Gandhi?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

On this site I've heard members speak quite lowly of this normally hallowed figure.Why is that so? I was under the impression that he was a "good guy." Who was he really?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

He was bourgeois.

I'm looking for something a bit more condemning then that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Gandhi is among the best as far as bourgeois and religious people go, but he is still a bourgeois and a religious figure.

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml


edit: wasn't he some kind of racist? i recall something about him disliking black people...

[¿Que?]

Ghandi may have achieved his goal of kicking the British out, but he failed on the second goal, keeping India united.

[ZeroNowhere]

He was bourgeois.
I don't think that it would be accurate to call Gandhi a capitalist.

[Magón]

He was a heavy Nationalist. (Obviously)

[Volcanicity]

He thought you could beat the Nazi's in WW2 by non-violence,and by letting them do whatever they wanted.

[EvilRedGuy]

He was against black peoples.

[Imposter Marxist]

Ghandi's ideology is all about getting yourself killed. He didnt do anything besides starve himself. He did not "Free" India at all. It was not his doing. He also was a terrible racist, he puts a lot of modern racists to shame. He told the English to surrender to the Axis, and told Jews to allow themselves to be killed rather than resist. He is a reactionary and promoted an ideal that cuts the revolutionary fire out of many's youthful soul: Pacifism.

[bloodbeard]

He didn't even want independence from the British at first. He wanted "peaceful co-existence" or something similar to that, lol. Only after revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh who demanded complete independence became popular, that he changed his tune as well.

[Imposter Marxist]

Also, there were many violent armed Indian groups fighting the British. Ghandi's the bourgeois's favorite "Revolutionary" because they can pascify revolutionaries with his useless ideology.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think mainly the problem with Gandhi is that ultimately he ended up seeking independence through collaboration with imperialism. My partner wants to watch True Blood and it's on my computer:blushing:, so I can't go into much more detail right now, but maybe someone who knows more of the history can get into it. Ultimately while there was a militant faction of the movement, Gandhi chose tactics that let the British get away with years of needless oppression and by backing down on opposing the patrician of India, he picked making nice with the imperialists over the lives of countless people he knew would die in factional violence and that millions of people would have their lives turned upside down so that the UK could draw the map of the region.

That's why making deals with the imperialists for expediency usually only leads to more ruin in the long run.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with pacifism as a useful tactic sometimes, for example the early non-violence of the civil rights movement wasn't designed figuratively de-arm an existing movement, but to bring people out to the streets instead of hiding in the shadows. But Gandhi was using this tactic as an alternative to the existing militant struggles, he opposed labor strikes in order to preserve "national unity" and so his non-violence actually led to more suffering and violence by the British.

[Barry Lyndon]

I think comparing and contrasting the historical experience of India and China in the same period is instructive- both massive nations on the continent of Asia, both containing roughly a billion people, both modern nations beginning in the late 1940's.

That Gandhi succeeded in having India 'peacefully' transition from British colonial rule(peaceful for the British that is, they still managed to divide the country and instigate a sectarian bloodbath) meant that while the British left, there was no change in the overall class structure of Indian society- rather, the British parasites were replaced by elite Indian parasites. For India's poor, it was just an exchange of masters.

Over 60 years later, we see the fruits of India's 'peaceful' transition. India is a country where in the 21st century hundreds of millions cannot read and write, where one baby in twenty dies from disease, hunger, and poverty, where peasants commit suicide by the hundreds of thousands because their losing their land to multinational agribusiness land seizures, a country where honor killings of women in a medieval fashion still occur on a regular basis.

Contrast this to China, which experienced the violent overthrow of foreign capitalist-imperialists and the feudal landlord class at the same time. And was followed up by massive land reform programs and campaigns to provide food, healthcare, education, employment, and housing for China's desperately poor population. As a result, over 90% of the Chinese population learned to read and write, the average life expectancy more then doubled, and sexist practices like female infanticide, footbinding, and concubinage were stamped out.
Even today, with all the terrible capitalist reforms China has endured for the last 30 years, the average Chinese person is considerably better educated and healthier then the average Indian.

From the point of view of the poor, which transition was less violent?

[RedHal]

"The rich man will be left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably needs and act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for society."

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Racist. Nationalist. Pacifist. would've been fine with it if the Nazis too over because heaven forbid anyone use violence to stop something as harmless as faschism.

Nothing that hasn't already been said. Just wanted to emphasize even further that he was not a nice little guy who just wanted world peace.

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

Gandhi supported the caste system. He believed whatever class you were born in was the class you died in

[Invincible Summer]

Also, there were many violent armed Indian groups fighting the British. Ghandi's the bourgeois's favorite "Revolutionary" because they can pascify revolutionaries with his useless ideology.

This is the same case with S. African Apartheid and the Civil Rights Movement, and countless other movements, it's pretty sad how lots of political figures are revered for something that they only had a partial hand in.

And no one even cares that Nelson Mandela was actually a militant badass back in the day... bougies just like the fact that he's a friendly-looking black guy that can be used as a face for "freedom."

[Imposter Marxist]

This is the same case with S. African Apartheid and the Civil Rights Movement, and countless other movements, it's pretty sad how lots of political figures are revered for something that they only had a partial hand in.

And no one even cares that Nelson Mandela was actually a militant badass back in the day... bougies just like the fact that he's a friendly-looking black guy that can be used as a face for "freedom."


I've actually wrote a paper about pacifism and ghandi and all of that, where I expound on this phenomenon. Its point, ultimatly, the bourgeois can take radicalism and throw it down the pacifist river so it becomes harmless.

[∞]

Yeah, he got banned.

[incogweedo]

In defense of gandhi:


Gandhi is among the best as far as bourgeois and religious people go, but he is still a bourgeois and a religious figure.

He didn't free India (and arguably South Africa) in the name of Hinduism. He told his people "I am a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Jew". He was talking about how religion should not separate people, as seen when India separated into Pakistan(a Muslim society) and India (a Hindu society). Im not sure if calling Gandhi a bourgeoisie is a very accurate claim. He often turned down nice clothes, a nice bed, and a nice lifestyle for the lifestyle of the peasants in his country.


Ghandi's ideology is all about getting yourself killed. He didnt do anything besides starve himself. He did not "Free" India at all. It was not his doing. He also was a terrible racist, he puts a lot of modern racists to shame. He told the English to surrender to the Axis, and told Jews to allow themselves to be killed rather than resist. He is a reactionary and promoted an ideal that cuts the revolutionary fire out of many's youthful soul: Pacifism.

I'm a pacifist, and I don't think getting killed is better than resisting. To me, being "passive" means not fighting until totally necessary. If a bunch of douchebag fascist come to my town and try to take me to a death camp, then fuck yes I'm going to resist with all I have. Also, true, Gandhi WAS a racist, before his pacifist revolution. He lived in South Africa for about 21 years, and he joined the British army in that time. He was in a war with native African tribes there, this made him bitterly racist. Plus, he believed in the Caste system, which is a separation of classes due to race. I think he felt hate towards blacks early in his life, but i believe he was not racist and gave up the Caste idea after he started his revolution. I also think that if he was to read Marx's and Trotsky's writings, we would find them very appealing.

[Obs]

He didn't free India
There we go.

[Amphictyonis]

Gandhi should be waterboared. He'll confess.

[t.shonku]

Gandhi didn’t free India.He was the kind of man the British loved to do busieness with.By the way you people should read a thread started by me in History section named Chittagong Armoury Raid Case, Indian Freedom Movement ,to know about freedom struggle in India,here is the link http://www.revleft.com/vb/chittagong-armoury-raid-t140938/index.html?p=1850312 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../chittagong-armoury-raid-t140938/index.html?p=1850312)

By the way India got freed in end largely due to Naval Revolt and participation of working class in it irrespective of their religious belief,Gandhi only picked up the pieces.