Was Gandhi an anarchist?

[Nehru]

http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm

[Ismail]

None of his contemporaries described him as an anarchist, and no serious Marxist analysis would describe him as such. In 1930 Stalin said the following:

"As regards India, Indo-China, Indonesia, Africa, etc., the growth of the revolutionary movement in those countries, which at times assumes the form of a national war for liberation, leaves no room for doubt. Messieurs the bourgeois count on flooding those countries with blood and on relying on police bayonets, calling people like Gandhi to their assistance. There can be no doubt that police bayonets make a poor prop. Tsarism, in its day, also tried to rely on police bayonets, but everybody knows what kind of a prop they turned out to be. As regards assistants of the Gandhi type, tsarism had a whole herd of them in the shape of liberal compromisers of every kind, but nothing came of this except discomfiture."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. XII. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1954. p. 259.)

Gandhi, like the Dalai Lama, philosophically expressed views that capitalism is generally incompatible with mankind's best interests. Then again so does Benedict XVI. It doesn't mean that Gandhi ever advocated anarchism or did anything else to meaningfully describe him as one. His views on "self-sustaining" villages and such sound like those of an idealistic and petty-bourgeois figure, somewhat similar to Proudhon.

[Geiseric]

I don't really think ghandi was a compromising liberal petit bourgeois, he was increadibly revolutionary in the same way that MLK was in his later years. If he really was a liberal compromiser, he wouldn't have been assassinated by the brits... or whoever chose to kill him.

[Ismail]

He was assassinated by a Hindu supremacist. Also neither Gandhi nor MLK Jr. were "incredibly revolutionary." How is non-violence "revolutionary"?

"Incredibly revolutionary" describes Marx, Engels, Lenin and what have you. Gandhi was progressive at best, if even that. There were plenty of radical figures in India at the time who distrusted Gandhi and viewed him, as Stalin said, as a liberal compromiser.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Gandhi had some flaws but he wasn't an advocate for the bourgeois. He also wasn't a Marxist or an Anarchist in the Western sense of those terms because he was coming from a tradition focused around the Hindu and Jain philosophies. This is where he got his nonviolence and village simplicity. Nor was he petit bourgeois-I would not consider Sadhus as members of that class.

Perhaps one could say his ideas had many elements of anarchism and agrarian socialism. He thought that the rural agricultural community of the type he grew up in with home-made crafts and small scale production was a model which the country could learn from. He opposed many of the things which the bourgeois and the traditional leftists both support in India, in particular the large-scale centralization and modernization of the country. In that respect his views are idiosyncratic.


Independence begins at the bottom... A society must be built in which every village has to be self sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Growth will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaraj

Ismail-yes there were voices who mistrusted Gandhi but they weren't always correct in those criticisms. Some of his critics had fair points like Ambedkar but those were on topics of caste not class. Nonviolence in the context of India in the 1930s and 40s it was quite revolutionary, but it was merely an expression of revolutionary desire in a different cultural context.

[Tim Cornelis]

He was assassinated by a Hindu supremacist. Also neither Gandhi nor MLK Jr. were "incredibly revolutionary." How is non-violence "revolutionary"?

"Incredibly revolutionary" describes Marx, Engels, Lenin and what have you. Gandhi was progressive at best, if even that. There were plenty of radical figures in India at the time who distrusted Gandhi and viewed him, as Stalin said, as a liberal compromiser.

Revolutionary simply means you advocate or fight for radical change. "Revolution" does not equal "bloody violence".

Gandhi did advocate self-governance and democracy from the bottom-up. He also said "The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on nonviolence".

[Ismail]

Revolutionary simply means you advocate or fight for radical change. "Revolution" does not equal "bloody violence".That's not a Marxist usage of the word, that's a bourgeois definition, just like the bourgeoisie have different definitions of "capital," "value," and so on.

E.g. MIA encyclopedia gives the meaning: "Those who amplify the differences and conflicts caused by technological advances in society. Revolutionaries provoke differences and violently ram together contradictions within a society, overthrowing the government through the rising to power of the class they represent. After destructing the old order, revolutionaries help build a new government that adheres to the emerging social relationships that have been made possible by the advanced productive forces."

Even in the case of Gandhi using the bourgeois definition is still rather spurious. I don't know of any serious movement that was built up by Gandhi (mainly because his analysis had no materialism within it and was subordinate to India's independence anyway.) I mean we could call the Dalai Lama a "revolutionary" since he's said that he's a "Marxist" a few times, but no one (except people on Free Republic) seems to take that seriously.

[smk]

That's not a Marxist usage of the word, that's a bourgeois definition, just like the bourgeoisie have different definitions of "capital," "value," and so on.

Even in the case of Gandhi using the bourgeois definition is still rather spurious. I don't know of any serious movement that was built up by Gandhi (mainly because his analysis had no materialism within it and was subordinate to India's independence anyway.) I mean we could call the Dalai Lama a "revolutionary" since he's said that he's a "Marxist" a few times, but no one (except people on Free Republic) seems to take that seriously.

Okay, so let's not use the word "revolutionary" and just say that he is revolting against the old social order. Same? ya. Sure, he wasnt a marxist, but he was still a revolutionary.

also, your violence fetishism sickens me.

[Ismail]

also, your violence fetishism sickens me.I can't help it, I'm a Marxist.

[bricolage]

Anyone know how accurate this stuff is?

For example, he offers no insights into how these movements could develop further, and when talking of the Indian community gives positive reference to Gandhi, not someone renowned for his advocacy of anti-ruling class violence. (Gandhi used his reputation and leadership role to often disarm social movements in India when they threatened to get out of hand; he opposed strikes in the super-exploitative textile industies, even going so far as to threaten suicide if workers went on strike; and he even refused to support a mutiny of a section of the Hindu Royal Garwhali regiment – who were brutally punished for the mutiny - when it refused an order to machine gun unarmed rioting muslims, saying he wouldn't want soldiers in an independent India to refuse his orders to shoot if that became necessary!!!!!)(Le Monde, 20th Feb. 1932).
http://libcom.org/library/south-africa-now-then

[#FF0000]

Okay, so let's not use the word "revolutionary" and just say that he is revolting against the old social order. Same? ya. Sure, he wasnt a marxist, but he was still a revolutionary.

also, your violence fetishism sickens me.

I guess the US has a revolution every four years then

[Seth]

Yeah also there's the thing about Gandhi being a racist.

[Reznov]

He was assassinated by a Hindu supremacist. Also neither Gandhi nor MLK Jr. were "incredibly revolutionary." How is non-violence "revolutionary"?

"Incredibly revolutionary" describes Marx, Engels, Lenin and what have you. Gandhi was progressive at best, if even that. There were plenty of radical figures in India at the time who distrusted Gandhi and viewed him, as Stalin said, as a liberal compromiser.

Excellent. :thumbup1:

[Reznov]

Anyone know how accurate this stuff is?

http://libcom.org/library/south-africa-now-then

I am also very interested in this.

[OHumanista]

Gandhi (though having some merits) was definitely not anarchist or socialist, he had some views on the issue of social problems but they mainly ended up with a primitivist view. Like defending return of mankind to small and "sustenable" villages sometimes.(completely impossible of course)

I once read an article on the "hypocrisy" of images like Gandhi and Mother Theresa. Like the fact they insisted on wearing rags all the time to look "poor and simple" and glorifying the myth that poverty is good.
But poverty isn't good, poverty is what the worker has to endure while he is exploited. Every poor person (and sane) seeks a better life.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I view Gandhi as more of a collaborator in the sense that he did not support the more direct actions of Bhagat Singh and the likes. Sure he got the British of India, but kept their companies, and businesses there which in turn kept the Indians under a similar boot of oppression, only less visible.

[Crux]

Gandhi in his own words: “Unfortunately, I am no superman like Mussolini”

[Nuvem]

I view Gandhi as more of a collaborator in the sense that he did not support the more direct actions of Bhagat Singh and the likes. Sure he got the British of India, but kept their companies, and businesses there which in turn kept the Indians under a similar boot of oppression, only less visible.

No, comrade. Gandhi didn't even get the British out of India. The UK allowed India to claim independence following the devastation resulting from WWII due to the UK not having sufficient funds or manpower to both rebuild and simultaneously maintain the colony in India. Hitler is more responsible for bringing about the independence of India than Gandhi.

IRONIC, SINCE GANDHI THOUGHT HITLER WAS A BOSS.



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.
- Gandhi to the British following the declaration of war by the Axis.



Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.
- Gandhi giving some "wonderful" advice to the Jewish people of Europe.



Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals... The kaffirs' sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness. They're loafers... a species of humanity almost unknown among the Indians
-Gandhi on Africans. What a wonderful man!


Mohandas Gandhi was a monster, an enemy of the oppressed and exploited people of the world and an enemy of humanity in general. His assassination could not have come soon enough, lest he live long enough to convince more poor, deluded souls to sacrifice themselves to his delusional mania. Anarchists are enemies of the working people, but I would much rather Gandhi was an anarchist than what he was- an Indian nationalist, a raging opportunist, a racial supremacist and a man of utter ethical bankruptcy.

Let's recap. The British should surrender to the axis and offer themselves to the Fascist German/Italian slaughter, thereby removing the western bulwark of the Allies, preventing the UK forces from assaulting Africa and Italy and likely preventing US landfall in Europe. This is ensuring millions upon millions more deaths than what occurred historically, and possibly even the victory of the Axis, guaranteeing the near total annihilation of Jews and Romas in Europe and the solidification of Fascism. Okay, Gandhi. Great fucking plan.

The Jews of Europe should all commit suicide and throw themselves at the mercy of the Germans to incite the sympathy of the people of Europe. And if it doesn't? And in the end, they're still all dead. Wouldn't it be better for them to violently struggle against their German captors and make every effort to escape the ghettos and concentration camps than to go quietly to oblivion? Oh wait, supposedly we all get reincarnated so it doesn't matter. I guess that's how Gandhi could justify advocating the deaths of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

And our final claim is that Africans are inherently filthy, disgusting, barely even human. Well that's just fucking great, Gandhi. He compares them to Indians and claims that Africans are inferior, so that makes him a racial supremacist. That's just wonderful, isn't it? Just fucking great. What a wonderful, morally upstanding man.

I would have pulled the trigger if I had the opportunity. It's only a shame it took the gunman until '48 to get the job done.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No, comrade. Gandhi didn't even get the British out of India. The UK allowed India to claim independence following the devastation resulting from WWII due to the UK not having sufficient funds or manpower to both rebuild and simultaneously maintain the colony in India. Hitler is more responsible for bringing about the independence of India than Gandhi.

IRONIC, SINCE GANDHI THOUGHT HITLER WAS A BOSS.

- Gandhi to the British following the declaration of war by the Axis.

- Gandhi giving some "wonderful" advice to the Jewish people of Europe.

-Gandhi on Africans. What a wonderful man!


Mohandas Gandhi was a monster, an enemy of the oppressed and exploited people of the world and an enemy of humanity in general. His assassination could not have come soon enough, lest he live long enough to convince more poor, deluded souls to sacrifice themselves to his delusional mania. Anarchists are enemies of the working people, but I would much rather Gandhi was an anarchist than what he was- an Indian nationalist, a raging opportunist, a racial supremacist and a man of utter ethical bankruptcy.


The problem is, anyone who starts with such a pointless piece of sectarian drivel will certianly be biased. Anarchists are enemies of the working people? Jeez...



Let's recap. The British should surrender to the axis and offer themselves to the Fascist German/Italian slaughter, thereby removing the western bulwark of the Allies, preventing the UK forces from assaulting Africa and Italy and likely preventing US landfall in Europe. This is ensuring millions upon millions more deaths than what occurred historically, and possibly even the victory of the Axis, guaranteeing the near total annihilation of Jews and Romas in Europe and the solidification of Fascism. Okay, Gandhi. Great fucking plan.

The Jews of Europe should all commit suicide and throw themselves at the mercy of the Germans to incite the sympathy of the people of Europe. And if it doesn't? And in the end, they're still all dead. Wouldn't it be better for them to violently struggle against their German captors and make every effort to escape the ghettos and concentration camps than to go quietly to oblivion? Oh wait, supposedly we all get reincarnated so it doesn't matter. I guess that's how Gandhi could justify advocating the deaths of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.
Gandian pacifism was a naive approach to WWII and the holocaust but that does not make him a bad human being. Perhaps he was a foolish for thinking that 3,000 year old Jain philosophical arguments were applicable to the holocaust. But one can be a naive fool and still a good person.



And our final claim is that Africans are inherently filthy, disgusting, barely even human. Well that's just fucking great, Gandhi. He compares them to Indians and claims that Africans are inferior, so that makes him a racial supremacist. That's just wonderful, isn't it? Just fucking great. What a wonderful, morally upstanding man.
By the time he became an independence leader he was not a racial supremacist by any standard. This is slander and you are taking his views out of their historical-temporal context. The racist views he expressed in the quote you give were from his youth, well before he became a pro-Independence rabble rouser. It was his experience with "Kaffirs" that taught him the evils of Imperialism. Anyways, Marx made a few racist and homophobic comments in his time, should we then throw his works in the rubbish? Of course not, it is better to understand the context and history behind those views. In Gandhi's case, what you see was that it was a case of developing political views.


Gandhi (though having some merits) was definitely not anarchist or socialist, he had some views on the issue of social problems but they mainly ended up with a primitivist view. Like defending return of mankind to small and "sustenable" villages sometimes.(completely impossible of course)

I once read an article on the "hypocrisy" of images like Gandhi and Mother Theresa. Like the fact they insisted on wearing rags all the time to look "poor and simple" and glorifying the myth that poverty is good.
But poverty isn't good, poverty is what the worker has to endure while he is exploited. Every poor person (and sane) seeks a better life.

He was a "hindu-anarchist" or "socialist" in that he was someone whose ideas approached socialist ideas from a traditionally Indian philosophical and historical perspective. He basically believed in a sort of village-socialism more than "primitivism" in that he supported some low-key technology for local communities. He just did not like modern, urban technology and mass production. I don't defend village-socialism and whatnot, but its important to give Gandhi fair treatment and not to just slander him because he wasn't as radical as some might have liked. He was still a monumental figure and history and even if his ideas should not be followed 100% he still some interesting arguments and tactics.


How is his view of poverty particularly hypocritical, Gandhi lived a poor and simple lifestyle himself? It's not like he was living in a palace while preaching poverty the way the Pope does. This kind of description also ignores the context. Its an oversimplification to just write him off as someone who glorified poverty or something without considering the historical, cultural and philosophical background of early 1900s India.


I view Gandhi as more of a collaborator in the sense that he did not support the more direct actions of Bhagat Singh and the likes. Sure he got the British of India, but kept their companies, and businesses there which in turn kept the Indians under a similar boot of oppression, only less visible.

Well, that arguably was Nehru, not Gandhi, Gandhi died in 1948 and can't really be held to account for post-independent policies. I would certainly consider Gandhi more revolutionary than the Fabians in the INC.

He also led a number of successful collective actions, like the salt strike which inspired people around the world. Certainly it wasn't some great Marxist revolt, but it did a lot to unite Indians behind mass action and it inspired many protest movements after to follow the tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha


Yeah also there's the thing about Gandhi being a racist.

He made the remarks mentioned as racist in the early 1900s when he was still a committed Imperialist. He abandoned those views later when he saw the evils of Imperialism. It's not a crime to be an idiot when you're young as long as you change your views in time.

[OHumanista]

And that is why I said it is a different kind of hipocrisy and "gloryfing" poverty.
When a person has the means to have a decent life but instead walks around with rags it ins't humility, it is showing off, as if wearing rags made him/her a better person.

It is no simplification, he wasn't poor and the poor don't want to be poor period. Intentionally wallowing in poverty is what he is guilty of. Get your facts right, he was burgeois.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And that is why I said it is a different kind of hipocrisy and "gloryfing" poverty.
When a person has the means to have a decent life but instead walks around with rags it ins't humility, it is showing off, as if wearing rags made him/her a better person.

It is no simplification, he wasn't poor and the poor don't want to be poor period. Intentionally wallowing in poverty is what he is guilty of. Get your facts right, he was burgeois.

He wasn't bourgeois and he didn't "glorify poverty", he was a religious ascetic. There are millions in India who live in rags by choice, and they don't glorify poverty for the sake of poverty they glorify "detachment" from the material world. Most of them don't gain any international and political recognition (and unlike Gandhi, those more corrupted ones who do end up becoming famous then become fabulously rich by selling overpriced yoga programs). I wouldn't call Buddha "bourgeois" for quitting the aristocracy, and I wouldn't call Gandhi the same for doing the same to his caste in the modern era.

If you can criticize anything about Gandhi's ideology from a practical perspective its that he thought pacifism can fix the world and that village life could sustain the planet. At worst these are naive beliefs, and not necessarily anti-socialist. The other thing one can legitimately criticize him on was his view on Caste-he supported equal rights for them but low-caste leaders like Ambedkar saw his views as condescending.

[pastradamus]

The guy was a blatant racist, sexist and a complete pervert - not the criteria for anarchism I imagine.

[Queercommie Girl]

also, your violence fetishism sickens me.


Actually genuine Marxism never fetishises violence, I don't know where some people have got such an idea from.

On the other hand Gandhi's absolute pacifism must be rejected. Sometimes violence is required.

[W1N5T0N]

how can you be bourgeois if you own little more than a tunic and a stick?

oh yeah, and glasses. :laugh:

[pastradamus]

how can you be bourgeois if you own little more than a tunic and a stick?

oh yeah, and glasses. :laugh:

It depends on how much the three are worth. :lol:

[GPDP]

Can we all at least agree that Ghandi is overrated?

[Nehru]

The fact that he's hated both by the right (hindu nationalists) and the left shows that he must have done something right.:)

[Ismail]

The fact that he's hated both by the right (hindu nationalists) and the left shows that he must have done something right.:)It shows that he wasn't a communist but wasn't a fascist either. Amazing.

[smk]

I guess the US has a revolution every four years then

no. presidents dont change the social order in the least.

[Sir Comradical]

The fact that he's hated both by the right (hindu nationalists) and the left shows that he must have done something right.:)

The hatred towards Gandhi from the Hindu right, needless to say, is completely ridiculous. They accuse him of being responsible for India's partition because he was too nice to the Muslims.

He was a utopian because he never focused on the class question, and his ideal was along the lines of an agrarian future for India where people would live off the land. It's an ideal driven by the supposed virtues of renouncing the material world and all that hindu crap that a lot of Indians, even secular ones, buy into.

[khad]

The guy was a blatant racist, sexist and a complete pervert - not the criteria for anarchism I imagine.
Yet they are criteria proudly displayed by not a few proud contributors to this forum over the years.

[Desperado]

The guy was a blatant racist, sexist and a complete pervert

Do you have links for these?

[pastradamus]

The hatred towards Gandhi from the hindu right, needless to say, is completely ridiculous. They accuse him of being responsible for India's partition because he was too nice to the Muslims.

He was a utopian because he never focused on the class question, and his ideal was along the lines of an agrarian future for India where people would live off the land. It's an ideal driven by the supposed virtues of renouncing the material world and all that hindu crap that a lot of Indians, even secular ones, buy into.

I couldn't agree more. This is an excellent post. When people believe in such virtues and religions they can never truely be free. Excellent and precise post Sir C!

[Nehru]

Do you have links for these?

Nope, but if we make an accusation a thousand times, it becomes a fact. Add to that some obscure internet source ascribing certain 'quotes' to the Mahatma, making him look racist, sexist, and whatnot. As far as lies and slander go, there isn't much difference between right and left.

[Sir Comradical]

I couldn't agree more. This is an excellent post. When people believe in such virtues and religions they can never truely be free. Excellent and precise post Sir C!

Having said that, you have to admire Norman Finkelstein's take on Gandhi.

"Gandhi was not a categorical opponent of violence"

pQo4murIVIc

[Yuppie Grinder]

Ghandi and MLK were wonderful people.
Neither were revolutionary leftists.

[Sir Comradical]

Nope, but if we make an accusation a thousand times, it becomes a fact. Add to that some obscure internet source ascribing certain 'quotes' to the Mahatma, making him look racist, sexist, and whatnot. As far as lies and slander go, there isn't much difference between right and left.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

The right-wing criticisms of Gandhi are batshit insane to say the least. The Hindu right-wing hates Gandhi because of their fanatic hatred for Muslims, so they blame him for partition even though Gandhi was against it. Right-wing Sikhs, especially those of the Khalistani variety accuse Gandhi of conspiring with the British to have Bhagat Singh killed.

The left-wing criticism of Gandhi is that he represented the interests of the national bourgeoisie and actively discouraged workers from drawing conclusions based around class. That he had a paternalistic attitude towards Dalits which continues to be espoused by modern Gandhians like Anna Hazare. That he was racist towards Africans in SA and that he held backward views on agricultural and industrial development.

[Nehru]

You have GOT to be kidding me.

The right-wing criticisms of Gandhi are batshit insane to say the least. The Hindu right-wing hates Gandhi because of their fanatic hatred for Muslims, so they blame him for partition even though Gandhi was against it. Right-wing Sikhs, especially those of the Khalistani variety accuse Gandhi of conspiring with the British to have Bhagat Singh killed.

The left-wing criticism of Gandhi is that he represented the interests of the national bourgeoisie and actively discouraged workers from drawing conclusions based around class. That he had a paternalistic attitude towards Dalits which continues to be espoused by modern Gandhians like Anna Hazare. That he was racist towards Africans in SA and that he held backward views on agricultural and industrial development.

Leftists also come up with slander, emotional appeals, and lies - no evidence aside from dubious internet sources, hearsay etc. Face it, they're no different from right-wing conspiracy theories. Right uses religious rhetoric, while the left doesn't. Maybe, that's the only difference? But the approach is basically the same - lie repeatedly, provide no evidence, repeat accusations, and so on.

[Sir Comradical]

Leftists also come up with slander, emotional appeals, and lies - no evidence aside from dubious internet sources, hearsay etc. Face it, they're no different from right-wing conspiracy theories. Right uses religious rhetoric, while the left doesn't. Maybe, that's the only difference? But the approach is basically the same - lie repeatedly, provide no evidence, repeat accusations, and so on.

Bullshit. Give me some examples.

[Aspiring Humanist]

I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.
-Gandhi

[Iron Felix]

Well if you're a Marxist, I find it odd that you call yourself a Hoxhaist.

[Ismail]

Well if you're a Marxist, I find it odd that you call yourself a Hoxhaist."Hoxhaism" as a term was founded by Maoists to attack those who defended the positions of Enver Hoxha anyway, so people really shouldn't be using it, especially since the Party of Labour of Albania frowned upon its usage.

[pastradamus]

Do you have links for these?

I could easily come up with a number of links by doing a google search. However my personal favourite explaination of Gandhi's racism etc is an episode of Penn & Teller Bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A5yqjlM_jU