Gandhi

[Rage Against Right]

Ive been doing some reading on ghandi and think he is an incredible man, though a religous man, but i myself can put this aside because his ideas are fascinating.

and i wanted to try my hand at a poll?

Does it matter that religion may be behind a revolutionary man?

[Rage Against Right]

Oh there should be it doesn't matter aswell on the poll, can that be changed or not?

[Boriznov]

No, aslong he is doing revolutionary actions his religion does not matter.
If it interferes with what has to be done then it is hazardous otherwhise no.

[Jazzratt]

His religion influenced him toward pacifism which is a bad thing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the abstract if someone's religion moved them toward activism and standing up to imperialism or capitalism, then that is not a bad direction to go in. I think MLK and Malcom X are two people who were religious, but, more importantly, they were activists and challengers of the system.

THe problem with Gandhi was not religion, but, as someone else said, his inflexable belief in pacifism and his dedication to class peace.

Gandhi was anti-communist and was againt workers striking. Because he cooperated with the british imperialists, he agreed to the partician of Inda which led to the deaths of a million people - not to mention could still lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

Pascifism can be used for good, but Gandhi wanted peace between the classes which is always bad for workers ultimately because it delevers us into the hands of our own exploiters.

[More Fire for the People]

No, because his religious beliefs led him to be a pacifists. If he deduced a program of armed radical working class politics from his religion then I would said otherwise.

[RedStarOverChina]

Gandhi? a revolutionary?

hmm that's news to me.


He was neither a pacifist nor a revolutionary--he's a hypocrite.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:37 pm
His religion influenced him toward pacifism which is a bad thing.
Ghandi was Never a pacifist he was just painted that way by people who would have you believe violence will get you nowhere.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Rage Against Right+--> (Rage Against Right)Ive been doing some reading on ghandi and think he is an incredible man, though a religous man, but i myself can put this aside because his ideas are fascinating.
[/b]

He can be compared to Utopian socialists. He was never a communist but his Key contribution to Indian working class is he united them by making them think as a part of one single entity across race,religion,caste and language.

It was because of his Ideals India stands as a one state. So he didn't use his only own religion to do it. He took somethings fromn Islam,Christianity and Hinduism.


Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger). Because he cooperated with the british imperialists, he agreed to the partician of Inda which led to the deaths of a million people - not to mention could still lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
[/b]

That was the most ignorant and bullshit rant I have ever heard against Gandhi. He was dead against partition but the problem he is the only prominent one in Congress against it.

And he never co-operated with British imperialists unlike the great CPI under Comintern's direction.


Originally posted by Jazzratt
His religion influenced him toward pacifism which is a bad thing.

Actually his religion in most cases is more violent and very anti-pacifist. Ever heard of Bahgavad Gita ? It has originated in a battle ground on the eve of a battle.

Gandhi tried to change the religion from numerous prejudices and superstitions. Of course he failed in that.


Originally posted by seraphim

Ghandi was Never a pacifist he was just painted that way by people who would have you believe violence will get you nowhere.

True. He was even against the usages of Ahimsa to justify one's cowardice to take any action. He supported Russian Revolution in general and justified the usage of violence by Bolsheviks.


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
No, because his religious beliefs led him to be a pacifists.

Again his non violence philosophy is more influenced from Leo Tolstoy. He took from his religion what ever suited for his philosophy.


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
If he deduced a program of armed radical working class politics from his religion then I would said otherwise.

Those things would have easily turned in bitter internal sectarian war by the British Imperialists. Even if he had wanted he could have never done it.The material conditions was not suited during his time.



[email protected]
Gandhi? a revolutionary?


Yes he is as much a revolutionary as Mao.



Rage Against Right
Does it matter that religion may be behind a revolutionary man?

I really don't know. But Hinduism is not certainly behind every actions of Gandhi and both Islam and Christianity have equal weightage as much as Hinduism in some of his beliefs, practices and policies. In short he took from them whatever suits to his beliefs ,practices and policies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I didn't say that the partition was hi idea, onlt that he agreed to it in the end - class peace was more important to him.

Gandhi on class peace:
"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."

[Enragé]

Yes he is as much a revolutionary as Mao.

i agree
replaces one oppression with the other

very revolutionary!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Ghandi was really racist towards black people. <_<

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+March 30, 2007 04:41 am--> (bloody_capitalist_sham &#064; March 30, 2007 04:41 am) Ghandi was really racist towards black people. <_< [/b]
He was indeed when he was first in South Africa. That is because his caste background. His attitude only changed when he was thrown out of Tram for travelling in a white only coach. Men are not born good or bad. They learn to become only through experience.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I didn&#39;t say that the partition was hi idea, onlt that he agreed to it in the end - class peace was more important to him.

I don&#39;t know what you mean by class-peace. Partition issue was raised by some Muslim capitalists who saw the danger to their positions in a Hindu Majority India(they can&#39;t enjoy the privileges they enjoyed under Nawabs,Nizams,Sultans and Mughals and form the British Raj). Some power greedy Congress Leaders who did not cared about millions of people agreed to it. Gandhi had no choice. His opposition meant nothing. But you certainly paint that he is responsible for partition elevating him to a certain.

Till today the problems of Indian and Pakistani workers are because of this accursed partition.


NKOS
replaces one oppression with the other

very revolutionary&#33;

I don&#39;t know but what was replaced by Mao in china was way better than what was before.Men make their own history but they do not do it as they please. Given the material conditions in China what Mao did was 100 times better than what you could expect him to do.

I certainly put Mao and Gandhi in same place. Only difference between them is Gandhi never claimed to be a communist.

[Trystan]

He often used Hindu imagery, in order to awaken the Hindu masses, something that turned out to be a mistake because people started to realize that the British Empire&#39;s colonialization had created competition between rival groups. Which of course lead to the partition (not that Gandhi is solely responsible or anything but that probably fueled it). So for that reason, his religion was a bad thing.

As for his post-revolutionary politics, Gandhi actually said he was an Anarchist.
He favoured a libertarian socialist like society where each village had a council of 5 elected representatives, or something like that. (Although was also quite sexist, with his belief that women should have different roles than the men.)

[ichneumon]

it seems to me that most leftists fault gandhi because he didn&#39;t kill millions of people, whereas folks like lenin or mao are a-okay. i 100% disagree - violence in the name of revolution against totalitarianism, yes, but as a leader of a nation, against your own people? never.

[Eleutherios]

Yes. We&#39;re all disappointed that he didn&#39;t kill lots of innocent Indian civilians. That&#39;s our problem. :rolleyes:

It couldn&#39;t have anything to do with the fact that he did nothing to even try to oppose the capitalist class system, which survived his immense political influence completely unscathed to this day. Although he called himself a socialist, he seemed to be content with just reforming the worst aspects of capitalism away. He did not advocate a proletarian revolution, the abolition of the class system, or democratic popular control over the means of production. He merely advocated a non-violent means of transferring power from the British bourgeoisie to the Indian bourgeoisie.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:16 am
He often used Hindu imagery, in order to awaken the Hindu masses, something that turned out to be a mistake because people started to realize that the British Empire&#39;s colonialization had created competition between rival groups. Which of course lead to the partition (not that Gandhi is solely responsible or anything but that probably fueled it). So for that reason, his religion was a bad thing.


Again he used somethings from both Islam and Christianity. Muslim seperationists used the growth of Hindu Nationalist movements such as Hindu Mahasabha(whose origins where at a time when Gandhi was not much popular in India politics) and RSS(who originated in 1925 but gained popularity only during the 1940&#39;s when Muslim League&#39;s demand of Pakistan became popular). So Gandhi actions where in no way responsible for partition of India.



As for his post-revolutionary politics, Gandhi actually said he was an Anarchist.


I highly doubht it. He never claimed to be. Can you provide any source or citation ?


He favoured a libertarian socialist like society where each village had a council of 5 elected representatives, or something like that.

Yes. He advocated a strange kind of Socialism which is based on self sufficiency of villages. I highly doubht it would work out in practice.


(Although was also quite sexist, with his belief that women should have different roles than the men.)

Again can you provide a source ? Explicitly where does he have stated that women should not learn to read/write, women should stay in kitchen or women should bear with their husbands misdeeds and mistreatment of them ?

Certainly he himself was a wife beater in his early life. So don&#39;t hang on with that point alone.



It couldn&#39;t have anything to do with the fact that he did nothing to even try to oppose the capitalist class system, which survived his immense political influence completely unscathed to this day. Although he called himself a socialist, he seemed to be content with just reforming the worst aspects of capitalism away. He did not advocate a proletarian revolution, the abolition of the class system, or democratic popular control over the means of production. He merely advocated a non-violent means of transferring power from the British bourgeoisie to the Indian bourgeoisie.

Yet another stupid rant without taking in to account the time he lived in and the material conditions of the place he struggled for. For a Last time He is not a communist nor did he say he believed in class struggle. But look at his numerous actions which has prevented the free India from plunging in to a sectarian hell hole.
He deserves full credit for that.

[Trystan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:23 am



I highly doubht it. He never claimed to be. Can you provide any source or citation ?


I have a book on the shelf called &#39;Demanding the Impossible - a History of Anarchism&#39;. He called himself "a kind of anarchist" several times. Including in a speach he made in 1916 where he said he was an anarchist "but of another type" (ie other than the terrorist type).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Trystan+April 02, 2007 12:29 am--> (Trystan @ April 02, 2007 12:29 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 08:23 am



I highly doubht it. He never claimed to be. Can you provide any source or citation ?


I have a book on the shelf called &#39;Demanding the Impossible - a History of Anarchism&#39;. He called himself "a kind of anarchist" several times. Including in a speach he made in 1916 where he said he was an anarchist "but of another type" (ie other than the terrorist type). [/b]
Well he might be influenced by Anarchism but saying that he is an anarchist will only make anarchists of this forum to flame you.

Anyway you can see many influences of Kropotkin in his practices and his version of socialism.

[Lenin II]

Fuck Ghandi. He was a wife-and-child-beating anorexic ho. Nonviolent protest, my ass.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:41 pm
Fuck Ghandi.
Sorry you can&#39;t. He is dead and his body was exhumed.


He was a wife-and-child-beating anorexic ho.

Care to provide from which source you got this Idea ?


Nonviolent protest, my ass.

Sorry it is not your ass.

[Zero]

Debatable.

It is certainly obvious that what lead him to political struggle, distention, and later "revolutionary" distention was (among other things) religious interpretation of holy texts. This interpretation caused him to convince good people to lay their lives down for events that hold little weight in history. Violence created the Paris commune, the Oaxaca commune, the St. Petersburg commune. Pacifism created the Salt Marches.

Although his committed reliance on Pacifism as a means to an end made him internationally recognized as a force of general good. Thus went a long way towards converting people towards a more Humanistic position on their fellow man.

In the end I have to vote yes.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

A better example is Martin Luther King, who never shut up about Jesus and God. It's a bad thing that these principles are sourced in religion, because it encourages an association between metaphysical fantasy and progress, and there is no link there. Far better would be for those impulses to come from simply being a normal, decent human.

However, if it's either religion and action or non-religion and no action, the former is definitely preferable.

-Alex

[kromando33]

You seem to be skating over his well-known racism and nationalism.

[KC]

His religion influenced him toward pacifism which is a bad thing.

Actually he was an advocate of the tactic of nonviolence, not pacifism. Huge difference.


It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he did nothing to even try to oppose the capitalist class system, which survived his immense political influence completely unscathed to this day. Although he called himself a socialist, he seemed to be content with just reforming the worst aspects of capitalism away. He did not advocate a proletarian revolution, the abolition of the class system, or democratic popular control over the means of production. He merely advocated a non-violent means of transferring power from the British bourgeoisie to the Indian bourgeoisie.

And in completely ignoring the progress and development that has come out of the Indian anti-colonial movement you divorce yourself from any semblance of Marxist analysis.

Marxists laud the positives while criticizing the negatives.


You seem to be skating over his well-known racism and nationalism.

Many "anti-imperialist" and anti-colonial movements are deeply nationalist.

[MarxSchmarx]

You seem to be skating over his well-known racism and nationalism

Do forgive us non-leninists!! We don't expect our brightest luminaries to be saints or perfectionists!!

Unlike your great leaders, we never advocated the superiority of the German proletariat or the Russian/Albanian/Soviet/Chinese/North Korean way of life.

I am so sorry, our sincerest apologies :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

Gandhi actually channelled all the anti-imperialist sentiment in India into very "safe" forms of expression. He was an anti-revolutionary, and on many occassions he supported the British army in massacring Indians. The British would have pulled out of India with or without Gandhi, he simply made sure the transition was smooth for elite interests. Even George Orwell noted that Gandhi was very popular among the British officer class, because he helped prevent any actions which would have actually made a difference.

[Black Dagger]

I voted 'yes' - not because i agree with the statement but just because the question is soooo silly; there's no attempt to explain which aspects of his religious beliefs affect which principals and so it basically becomes a shallow, 'do you think religion is good or bad?' type question.

P.S. His name is spelt Gandhi - the 'h' goes at the end not the beginning.

[Bandito]

Ghandi was really racist towards black people. <_<


And also Jewish people.
There is a statement that he advocated that all european Jews caught by holocaust should peacefuly go to camps,starve or be murdered,because that is the way to fight the nazis?!
Even that there is some dialectic thoughts about it(the future examples) that is surely not revolutionary.

[Dean]

And also Jewish people.
There is a statement that he advocated that all european Jews caught by holocaust should peacefuly go to camps,starve or be murdered,because that is the way to fight the nazis?!
Even that there is some dialectic thoughts about it(the future examples) that is surely not revolutionary.

That statement wasn't anti-semitic. It was stupid and tactless, but not anti-semitic, at least not for Ghandi.

[Dystisis]

I voted 'yes' - not because i agree with the statement but just because the question is soooo silly; there's no attempt to explain which aspects of his religious beliefs affect which principals and so it basically becomes a shallow, 'do you think religion is good or bad?' type question.

P.S. His name is spelt Gandhi - the 'h' goes at the end not the beginning.
I agree, I did the same for the same reason.

Obviously, "religion" in the organized sense preaching about looney men that fitted the political agenda of their organization is a negative thing.

But if you're thinking about religion as in "what started the universe", alternatively "what is behind the universe" then the answer to that question surely affects everyone (who isn't spoonfed media crap all day) in a way.

[F9]

Ofcourse no!Religion blinds you on some views!
ps:i have accidentally voted yes

Fuserg9:star:

[Sankofa]

Fuck Gandhi.

He was neither a pacifist, nor a revolutionary. He hated lower caste indians and africans.

He even joined the British Army to suppress the Zulu rebellion against colonial rule in 1906.

[darkened day 92]

Ofcourse no!Religion blinds you on some views!
ps:i have accidentally voted yes

Fuserg9:Star:
That is not really true if u see it in ceartin way religion is a point of view its a way of life its a philosophy that if you don't agree with you should change it or it will simply be hypocritical to belong to a religion you don't agree with.
People should debate men of religion to understand what it is really understand what its really about. The bible, qu'ran.. they all have very intellectual philosphies. it can only be binding if u accept its philosphy only because you're parents believe it thats when its really binding.

[Bandito]

That statement wasn't anti-semitic. It was stupid and tactless, but not anti-semitic, at least not for Ghandi.
I olnly quoted this particular one as a stupid one.
There are dozen of his statements that are anti-semitic.

[Dean]

I olnly quoted this particular one as a stupid one.
There are dozen of his statements that are anti-semitic.

Then please post them. I have seen acusations like this before, and the evidence has usually pointed to the contrary.

[Bandito]

We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do...by advocating the purity of all races.

Ok,this was his "greatest work",including every colour.

[Djehuti]

Gandhi is a liberal icon, I don't see why socialists should hold him in any regard. He supported the british in the Boer-wars as well as in both world wars. He supported class-cooperation, the hindu cast system and excluded muslims from his movement.

He is used by liberals as a myth, "Gandhi liberated India without any violence!", turning millions of struggling, striking and rioting indians invisible. All we hear is about Gandhi, it was he and he alone who "liberated" India... Bullshit.

[Dean]

We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do...by advocating the purity of all races.

Ok,this was his "greatest work",including every colour.

I can believe that that is a racist quote, unfortunately it doesn't distinctly characterize him as an antisemite.

[anarchy666]

Religion, although it can be a problem, does have some positive parts. Religion should be personal, not for other people to criticized. Gandhi was far, far away from the mainstream Hinduism, since he was an anarchist (read the quote on my signature.) Religion is often a powertrip, but does have some benefits. Gandhi was an amazing man and his religion shouldn't be criticized.