sympathetic to small producerist capitalism? How he has been able to slip under the radar like this is a wonder to me.

[Sam_b]

Could you provide evidence for this very Bold Claim ?

Bold claim indeed: I thought it was common knowledge that he argued for an Indian column during the Zulu War of 1906. Did he not also organise an Ambulance Corps of Indians in 1914 to aid the British Army as well?

[SubcomandanteJames]

Like Gandhi, I'm an anarcho-pacifist. I oppose the state for being the cause of most violence in the world.

Where is ANYONE getting this "anarchist" view of Gandhi? He was an advocate of the CASTE SYSTEM, a hierarchical structure. I've read some of these "Gandhi was an anarchist..." articles which are ridiculous to me. How can someone be so founded in nationalism, the caste system...

And as for "anarcho-pacifism"... are you aware he is a self-described "Philosophical Anarchist"? This is a form of individualist anti-collectivist ideal that mandated the destruction of "the state" but that all previous caste levels exist and are maintained? So he was in support of a de facto state? And he also said that he felt that country borders should remain the same (he cited religious beliefs)? I'm sorry, no matter what he says, even as a proponent of direct democracy, with caste/class structure, hierarchical emphasis, and a highly religious nationalist view... I don't see him as a true anarchist...


However, I will always respect him for his contributions... but to anarchism and socialism... I don't see it.

[spiltteeth]

Gandhi is a very misunderstood figure in the west. I lived
with an Indian family and they often told me how hated he was by the poor. After all, when the state held a Democratic vote to politically dismantle the caste system Gandhi threatened to kill himself (starving himself to death) unless the vote went the way he wished : to uphold the caste system.
And lets not forget his insistence, as soon as his people got into power, of pressuring the state to send its troops to violently deal with the group to whom belonged the man that ended up killing him.

[Revy]

if you're going to edit my post....you might as well delete it.
I just thought it was of interest: Link (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KM4BaB8DTMk/Se2g9hOLDeI/AAAAAAAAA88/MgzuKC3W8PM/s1600-h/gandhi+letter.JPG)

[Small Geezer]

All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refuse to obey the exploiter


You stupid workers, you should starve or become paupers rather than be exploited!:rolleyes:

[RHIZOMES]

I don't support national liberation anyway. I see "my people" of the Indian working class as part of the global working class who should have worked for a socialist revolution rather than a bourgeois national liberation. We see the effects of the nationalist struggle today in the lack of any widespread serious revolutionary consciousness among the Indian working class. Also when it comes to the Indian left like the Stalinist parties they're mostly fighting "communalism" and forming alliances with the other bourgeois parties than challenging capitalism and they're nationalist like anything. Clearly nationalist sentiment is something we have to guard against as socialists.

You don't see the removal of imperialist ownership of third world nations as a positive thing? :confused::confused::confused:

[Howard509]

Well in fact Gandhi was not an anarchist or a pacifist. He didn't even claim him self to be a Socialist in the first place.

And th rest of you the correct spelling is Gandhi not Ghandi.

Was Gandhi an Anarchist?
Visionary promoted decentralized, direct democracy as key to peace; power resides in the individual and in self-rule
http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm



Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police, prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as concentrated violence. "The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. "While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."1
http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm

[Howard509]

You stupid workers, you should starve or become paupers rather than be exploited!:rolleyes:

The workers can always rebel.

[Manzil]

You don't see the removal of imperialist ownership of third world nations as a positive thing? :confused::confused::confused:

Well, taking Indian independence as an example, it was obviously a good thing that the British soldiers were removed from Indian land, unable to shoot workers, detain them or simply retard Indians' full self-expression and development. It was a good thing that British civil authorities could no longer cream off the fruits of Indian labour for the profit of a ruling class half the world away. It was a good thing that the concept of empire itself was dealt a very public blow.

But it was an equally bad thing that those same soldiers and authorities were replaced by their Indian equivalents, ready to shoot, tax, arrest and generally oppress their 'fellow citizens'. And it was an especially bad thing that the concept of nation was, falsely, vindicated worldwide as an emancipatory ideal.

Anti-imperialism is only ever an unequivocally positive idea when it takes place within a socialist context. How is that controversial?

[LeninBalls]

You don't see the removal of imperialist ownership of third world nations as a positive thing? :confused::confused::confused:

It's in the name of the INTERNATIONALISM. One day, the whole working class, worlde wide, will spontaneously rise up and win and so every working class under imperialist exploitation will be free!

[Revy]

It's in the name of the INTERNATIONALISM. One day, the whole working class, worlde wide, will spontaneously rise up and win and so every working class under imperialist exploitation will be free!

Sounds about right to me.
Or are you arguing the lack of a world revolution creates better conditions for eliminating imperialism? :blink:

[Red Apex]

He was also really racist, I personally can't stand how modern america puts him next to Mlk jr. when Gandhi repeatedly stated his ignorant views on Africans.

[Pogue]

He wasn't a socialist. I had this argument with a teacher of mine. Advocating a society full of love and sharing isn't communism. He rejected class struggle and revolution. You can't be a communist if you do this. He was a Hindu with ideas of communal living, and also a nationalist. Again ihave had this debate - yes he was not an aggressive nationalist the same way you get British nationalists, but he still valued the nation over the working class.

[StalinFanboy]

Was Gandhi an Anarchist?
Visionary promoted decentralized, direct democracy as key to peace; power resides in the individual and in self-rule
http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm
Can you read? It has been said many times in this thread that Gandhi did not oppose the caste system. The caste system is an extremely strict hierarchy that any anarchist in his right mind would find disgusting to say the least.

[Led Zeppelin]

The Indian bourgeoisie is incapable of leading a revolutionary struggle. They are closely bound up with and dependent upon British capitalism. They tremble for their own property. They stand in fear of the masses. They seek compromises with British imperialism no matter what the price and lull the Indian masses with hopes of reforms from above. The leader and prophet of this bourgeoisie is Gandhi. A fake leader and a false prophet! Gandhi and his compeers have developed a theory that India’s position will constantly improve, that her liberties will continually be enlarged and that India will gradually become a Dominion on the road of peaceful reforms. Later on, perhaps even achieve full independence. This entire perspective is false to the core.

[...]

Stalin and his clique, for the sake of an alliance with the imperialist governments, have completely renounced the revolutionary program for the emancipation of the colonies. This was openly avowed at the last Congress of Stalin’s party in Moscow in March of the current year by Manuilski, one of the leaders of the Comintern, who declared: “The Communists advance to the forefront the struggle for the realization of the right of self-determination of nationalities enslaved by fascist governments. They demand free self-determination for Austria ... the Sudeten regions ... Korea, Formosa, Abyssinia ... .” And what about India, Indo-China, Algeria and other colonies of England and France? The Comintern representative answers this question as follows, “The Communists demand of the imperialist governments of the so called bourgeois democratic states the immediate [sic] drastic [!] improvement in the living standards of the toiling masses in the colonies and the granting of broad democratic rights and liberties to the colonies.” (Pravda, issue No.70, March 12, 1939.) In other words, as regards the colonies of England and France the Comintern has completely gone over to Gandhi’s position and the position of the conciliationist colonial bourgeoisie in general. The Comintern has completely renounced revolutionary struggle for India’s independence. It “demands” (on its hands and knees) the “granting” of “democratic liberties” to India by British imperialism. The words “immediate drastic improvement in the living standards of the toiling masses in the colonies”, have an especially false and cynical ring.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/india.htm)

[Howard509]

Can you read? It has been said many times in this thread that Gandhi did not oppose the caste system. The caste system is an extremely strict hierarchy that any anarchist in his right mind would find disgusting to say the least.


The advancement of equality in the caste system is largely due to Gandhi. Gandhi was a member of the merchant caste. He was later called Mahatma, meaning "great soul". He went beyond the divisions of castes and took an untouchable child into his own home, breaking all requirements of tradition. The child was called the untouchables harijan (children of God). Gandhi persuaded the Indian National Congress to adopt a resolution in support of harijan uplift (Lamb 145), and published a magazine called Harijan, which was devoted to the welfare of the untouchables. After Gandhi’s death, many Brahman homes were set on fire. Gandhi’s assassin was a Brahman, causing this uprising against the upper caste. The uprising caused an decline in the Brahmans and aided in the increase of the untouchables In his search for equality Gandhi helped to unify the caste system. He helped lead India’s independence in 1947.
http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/s97/india/gandhi.htm


Right or wrong, Gandhi opposed giving the Dalit's exclusive representation because he believed it would divide the people of India.

[narcomprom]

He endorsed the racism in South Africa as he endorsed the racism in India. Belonging to the higher castes and denied the existance of a class or caste war in India, he vociferously opposed the Dalit emancipation movement of B.R.Ambekar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ambedkar) with rabid nationalist rhetorics. It is him we are to blame for that the untouchables are de facto still denied basic human rights and form the bottoms of modern Indian society.

He was a total whacko who was more tolerable than a lot of whackos because he didn't murder anybody with his stupid ideas.
Oh, really? You should have heared Khomeini while he was in Parisian exile! He was kawaii, cruddly and sweet with his spiritual peacenik sophistry. If he only died in Paris I'm sure we'd be discussing him.

I've read book on him by Bikhu Parekh (10 bucks on amazon), called aptly "Gandhi". It didn't differ much from what you hear in western press, for the most part describing a sweet vegetarian not really being a racist, but in the very end, in the same flowery tone, it was briefly mentioned, how the right intended to make him the new emperor after the war: He was to become a lifelong moral guardian with veto powers.

Fortunately that was thwarted with appeals to secularism.


Besides, his minimalist appearance was well-placed. His use of modern communication was the basis for his movement. In essence, "I am a simple man, we are peaceful people, we are poor, look at us get beaten." Without his invitation of technology in the matter, it's highly doubtful his movement would have gone anywhere. However, as poor and simple as he looked, it was a highly maintained political action that was obsessively groomed to perfection. As Sarojini Naidu remarked: "It took a lot of money to keep Gandhi in poverty."
Indeed, if we are to praise Gandhi the only thing we can praise him for being an exemplary (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/chapter16.html) public figure. He set standards for the leaders to come.

[amandevsingh]

Bhagat Singh, Azad, Udham Singh, etc. were India's real Marxists. Gandhi had contributed to the freedom struggle, but he did much less then he was said to do.

[Howard509]

There can be a nonviolent communism. Just look at the Tolstoyans, the Amish, the early Christians, the Israeli communes, etc.

[StalinFanboy]

There can be a nonviolent communism. Just look at the Tolstoyans, the Amish, the early Christians, the Israeli communes, etc.
Revolutionaries have no urge to set up escapist communes.

[Howard509]

Revolutionaries have no urge to set up escapist communes.

Be the change you want in the world. A commune should be free and voluntary.

[Abc]

there is no right revolution saying that something sould always be violent or always be pacifist is stupid for India, pacifism worked for Russia, violence worked however i am more critical of the people who think pacifism is always reactionary then the people who think violence is useless, because have you ever really been in war or even been shot at?have you ever looked another human in the eyes and pulled the trigger?

[Random Precision]

There can be a nonviolent communism. Just look at the Tolstoyans,

There were never any communities inspired by Tolstoy's "anarchism" that I'm aware of.


the Amish,

If you call hyper-religious, patriarchal, anti-technology communities that are rife with child abuse "communism" then you are no kind of communist. Which I never suspected you were anyway.


the early Christians,

There's hardly a lot of evidence that sharing in common was practiced universally by the early Christians, even if that was the only thing that qualified a society as "communist".


the Israeli communes, etc.

In which nearly all the physical labor that allows them to thrive is performed by low-paid Palestinians who get no share in the community. But hey, I wouldn't let that bother you if you think Tolstoy's peasant commune and Amish towns are "communist". :rolleyes:

[spiltteeth]

[QUOTE=Random Precision;1515119]There were never any communities inspired by Tolstoy's "anarchism" that I'm aware of.


From Wiki :
The Life and Labor Commune was a Tolstoyan (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Tolstoyan) agricultural commune (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Commune_(intentional_community)) founded in 1921 and disbanded as a state run collective farm (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Collective_farming) in 1937. The commune was founded near Moscow but was later resettled on the outskirts of Siberia. Throughout its existence the members of the commune were persecuted by the Bolsheviks (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bolsheviks), both for refusing to enlist or support their war efforts as well as for organizing themselves communally outside of the approved state structure.

There was also the Tolstoy New Jerusalem Commune.

They came under legal attack and was actually defended in court by Kropotkin.

[Howard509]

Tolstoyans lived in farming communes until the Soviets wiped them out. This is historical fact. "Each according to his ability to each according to his need" is almost exactly quoted from the Acts of the Apostles. The Amish share everything in kind without the use of physical force. As far as the Israeli communes, I don't know enough about them to retort you.

[spiltteeth]

Tolstoyans lived in farming communes until the Soviets wiped them out. This is historical fact. "Each according to his ability to each according to his need" is almost exactly quoted from the Acts of the Apostles. The Amish share everything in kind without the use of physical force. As far as the Israeli communes, I don't know enough about them to retort you.

Yes, I just posted a link above, however, revolution has two parts. The first is jokingly regarded as the "easy part" -which is taking power or setting up a commune. The second part of revolution is the "hard part" -holding on to it. If the Tolstoy communes had built a base and then protected it with violent means perhaps they might've been around longer.

I've lived in Amish country and even knew an Amish fellow. They in fact have huge political sway and use the state as a means of repressing opponents, setting up laws conducive to their existence, and are no stranger to using the state to perpetuate violence in the guise of 'law and justice' as defined by them of course. (And they do in fact have a very high rate of child sexual abuse,as do most communes -I've been a social worker)

Communes are nice. Their are a few in the USA - a whole network in fact. Eco-villages too. But they can only function with relatively small numbers because of such limited resources and trade.

This leaves out the vast majority of oppressed people. It is for the Majority, the masses, the average Joe being worked to death, that we revolutionaries believe in liberating.

We do not care to set aside a small little utopia for just the chosen few.

[Howard509]

Like in agorism, you could create a black market economy to undermine, and eventually replace, capitalism.

[Conquer or Die]

It's time to bring some fuck imperialist into this nonsense:

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/gandhi-non-violence-and-the-liberation-of-the-proletariat-from-imperialism/

Naxalites are doing a good job of fucking imperialism and its yankee cheerleader Gandhi out of business.

[robbo203]

Gandhi on Communism

Gandhi was an advocate for socialism and communism, but warned that it was not the same as that imagined by the Europeans and Americans. Writing in the English Daily Amrita Bazar Patrika on August 2-3, 1934, he said, "Socialism and communism of the West are based on certain conception which are fundamentally different from ours. One such conception is their belief in essential selfishness of human nature. I do not subscribe to it for I know that the former can respond to the call of the spirit in him, can rise superior to the passions that he owns in common with the brute and, therefore, superior to selfishness and violence, which belong to the brute nature and not to the immortal spirit of man ... Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on nonviolence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant."


This precisely illustrates why Gandhi was not an advocate of socialism or communism. He presupposes the contunation of the wage labour and capital relationship that lies at the very heart of capitalism and idealistically enjoins both sides of this mutually antagonistic relationship to behave "harmoniously" towards each other. This is bunkum and class collaborationist bullshit. You only get rid of the selfishnessness that he piously rails against by removing the very conditions that pit one class against another - by eliminating class ownership of the means of production.

In many other respects Gandhi is a fine thinker and espouses ideas that I have a great deal of sympathy for but in this respect he is very confused and profoundly mistaken

[Yehuda Stern]

As far as the Israeli communes, I don't know enough about them to retort you.

When we are clueless about something, it is generally a good idea not to use it as an example. Especially a criminal, land stealing enterprise like the Zionist kibbutizm.

[spiltteeth]

Like in agorism, you could create a black market economy to undermine, and eventually replace, capitalism.

Thats true, however most black markets are capitalistic, using a barter system does not replace class distinctions, and of course, unless this black market takes over the means of production it will have no power over the state or military.
This kind of has already happened, read 'planet of slums' now a shocking ONE BILLION people live in slums outside of the major world cities and have their own laws etc existing independently of the politics of the the state.

Chomsky has rightly said any anarchistic society in Europe (not America) has got to find a way to have a centralizing agency to secure a central military to defend themselves.

[spiltteeth]

Like in agorism, you could create a black market economy to undermine, and eventually replace, capitalism.

Oh, and according to Wiki
Agorists hold that the evils attributed to capitalism are not caused by laissez-faire (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Laissez-faire) but by government working together with private industry. By preferring the term "free market (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Free_market)", Agorists feel they are not bound by the implications of the term "capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Capitalism)".

If your curious how this society might look in practice, see all mid-region african states.

[spiltteeth]

For Howard509, now I don;t have no fancy college degree, but I can read some so I'd like to introduce to use the real Gandhi.
I think many Rev's react badly to Gandhi for the following reasons :

He fought hard for ecumenical Indian unity within the secularist Congress party, but his concessions to Islam, in the name of multi-faith inclusion, only facilitated greater Muslim communal solidarity, each ecumenical concession generating more particularist (and eventually separatist) demands; he believed that Muslims and Hindus could live together in fraternal concord, and his celebrated fasts were designed to achieve that end, yet he presided over the partition of India, sanctioning (though reluctantly) the creation of a theocratic Muslim Pakistan, at the cost of at least a million lives and the forcible transfer of an estimated fourteen million people; he urged non-violence (ahimsa) to his fellow Hindus, even in the face of appalling atrocities, and received only more atrocities in return, often bloodcurdling in their ferocity.

The lesson of Gandhi's failure is clear: In interracial relations a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. We could call that a sociological law, if it were not so obvious

"India," as Godse complained at his trial, "was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us.... This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship."


Non-violence is a strictly individual technique of personal improvement. It cannot serve political ends and cannot play a role in the governing of states. All of the Bhagavad Gita is in fact a lesson given to Arjuna, who wanted to renounce violence and thus to shirk his duty as a prince and soldier. Gandhi was in fact, thanks to his theories on non-violence, the instrument of massacres on a scale almost without historical precedent, which preceded and followed the partition of India, which he had accepted.

The late Mahatma Gandhi's much admired "nonviolence" was moral violence; not: "Do this, or else I kill you!" but: "Do this, or else I kill myself! ... knowing that you hold my life as indispensable." It may look "nobler." In fact, it is just the same -- apart from the difference in the technique of pressure. It is, rather, less noble because, precisely on account of that subtler technique, it leads people to believe that it is not violence, and therefore contains an element of deceit, an inherent falsehood, from which ordinary violence is free.

in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, in the Indian Opinion of March 18, 1905, Gandhi wrote: "Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough.

One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians...?" Again on September 9, 1905, Gandhi wrote about the local Africans as: "in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year" (meaning that the locals are lazy).

In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do... by advocating the purity of all races."

Again on December 24, 1903, in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that: "so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is purity of type."

When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!

In the Anglo-Boer War of 1899, Gandhi, in spite of his own belief that truth was on the side of the Boers, formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces. He was very earnest about taking up arms and laying down his life for his beloved Queen. He led his men on to the battlefield and received a War Medal.

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi's war crimes in its proper perspective.

The Natal Indian Congress was founded in 1894 by Mohandas Gandhi to further the causes of caste Hindus and campaign against equal treatment for Indians and black South African natives.
The first major accomplishment of the Natal Indian Congress was to further entrench racial segregation into South African society during a time of massive racial strife. At the time, the Durban, South Africa post office had two doors. One was for whites and the other for Indians and black natives. Gandhi was so disgusted at having to share a door with blacks that he initiated a campaign for the creation of a third door. This achievement is shocking but very well-documented in Gandhi’s writings.

In a March, 1903 Indian Opinion article, he wrote: “The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races.’ May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.”

some areas of north India were virtually under parallel governments as a younger generation of activists took the lead and unleashed protests and strikes, which cut off essential supplies, and sabotaged administration buildings. Some 208 police outposts, 332 railway stations and 945 post offices were destroyed or damaged and there were 664 bomb explosions. State repression was quick and brutal. Over 90,000 people had been arrested by the end of 1943, free use was made of public floggings and of torture such as pushing rulers up the rectums of captured protesters, with Linlithgow ordering aerial bombing of crowds disrupting communication networks in Patna Bihar. Resistance had been quelled by the middle of 1944. From the Aga Khan jail, his place of detention, Gandhi issued a call to end the disruption and asked leaders to stop the sabotage and protests. Along with arrests this further dissipated the movement. In fact in areas where the party had a base its members actively worked to defuse strikes, demonstrations and walkouts. This meant that the bourgeois leaderships of Congress and the Muslim League could emerge intact and strengthened after the war.

Straight after the world war ended Britain emerged from the war a considerably weakened power. This, along with the successive waves of mass action that had taken place, severely diminished its resolve to hold on to its empire. The push for independence was irresistible. In November 1945 the weakened but vindictive imperial power placed three soldiers of the Indian National Army (INA) that had fought alongside Japan in Burma on trial: a Muslim, a Hindu and a Sikh. Nehru was part of their defense counsel. They were found guilty of “waging war against the emperor” and sentenced to transportation for life. Popular outcry forced the British to accede to demands for their release as national heroes. This galvanized nationalist feeling and on 18 February 1946 Indian sailors of the Royal Indian Navy on board ship and in shore establishments in Bombay struck and then mutinied. From here the mutiny spread throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and Madras with the slogans “Strike for Bombay”, “Release 11,000 INA prisoners” and “Jai Hind” (Long live India). It came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors, uniting Hindus and Muslims whose grievances entailed poor food rations, lack of career advancement but also racism at the hands of navy personnel.
Such was the feeling that even the Gurkhas in Karachi refused to fire on striking sailors. The mutineers hoisted the flags of the Congress, Muslim League and Communist Party onto their ships in a symbolic display of national unity. Tragically, Gandhi condemned the mutiny, criticizing the strikers for mutinying without the call of a “prepared revolutionary party” and without the “guidance and intervention” of “political leaders of their choice”. He further criticized a local Congress leader, one of the few prominent political leaders of the time to offer her support for the mutineers, who had stated she would rather unite Hindus and Muslims on the barricades than on the constitutional front. And in spite of his reservations about constitutional methods earlier, Gandhi betrayed his true views on the mutiny by declaring, “If the union at the barricade is honest then there must be union also at the constitutional front”.
The leaders of Congress and the Muslim League also refused to back the mutineers and effectively sabotaged the strike by sending their representatives to broker an agreement. Not only was the mutiny called off but none of its demands were met and, to add insult to injury, none of the dismissed mutineers were ever admitted into the Indian or Pakistani navies after independence. The shortcomings of Gandhi’s mass action and his version of nationalism, based as it was on an appeal to the religiosity of individuals, were woefully inadequate when tested at a crucial juncture. The magnificent unity on display during the mutiny was not to be nurtured by national leaders vying for territory and power in the run-up to the final transfer of power as August 1947 approached.
Gandhi’s final tragedy was his complete inability to prevent the partition of India and the communal frenzy that accompanied it. He traveled to Nikolai in Bengal to see the horror of hundreds and thousands of dead Muslims and Hindus following the Muslim Day of Action in August 1946. When partition was announced Gandhi stayed away from the “celebrations” of national independence, stating, “Let posterity know Gandhi was not party to the vivisection of India.” In September 1947 he went to Calcutta and stayed in the home of a Muslim, in the face of arch opposition by Hindu extremists. Here he began a fast unto death to stop the communal killing that followed the division of Bengal. After five days, with Gandhi a stone and half lighter, all violence stopped. Gandhi was able to use his stature, but also his fragility and the emotional toll of partition to bring a halt to the killing for a short while. But he had not been able to stop the tragedy of partition. To achieve that would have required the vision and strategy employed by the naval mutineers to redirect politics in a class direction. The biggest irony of Gandhi’s life was perhaps that partition and independence gave birth to a capitalist state like any other, or in fact two states, with the capitalist features he detested—immense poverty and obscene wealth, wars and nuclear weapons.

It is also a myth to presume that Gandhi was opposed to racial segregation. Witness this piece of his writing, published in his newspaper, Indian Opinion, of 15 February 1905. It was a letter to the White Johannesburg Medical Officer of Health, a Dr. Porter, concerning the fact that Blacks had been allowed to settle in an Indian residential area:

‘Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all Kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen"



So, if you believe in a racist, hierarchical, manipulative, nationalistic, inefficient ideology that results in class conflict and massive bloodshed then....go with Gandhi my son.

ref : http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/gandhi.htm

http://gandhism.net/

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=558&issue=123

[LeninKobaMao]

Your exactly right.

[the last donut of the night]

In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do... by advocating the purity of all races."

Again on December 24, 1903, in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that: "so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is purity of type."

But didn´t he change his views later? I´m just asking, no sarcasm intended.

[JohannGE]

Interesting and valid points spiltteeth.

He did stand up and defeat the most powerful and opressive superpower of his time though.

Perhaps not ideologicaly sound (who is?) but giving brit imperialism a kick up the arse it never recovered from earns him some respect in my book.

[Conquer or Die]

Interesting and valid points spiltteeth.

He did stand up and defeat the most powerful and opressive superpower of his time though.

Perhaps not ideologicaly sound (who is?) but giving brit imperialism a kick up the arse it never recovered from earns him some respect in my book.

What the fuck? He helped create the most passive and incoherent constitution and political process known to fuck. His country has suffered some of the most pernicious anti response to natural disasters and problems known to modern history and they've been ravaged by neoliberalism.

[JohannGE]

What the fuck? He helped create the most passive and incoherent constitution and political process known to fuck. His country has suffered some of the most pernicious anti response to natural disasters and problems known to modern history and they've been ravaged by neoliberalism.

Yea... bring back the Raj!

[Conquer or Die]

Yea... bring back the Raj!

Let's be clear; Ghandi didn't defeat imperialism. He created an ideology of suffering and worship that has fucked up India. His leadership status reduced the struggles of a massive portion of the populace to further suffering and improper anti imperialism.

[spiltteeth]

Interesting and valid points spiltteeth.

He did stand up and defeat the most powerful and opressive superpower of his time though.

Perhaps not ideologicaly sound (who is?) but giving brit imperialism a kick up the arse it never recovered from earns him some respect in my book.


Well, there are things to admire about him. He did some great organizing, empowered alot of communities, was against decentralization and industrialization (if you think thats a good thing) and he definitely gave the imperialist British a big headache.

As far as defeating the British, he was defiantly a factor, but probably more because of all the mayhem and chaos and Muslim/Hindu conflict he caused. There's alot of propaganda on both sides so it hard to sort out the facts but this is from Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court,

"When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor's palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi's "Quit India" movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, "m-i-n-i-m-a-l!"

[pastradamus]

As much as there was some things to admire about Ghandi one of the things I dont like about him was on the issue of the marriage of his son whom he disowned, commenting "How can I, who has always advocated renunciation of sex, encourage you to gratify it ? "
(The son subsequently became a homeless alcoholic.)

[mykittyhasaboner]

As much as there was some things to admire about Ghandi one of the things I dont like about him was on the issue of the marriage of his son whom he disowned, commenting "How can I, who has always advocated renunciation of sex, encourage you to gratify it ? "
(The son subsequently became a homeless alcoholic.)

Hey, what a 'peace and love' kinda guy right? He's Ghandi!!

[spiltteeth]

ORGANISE! -an anarchist organizationj, has a series, Myths and Legends, which looks at various ‘Sacred Cows’, here's the link for Mahatma Gandhi.
http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue46/myth.html

Really I wonder what Howard509 thinks of all this.

Ghandi's grandson's have written some pretty scathing, perverted things about him, but since they lack concrete evidence I did not include what they had to say.
Here is a link if your curious http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/25/six-stories-of-mohandas-gandhi-his-failures-sexual-perversion/

[LeninKobaMao]

Sounds like 'National Socialism' to me.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

he definitely gave the imperialist British a big headache.They didn't think so


It was also apparent that the British were making use of him, or thought they were making use of him. Strictly speaking, as a Nationalist, he was an enemy, but since in every crisis he would exert himself to prevent violence--which, from the British point of view, meant preventing any effective action whatever--he could be regarded as "our man". In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away. How reliable such calculations are in the long run is doubtful; as Gandhi himself says, "in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"; but at any rate the gentleness with which he was nearly always handled was due partly to the feeling that he was useful. The British Conservatives only became really angry with him when, as in 1942, he was in effect turning his non-violence against a different conqueror.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Reflections_of_Ghandi/0.html

[JohannGE]

Let's be clear; Ghandi didn't defeat imperialism. He created an ideology of suffering and worship that has fucked up India. His leadership status reduced the struggles of a massive portion of the populace to further suffering and improper anti imperialism.

Hmm..."improper anti-imperialism"?

Let us also be clear that my post was in responce to spiltteeth's excellent post #57 illustrating many of the faults of Ghandi and his beliefs, which I acknowlaged and agreed with.

I would still give credit to almost anyone for resistance and refusal to accept British imperialism of the time or for that matter US hegemony of today.

[spiltteeth]

They didn't think so


http://www.george-orwell.org/Reflections_of_Ghandi/0.html


That is a good point!

[h9socialist]

Much can be learned from Gandhi, but it is not really fair to try to pigeonhole him into one of the categories of western politics. The Ashram was a primitive sort of commune -- hardly modern socialism, but it had some good points.

It might be worth recalling that Gandhi's most celebrated follower, Jawaharal Nehru was a socialist, did make overtures to socialist nations, and was the first world leader outside the Soviet Bloc to welcome Che Guevara on a state visit.

All-in-all this discussion goes nowhere because Gandhi wasn't trying to address the problems of India in terms of any Western political ideology. It might be best to leave it at that.

[amandevsingh]

It might be worth recalling that Gandhi's most celebrated follower, Jawaharal Nehru was a socialist, did make overtures to socialist nations, and was the first world leader outside the Soviet Bloc to welcome Che Guevara on a state visit.

Nehru was as much of a socialist as Gorbachev. That is, only in name. Search the Hindustani Socialist Republic Assosciation. Those are India's Marxists.

[Random Precision]

Posts on "mutualism" and Howard509's idiocy split to Learning

[Howard509]

Posts on "mutualism" and Howard509's idiocy split to Learning

What is idiotic about mutualism? It's anarchist economics.