Gandhi supported Leninism

[blazeofglory]

"The devotion of such titans of spirit as Lenin to an Ideal must bear fruit. The nobility of his selflessness will be an example through centuries to come, and his Ideal will reach perfection."
Mahatma Gandhi

[Rawthentic]

Hurray for Lenin's god-like glorification!!

[Prairie Fire]

Ghandi supported Leninism? :D

That notorious "Pacifist" shit smear also killed 1 million people.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Gandhi supported a lot of people in his time. He had a bit of a fixation on personality if you ask me.

[sexyguy]

A good example of opportunism at work. Do you have any more examples like this?

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:33 am
Ghandi supported Leninism? :D

That notorious "Pacifist" shit smear also killed 1 million people.
Wow, can you do that trick again? The one where you regurgitate capitalist shit, and chew on it like camel cudd?

Stop hijacking every fucking Leninist thread you can find. We can't all be anarchists. Some of us have to take this seriously.

Anyway back to Ghandi...

I'm surprised to hear this. Well, somewhat. How does Ghandi reconcile the obvious non-pacifist nature of Lenin?

[Vargha Poralli]

RNK

RavenBlade was a Hoxhaist not anarchist. I think you have misread/misunderstood what he wrote.


Originally posted by
RavenBlade +--> (
RavenBlade )That notorious "Pacifist" shit smear also killed 1 million people.[/b]

If you don't know about something you shoul;d better shut up and hide your stupidity instead of proving that you are an total @$$#013


RNK

Anyway back to Ghandi...

I'm surprised to hear this. Well, somewhat. How does Ghandi reconcile the obvious non-pacifist nature of Lenin?

Gandhi himself was not a pacifist. His non-violencce principle just forbids the usage of violence.It does not forbid someone to take any action like Jehovah's witness,Quakers do.He himself have said that non-violent action should not be used to cover one's cowardice and inability to take any action.

HE like millions of people at that time that soviet Russia and Russain revolution were remarkable events of Human developement. So he welcomed it generally.

[blazeofglory]

I am surprised to see that all of you are as surprised as I am

well I thought some of you comrades would no more... lets hope someone does. In the meantime I'll try to search for more such quotes

[Prairie Fire]

RNK:


Wow, can you do that trick again? The one where you regurgitate capitalist shit, and chew on it like camel cudd?

Stop hijacking every fucking Leninist thread you can find. We can't all be anarchists. Some of us have to take this seriously.

Holy shit, I'm anarchist?! I had no idea! :blink:

Unless Anarchism is transmittable as an STD, then I don't got it :lol: .

I'm an anti-revisionist ,Marxist-Leninist. I uphold Marx, Engles, LENIN, Stalin and Enver Hoxha.

When I said "He killed 1 million people", I was talking about Ghandi, dumbfuck.

I guess I can't expect you to take precious seconds out of your life to read an avatar :rolleyes: .

Sexy guy:

A good example of opportunism at work. Do you have any more examples like this?

Are you talking to me, or Blazeofglory ?

g.ram:


RavenBlade was a Hoxhaist not anarchist. I think you have misread/misunderstood what he wrote.

Damn straight.



If you don't know about something you shoul;d better shut up and hide your stupidity instead of proving that you are an total @$$#013

If you want to debunk my claim, present an argument. I realize you are from India, but as a communist ( which I assume you are), why the fuck are you defending Ghandi? Do the Naxhalites defend Ghandi ? Do any other socialist organizations in India defend Ghandi? Ghandi may have lead a national liberation struggle, but he did not change the balance of power in india, in regard to class.
The British Imperialists were forced to take down their flags, but that's about it;
Their monopoly's and economic interests remained in place, and their power over India was not terribly disrupted. In addition, Ghandi did not abolish the caste system, and I stick to my guns when I claim that he killed 1 million people.
If you deny any of these points than you are a national chauvenist, masqerading as a socialist.

So Ghandi payed lip service to Leninism at one point ; so what?
The Dalai Lama also claimed that to be "Half-Marxist" and in favour of Marxism, despite the autocratic, theocratic and dictatorial nature of his own rule in Tibet.
Many Tyrants who disguise themselves as "Men of peace" pay lip-service to the accomplishments of socialism at one point or another. Until these men actually mobilize the working class and implement socialism, it's meaningless, two-faced deception, nothing more.

[sexyguy]

"The devotion of such titans of spirit as Lenin to an Ideal must bear fruit. The nobility of his selflessness will be an example through centuries to come, and his Ideal will reach perfection."
Mahatma Gandhi

There is nothing “surprising” about this (assuming the quote is authentic and accurate) Break it down to see that while giving the appearance of praise and reaping some reflected glory, this opportunist lawyer is in fact trying to blunt Lenin’s REVOLUTIONARY stand.

Lets do it now:

“The devotion of such titans of spirit...”

Notice: It’s not Gandhi’s devotion, and not even devotion of Lenin, but others devotion “ of such titans of spirit as Lenin” .

“to an Ideal must bear fruit”

Notice: an or any “Ideal” according Gandhi “must bear fruit”

“The nobility of his selflessness ”

Notice: “The nobility...” = phoney patronising bourgeois - dignity, graciousness, decency, or goodness.

“will be an example through the centuries to come,”

Notice: Not now! When it is needed! but “through the centuries to come,”

“and his Ideal will reach perfection."

Notice: Like a good Guru, he talks about what he calls Lenin’s “Ideal”, “reaching perfecion And all good Hindus know that perfection is only attained in the after life.

Gandhi, the cynical opportunist priestly lawyer is cleverly using what looks like praise to undermine the revolutionary essence of Lenin's fight. (assuming the quote is authentic and accurate) !

[Vargha Poralli]

I realize you are from India, but as a communist ( which I assume you are), why the fuck are you defending Ghandi?

I am defending Gandhi because I live in India and have analysed the struggle of our people using Historical Materialism. My analysis is based on facts not on propaganda.



Do the Naxhalites defend Ghandi ?

No and they do not represent the Indian workers and peasants.


Do any other socialist organizations in India defend Ghandi?

Yes. More than a dozen branches of the original CPI have analysed Gandhi and recopgnise his role in the Histroical progress of India. You cannot write off him without writing off millions who followed him to his death.


Ghandi may have lead a national liberation struggle, but he did not change the balance of power in india, in regard to class.

Sure you have to make a very hard homework.

Look Gandhi is not a COMMUNIST. To be honest Independence from the British control itself was secondary for him . He was mainly determined to fight the most backward mentality of the masses during the time, the social ills which has put them under the british domination in the first place.


He was the one who united the Indian workers and peasants above the Race,Language,Religion and Castes .It is because of him India still manage to stand as one country unlike Yugoslavia even with more internal divisions than the latter.


The British Imperialists were forced to take down their flags, but that's about it;

Which would have never happened without the works of Gandhi. It is true he vehemently opposed Independence during the time the British were packing up because he recognised the danger of partition. and he was 100% rigth in it .


In addition, Ghandi did not abolish the caste system,

I really don't know what you are thinking. Number one Gandhi never ruled the Indians. He actively fought the caste system. He could hnot have abolished it. He had not authoriyt to ban anything.


Caste syatem cannot be abolished by one single man. It needs a social change. It is gradually losing its significance because of the Affirmative action by the Indian government and will phase out in due course of time.



and I stick to my guns when I claim that he killed 1 million people.

Then you should provide evidence that 1 million people died in India when he lived. Then next thing you have to prove is it is Because of Gandhi they have died. Both of them are very difficult top prove because they have not happened.




If you deny any of these points than you are a national chauvenist, masqerading as a socialist.

Labeling me a national chauvinist beforehand does not make you to win the argument. You have to prove what you have claimed.


So Ghandi payed lip service to Leninism at one point ; so what?

Gandhi did not pay lip service to Leninism. He just supported the Russian Revolution. It is notable because that event was totally against his ideals and that does not stop him from supporting it.


The Dalai Lama also claimed that to be "Half-Marxist" and in favour of Marxism, despite the autocratic, theocratic and dictatorial nature of his own rule in Tibet.
Many Tyrants who disguise themselves as "Men of peace" pay lip-service to the accomplishments of socialism at one point or another.

You are assuming that Gandhi ruled India. He did not.




Until these men actually mobilize the working class and implement socialism, it's meaningless, two-faced deception, nothing more.

That's hilarious coming from a supporter of Hoxha.

I have provided my arguments now the ball is in your court.
************************************************** *


Originally posted by blazeofglory
In the meantime I'll try to search for more such quotes


No you will not find anymore "quotes". The Internet archive of his works is down right now. If you are intrested serach for his writings during that time frame(1920's).

[blazeofglory]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:44 pm

"The devotion of such titans of spirit as Lenin to an Ideal must bear fruit. The nobility of his selflessness will be an example through centuries to come, and his Ideal will reach perfection."
Mahatma Gandhi

There is nothing “surprising” about this (assuming the quote is authentic and accurate) Break it down to see that while giving the appearance of praise and reaping some reflected glory, this opportunist lawyer is in fact trying to blunt Lenin’s REVOLUTIONARY stand.

Lets do it now:

“The devotion of such titans of spirit...”

Notice: It’s not Gandhi’s devotion, and not even devotion of Lenin, but others devotion “ of such titans of spirit as Lenin” .

“to an Ideal must bear fruit”

Notice: an or any “Ideal” according Gandhi “must bear fruit”

“The nobility of his selflessness ”

Notice: “The nobility...” = phoney patronising bourgeois - dignity, graciousness, decency, or goodness.

“will be an example through the centuries to come,”

Notice: Not now! When it is needed! but “through the centuries to come,”

“and his Ideal will reach perfection."

Notice: Like a good Guru, he talks about what he calls Lenin’s “Ideal”, “reaching perfecion And all good Hindus know that perfection is only attained in the after life.

Gandhi, the cynical opportunist priestly lawyer is cleverly using what looks like praise to undermine the revolutionary essence of Lenin's fight. (assuming the quote is authentic and accurate) !
Well, I seem to like and agree to this.

I mean, I never thought of it in this way. Well my fren, it is authentic, I picked it from Wikipedia.

Now, let me make something clear to all of u all.

It isn't exactly Gandhi who sent off the British. The British had already been losing colonies in many part of the world and it was no more than a trend and LEADERS LIKE:
Bhagat Singh
Chandrasekhar Azad
Subas Chandra Bose

had set a great impact already.... Gandhi was somehow responsible for the breakdown of India. (I think, if I am wrong please tell me.... lets research on this)

Now, Gandhi and Martin L. King aren't my cup of tea. Rather, Bhagat Singh and Malcolm X.

Gandhi's spirit also must be respected but well, I dont think his path will work for ever....


And, it is irritating to read Gandhi spelled "GHANDI" by some of u dumb bells. Please check on that.

[Sentinel]

He was the one who united the Indian workers and peasants above the Race,Language,Religion and Castes .It is because of him India still manage to stand as one country unlike Yugoslavia even with more internal divisions than the latter.

And here I was under the impression that Pakistan and Bangladesh have since split from India, due to religious differences..? :huh:

[Vargha Poralli]

It isn't exactly Gandhi who sent off the British.

On the contrary Gandhi never worked towards full independence. The time british were packing off(after commiting the worst crime they have ever committed in history) he vehemently opposed the greediness and power hungriness of the Congress leaders at that time. He feared that the enemy who had united the Indian people had gone now the people might start over with what they have been doing all those times before British. But his efforts did have impact on the Indians.


Bhagat Singh
Chandrasekhar Azad
Subas Chandra Bose

had set a great impact already....

The first two leaders had a little Impact at until their death. The latter even though was opposed by Gandhi respected him and still today many Indians of older generations believe that he is still alive.


Gandhi was somehow responsible for the breakdown of India. (I think, if I am wrong please tell me.... lets research on this)

Yes you are wrong. Gandhi vehemently opposed the partion on religious lines and vehemently opposed a hard line on Kashmir and Pakistan in general. He was murderd by Hindu fundamentalists for that reason.


Gandhi's spirit also must be respected but well, I dont think his path will work for ever....


Originally posted by Marx
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

One thing to remember is Gandhi is NOT A COMMUNIST.

He may be compared to Jacobin revolutionaries who did what they did in India without a reign of terror. i.e Uniting Indians. To make the Indian workers to seize the power from the Capitalists is the task of COMMUNISTS.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:54 pm

He was the one who united the Indian workers and peasants above the Race,Language,Religion and Castes .It is because of him India still manage to stand as one country unlike Yugoslavia even with more internal divisions than the latter.

And here I was under the impression that Pakistan and Bangladesh have since split from India, due to religious differences..? :huh:
India was not divided in to Pakistan and Bangaldesh at first. The regions of Sind,Balochistan and Northwest Frontier Province and western half of Punjab regions are made in to West Pakistan and the East Bengal was divided from Bengal to create East Pakistan.These regions had a Muslim Majority.Millions of hindus from these regions became refugees and were brutalised by rectionary elements and some millions of Muslims in India were attacked as a repraisal.It is the worst crime of the Last century along with Holocaust and Occupation of Palestine.These events happend in 1947

Bangladesh was formed in 1971 after a war between India and Pakistan. Bangladesh Liberation war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War)


India it was never a country. It was like Europe. Before British rule and after the disintegration of Mughal empire there were some 70 princly states ruled by various maharahjahs. Before agndhi Indians never thought themselves as a one entity. Gandi was key in uniting them(in to a bourgeoisie state literally speaking)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:42 am
Gandhi supported a lot of people in his time. He had a bit of a fixation on personality if you ask me.
He also supported the Holocaust, saying that Jews should give in.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+April 07, 2007 10:34 pm--> (Hammer @ April 07, 2007 10:34 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 04:42 am
Gandhi supported a lot of people in his time. He had a bit of a fixation on personality if you ask me.
He also supported the Holocaust, saying that Jews should give in. [/b]
No this idiocity again.

When you are going to say something please provide a source. Search for one atleast.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

He also supported the Holocaust, saying that Jews should give in.

No, he said that the Jews should have acted as though they truly wished to die, "offering themselves to the knife." He hoped that such actions would make German soldiers think twice about what they were doing. In that case it probably wouldn't have worked all that well due to the general apathy of Germany at the time (the White Rose Underground never managed to cause large-scale dissent) but you need to attempt to think of such things from Ghandi's perspective.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:22 pm

He also supported the Holocaust, saying that Jews should give in.

No, he said that the Jews should have acted as though they truly wished to die, "offering themselves to the knife." He hoped that such actions would make German soldiers think twice about what they were doing. In that case it probably wouldn't have worked all that well due to the general apathy of Germany at the time (the White Rose Underground never managed to cause large-scale dissent) but you need to attempt to think of such things from Ghandi's perspective.
You are partially correct. Except that his views would have never reached the Jewish workers at that time. He just wrote a opinion piece on a newspaper that he wrote in India.

He didn't have(in this nobody at that time did have) knowledge of the true nature of Nazi Oppression.

He anyway was outright against the formation of a Jewish homeland(Israel) at the cost of millions of Arabs.

Gandhi,Jews and Palestine. (http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html#'Some%20Questions%20Ans wered',%20by%20Gandhi%20-%20From%20Harijan,%20December%2017,%201938)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:52 pm

He also supported the Holocaust, saying that Jews should give in.

No, he said that the Jews should have acted as though they truly wished to die, "offering themselves to the knife." He hoped that such actions would make German soldiers think twice about what they were doing. In that case it probably wouldn't have worked all that well due to the general apathy of Germany at the time (the White Rose Underground never managed to cause large-scale dissent) but you need to attempt to think of such things from Ghandi's perspective.
^^^ Which is what I just said. Such statement is as naive as Bernstein's proto-fascist revisionism.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer
^^^ Which is what I just said. Such statement is as naive as Bernstein's proto-fascist revisionism.

which proves that you certainly are a stupid or just you don't know how to analyse situations.

He had no idea(i doubht anybody had at that time 1931) the Extent of Nazi Repression. He just thought a non-violent resistance by Jews could work against Hitler just like his Slat Satyagraha and Civil disobedience worked against the British(they did win small victories).

And Holocaust(at least the final solution) did not start until the 1941 after the Nazi occupation of most Europe and Soviet Union.

For the last time He did not support Holocaust.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:00 pm
which proves that you certainly are a stupid or just you don't know how to analyse situations.

He had no idea(i doubht anybody had at that time 1931)
^^^ Sorry. I didn't take the time to find out when he said the quote (non-socialist context). :(

My bad (lazy today).

[Spirit of Spartacus]

If you want to debunk my claim, present an argument. I realize you are from India, but as a communist ( which I assume you are), why the fuck are you defending Ghandi? Do the Naxhalites defend Ghandi ?

Actually, comrade, I don't think the Naxals would be very hostile to Gandhi. He was a national liberation leader after all!



Do any other socialist organizations in India defend Ghandi?

Yep.



Ghandi may have lead a national liberation struggle, but he did not change the balance of power in india, in regard to class.

Gandhi represented the alliance of the working-class and the national bourgeoisie against British colonialism.



The British Imperialists were forced to take down their flags, but that's about it;
Their monopoly's and economic interests remained in place, and their power over India was not terribly disrupted.

No, it was. You could say this about Pakistan, not about India.



In addition, Ghandi did not abolish the caste system, and I stick to my guns when I claim that he killed 1 million people.
If you deny any of these points than you are a national chauvenist, masqerading as a socialist.

Actually, comrade, I think this claim is rather absurd, to say the least. It borders on the eagerness with which the ruling-classes condemn Stalin or Mao.

And just so you know, I am no national chauvinist, I'm not even Indian, and I was taught to uphold Jinnah and denounce Gandhi and Nehru by the Pakistani educational system. :P


So Ghandi payed lip service to Leninism at one point ; so what?
The Dalai Lama also claimed that to be "Half-Marxist" and in favour of Marxism, despite the autocratic, theocratic and dictatorial nature of his own rule in Tibet.
Many Tyrants who disguise themselves as "Men of peace" pay lip-service to the accomplishments of socialism at one point or another. Until these men actually mobilize the working class and implement socialism, it's meaningless, two-faced deception, nothing more.

Ok I agree with you there. Gandhi was certainly no Marxist, and his admiration for Lenin was based on idealism at best.

[Prairie Fire]

Because I can not find the proper resources to make an intelligent argument ( that Ghandi killed a million people) I'm forced to concede on this point. I'll admit, most of my information is verbal, rather than literary. Still, it is credible verbal accounts.


Then you should provide evidence that 1 million people died in India when he lived. Then next thing you have to prove is it is Because of Gandhi they have died. Both of them are very difficult top prove because they have not happened.

I did not specify that 1 million Indians died when Ghandi was alive; I said 1 million people. I was thinking of Pakistan.





Do the Naxhalites defend Ghandi ?



No and they do not represent the Indian workers and peasants.

<_< That&#39;s more of an opinion, than a fact. If no one supports the Naxalites, then where the hell did they come from. Obviously somepeople support them, as their numbers are quite large, especially in relation to other communist groups in India, and even worldwide.


Yes. More than a dozen branches of the original CPI have analysed Gandhi and recopgnise his role in the Histroical progress of India. You cannot write off him without writing off millions who followed him to his death.

Didn&#39;t the CPI also support Nehru back in the day?


Look Gandhi is not a COMMUNIST. To be honest Independence from the British control itself was secondary for him . He was mainly determined to fight the most backward mentality of the masses during the time, the social ills which has put them under the british domination in the first place.

It wasnt "social ills" that put the Indian people under British domination, any more than it was "social ills" that put the peoples of hundreds of other nations under British domination. The British conquered India, as they did numerous other nations and countries. To say it was "Social ills" that were to blame, almost sounds religious/supersticious.


He was the one who united the Indian workers and peasants above the Race,Language,Religion and Castes .It is because of him India still manage to stand as one country unlike Yugoslavia even with more internal divisions than the latter.

Have you forgotten Pakistan and Bangledash ? :D




The British Imperialists were forced to take down their flags, but that&#39;s about it;


Which would have never happened without the works of Gandhi.

Thats a pretty anti-Marxist thing to say. Saying that Indian independance would have never happened without Ghandi, is like saying that the Russian revolution would have never happened without Lenin. The people and social conditions are the motivating force behind history. I oppose the "Great man" theory of history.
I can give credit to leaders for their accomplishments, but it is naive to assume that the same events would have never happened without them. Leaders are determined by the circumstances, not the other way around.





Until these men actually mobilize the working class and implement socialism, it&#39;s meaningless, two-faced deception, nothing more.



That&#39;s hilarious coming from a supporter of Hoxha.

As you said, saying that my support for Hoxha is "Hilarious" does not win you the argument. You have to prove what you have claimed.

Besides, Hoxha was a national liberation leader, but after the Italian and German fascists were kicked out of Albania, he prevented King Zog from returning to power. Hoxha did mobilize the working class.


SoS:

Actually, comrade, I think this claim is rather absurd, to say the least. It borders on the eagerness with which the ruling-classes condemn Stalin or Mao

hmmm...perhaps so. Either way, I can&#39;t find any written sources to back my opinion, so I won&#39;t push the point any further.


And just so you know, I am no national chauvinist, I&#39;m not even Indian, and I was taught to uphold Jinnah and denounce Gandhi and Nehru by the Pakistani educational system.

Well, Nehru is a whole different story. I can actually make a pretty intelligent argument against Nehru.


Gandhi represented the alliance of the working-class and the national bourgeoisie against British colonialism.

The same could be said for George Washington; should communists support George Washington?

National liberation is one thing, but it must be taken to the next step. Substituting a foreign bourgeosie for a national bourgeosie may in some ways be better, but a bourgeosie is still a bourgeosie.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

lol ravenblade, I think RNK accidently clicked the "quote" button on your post rather than hastalavictoria&#39;s post.

[Raúl Duke]

lol ravenblade, I think RNK accidently clicked the "quote" button on your post rather than hastalavictoria&#39;s post.

even so...it wouldn&#39;t make sense; I mean, isnt hastalavictoria a Marxist-Leninist???

He was only criticizing how people idolatrize leaders like it was a religion; politics are not religion and no leader is flawless.

[Rawthentic]

Johhny, I am not a "Marxist-Leninist" because that is a very vague term and I am against the top-down organizational structure of "Leninist" parties.

Lenin did make some important contributions to Marxist theory, but beyond that I don&#39;t see much.

I actually lean towards left-communism.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by RavenBlade+--> (RavenBlade)Because I can not find the proper resources to make an intelligent argument ( that Ghandi killed a million people) I&#39;m forced to concede on this point. I&#39;ll admit, most of my information is verbal, rather than literary. Still, it is credible verbal accounts.[/b]

Well your verbal accounts is just false admit that too.

Originally posted by RavenBlade+--> (RavenBlade)
I did not specify that 1 million Indians died when Ghandi was alive; I said 1 million people. I was thinking of Pakistan.[/b]

Dont dodgeyou clearly stated That notorious "Pacifist" shit smear also killed 1 million people. Which implies that Gandhi was responsible for 1 million deaths. Don&#39;t play on words and divert the subject.

Originally posted by RavenBlade

That&#39;s more of an opinion, than a fact. If no one supports the Naxalites, then where the hell did they come from. Obviously somepeople support them, as their numbers are quite large, especially in relation to other communist groups in India, and even worldwide.

Did I say anywhere that no one supports Naxalites ? I just said that Naxals are not representative of Indian workers and peasants.


Originally posted by RavenBlade
Didn&#39;t the CPI also support Nehru back in the day?

Yes it did as directed by Stalinist Cominform(fuck it even supported Britsh rulers here- that under Comintern). Please don&#39;t say it was because of Khruishchevite revisionism because even under Stalin CPI spported Nehru.

Originally posted by RavenBlade


It wasnt "social ills" that put the Indian people under British domination, any more than it was "social ills" that put the peoples of hundreds of other nations under British domination. The British conquered India, as they did numerous other nations and countries. To say it was "Social ills" that were to blame, almost sounds religious/supersticious.


I would recommened you to study the history of India first and how it went through various dynasties in all its course of history.

India was never a one state. So it became very easy for the British to dominate the Indians. The reason for it the Social Ills that was present already in the society.


Originally posted by RavenBlade
Have you forgotten Pakistan and Bangledash ? biggrin.gif


Which proves that your opinions are not based on facts but on propaganda.

I have already addressed this in two posts in this same thread

Reply 1 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65041&view=findpost&p=1292295040)
Reply 2 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65041&view=findpost&p=1292295040)

You know reading others posts even if they werre not addressed to you actually helps.


Originally posted by RavenBlade

Thats a pretty anti-Marxist thing to say. Saying that Indian independance would have never happened without Ghandi, is like saying that the Russian revolution would have never happened without Lenin. The people and social conditions are the motivating force behind history. I oppose the "Great man" theory of history.


Well the same Marx have said that men make their own history. Gandhi&#39;s case was true. I stand by my point. It was Gandhi&#39;s efforts that India still stands as one country today.

Originally posted by RavenBlade

I can give credit to leaders for their accomplishments, but it is naive to assume that the same events would have never happened without them. Leaders are determined by the circumstances, not the other way around.

yes the circustances created Gandhi. Thsoe same cicumsatnces made him to unite the Indians. British packed up only after they faced Indians united. And make no mistakes it was because of efforst of Gandhi during the first Civil Disbedience Movement, Salt Satyagraha and Quit India movement did it became possible.

It took 30 years for it to be accomplished.


[email protected]
As you said, saying that my support for Hoxha is "Hilarious" does not win you the argument. You have to prove what you have claimed.

Besides, Hoxha was a national liberation leader, but after the Italian and German fascists were kicked out of Albania, he prevented King Zog from returning to power. Hoxha did mobilize the working class.


And made himself their Leader and ruled Albania till his death in a top down approach.

Gandhi never claimed himself to be a communist and never placed him above the people.

RavenBlade

hmmm...perhaps so. Either way, I can&#39;t find any written sources to back my opinion, so I won&#39;t push the point any further.

Admit that you have either lied or spoke because of ignorance.

************************************************** *******************

The last two posts are just examples of how much anarchists fetish Lenin. The discussion is about how could a pacifist could support Lenin and not whetehr Lenin is god or not.

[Prairie Fire]

Well your verbal accounts is just false admit that too.

If I was ready to admit that the verbal accounts were false, I never would have defended it in the first place.



Dont dodgeyou clearly stated That notorious "Pacifist" shit smear also killed 1 million people. Which implies that Gandhi was responsible for 1 million deaths. Don&#39;t play on words and divert the subject

I&#39;m not diverting the subject. Re-read the post that you quoted; I said "I did not specify that 1 million Indians died when Ghandi was alive; I said 1 million people. I was thinking of Pakistan.". I re-iterate that point when I said Ghandi killed a million, mostly I was refering to Pakistan, NOT INDIA ( although I&#39;m sure that some blood flowed there as well.).


Did I say anywhere that no one supports Naxalites ? I just said that Naxals are not representative of Indian workers and peasants.

So if it isn&#39;t the workers/peasantry that support the Naxalites, then who does?
Who is joining the ranks of the Naxalites in India?


Yes it did as directed by Stalinist Cominform(fuck it even supported Britsh rulers here- that under Comintern). Please don&#39;t say it was because of Khruishchevite revisionism because even under Stalin CPI spported Nehru.
:D a lot of communist parties did a lot of things during the Stalin era; That doesn&#39;t mean Stalin approved of it. Earl Browder of CPUSA began to put forward a Kruschivite line of peaceful coexistence in 1944, years before Kruschev and in the height of the glory of the stalin era USSR. Stalin, in turn, severly criticized Browder for this move. My point is, to assert that just because the CPI collaborated with a bourgeosie government during the Stalin era, doesn&#39;t mean that they were encouraged to do so by Koba himself. Now Kruschev, on the other hand, was notorious for encouraging open collaboration between communist parties and bourgeoise governments, and this was the case with the CPI and their pro-Nehru stance.


I would recommened you to study the history of India first and how it went through various dynasties in all its course of history.

India was never a one state. So it became very easy for the British to dominate the Indians. The reason for it the Social Ills that was present already in the society.

I don&#39;t want to insult your english abilities, but that quote did not explain much at all. I understand your point that India was not one state, but many kingdoms and nations ( notice I said that "The British conquered India, as they did numerous other nations and countries", as I recognize necognizing nations as well as nationa states.). Still, you do not elaborate, and you still fail to give any hints at what these mysterious "Social ills" were, or how they contributed to the subjagation of Indians by the British.


Which proves that your opinions are not based on facts but on propaganda.

I have already addressed this in two posts in this same thread

Reply 1
Reply 2

You know reading others posts even if they werre not addressed to you actually helps.

Your links didn&#39;t work, so I had to guess which quotes you meant. I have read other posts on this forum by the way. Even so,you state that my opinions are based on propaganda, then do not elaborate.

I thnink my point on India and Bangkedash is valid, countering your point about India not "balkanizing&#39; into smaller states.



Well the same Marx have said that men make their own history. Gandhi&#39;s case was true. I stand by my point. It was Gandhi&#39;s efforts that India still stands as one country today.

Right. Marx said that men make their own history. By men, Marx was refering to mankind, as opposed to fate/ supernatural forces. of course the guiding force behind every revolution must be men, the masses, but you hasve seriously taken that quote out of context. Marx said "men make their own history" not " One Man makes history."

I vigorously defend Marx,Engles,Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha. However, if none of them had been born, it would have made little difference; someone else would have lead the revolutions and developed the theory of communism. A single man can be praised for his achievements and leadership, but to say that the same thing would have never happened without him is plain gullibility. No matter how important these leaders contributions were, they are still but one man among the masses, and the masses are the ones who have won all revolutions.

Also, as far as India being unified, it used to be a lot bigger :D . Once again, don&#39;t forget Pakistan and Bangledash.


And made himself their Leader and ruled Albania till his death in a top down approach.

Gandhi never claimed himself to be a communist and never placed him above the people.

i&#39;m not so certain that Ghandi never placed himself above the people.

As for Enver Hoxha, PM me if you want to argue this topic further. Hoxha and the PPSH are one of my most knowledgeable areas, but it is un-productive to continue to clog up this thread on Ghandi with a side argument. I&#39;m not dodging your comments; if you want to keep this discussion on Comrade Hoxha going, PM me.

By the way, your comments on Hoxha sound as un-informed and propaganda influenced to me, as my comments on Gandi sound to you. ;)

[Vargha Poralli]

I said "I did not specify that 1 million Indians died when Ghandi was alive; I said 1 million people. I was thinking of Pakistan.". I re-iterate that point when I said Ghandi killed a million, mostly I was refering to Pakistan, NOT INDIA ( although I&#39;m sure that some blood flowed there as well.).


Then show me one pinch of evidence that Gandhi was directly responsible for those deaths.

If you are not aware Pakistan was not a seperate Nation at that time..I would recommednd reading this thread again.


So if it isn&#39;t the workers/peasantry that support the Naxalites, then who does?
Who is joining the ranks of the Naxalites in India?


I meant Naxalites don&#39;t represent the opinion of all workers and peasants of India. They are a very marginal group. They have present only in some parts of 3 states in central India.


I don&#39;t want to insult your english abilities, but that quote did not explain much at all. I understand your point that India was not one state, but many kingdoms and nations ( notice I said that "The British conquered India, as they did numerous other nations and countries", as I recognize necognizing nations as well as nationa states.). Still, you do not elaborate, and you still fail to give any hints at what these mysterious "Social ills" were, or how they contributed to the subjagation of Indians by the British.


I can&#39;t explain to you and make you understand. Many marxists have written many analyses of Indian History. Better read them to understand.


Your links didn&#39;t work, so I had to guess which quotes you meant. I have read other posts on this forum by the way. Even so,you state that my opinions are based on propaganda, then do not elaborate.

I thnink my point on India and Bangkedash is valid, countering your point about India not "balkanizing&#39; into smaller states



Also, as far as India being unified, it used to be a lot bigger biggrin.gif . Once again, don&#39;t forget Pakistan and Bangledash.

Read my own posts in this same thread which are just below Sentinel&#39;s in the first page. I gave the link to those posts.

Even with the division India is home to more than Million Muslims and has the 3rd Largest Muslim population Next only to Indonesia and Pakistan.

Also apart form Hindus and Muslims there are a lot of diversity in India. There are 26 languages spoken here and the number of castes here will be more than number of countries in the world. Despite these glaring divisions India never turned in to Yugoslavia,Rwanda Burundi or Sudan. That is the legacy of Gandhi here.

[Leo]

Despite these glaring divisions India never turned in to Yugoslavia,Rwanda Burundi or Sudan.

I&#39;ve heard that it came pretty close though. Wasn&#39;t there some sort of a civil war between Hindus and Muslims and lots of violence, rioting etc. ? Is this true? How big did the events get during the founded Pakistan by Jinnah? Wasn&#39;t Gandhi himself killed because of that situation?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 11, 2007 05:28 pm

Despite these glaring divisions India never turned in to Yugoslavia,Rwanda Burundi or Sudan.

I&#39;ve heard that it came pretty close though. Wasn&#39;t there some sort of a civil war between Hindus and Muslims and lots of violence, rioting etc. ? Is this true? How big did the events get during the founded Pakistan by Jinnah? Wasn&#39;t Gandhi himself killed because of that situation?

I&#39;ve heard that it came pretty close though. Wasn&#39;t there some sort of a civil war between Hindus and Muslims and lots of violence, rioting etc. ?

Which one you are reffering to ?

In 1985 when the crazy mixture of Capitalism and Soviet union type bureaucracy failed to satisfy the basic needs of common people fundamentalism crept in and took control over financially oppressed Masses.

This process culminated in 1991 when a famous Mughal masterpiece Babri Masjid was demolished by Sangh Parivar goons. This led to a violent uprising by Hindu fanatical elements against the state which was very much forcefully repressed. But it took a considerable toll on Muslim minority population.

The Muslim fundamentalists responded to it in 1993 when they planted a serial bombings in the commercial capital of India Bombay. This in turn led more people in to the Hands of fundamentalism and violent attack on Muslims.

In 2003 in response to to a train burning incident(Sangh parivar calls it an planned thing but the other parties claims that it is just an accident truth might come out after some 50 yeras) the Sangh Parivar unleashed more violence against Muslims. But since at that time BJP was driven out of power in almost all states except Gujrat it was heavily restricted to that state.

But these things didn&#39;t turn out in to a civil war. One main reason is India has considerably less Muslim population(82 % Hindus 13% Muslims).

And not all Hindus are comfortable with Sangh Parivars brand of Sanskrit/Hindi Chauvinist Hinduism.Many vehemently oppose them for this sole reason.

These riots exactly happen whenever election is in vicinity. Once the mission is accomplished(i.e enough fundamentalism is stirred) it would be over.


How big did the events get during the founded Pakistan by Jinnah?

It is one the biggest crimes along with Holocaust and Creation of Israel which has been unfortunately whitewashed by both Indian and Pakistani ruling class who don&#39;t have enough balls to admit their guilt. The map was drawn on Religious lines by a British person called Radcliffe who had never visited India before.

This move was vehemently opposed by Gandhi who fought a bitter and useless struggle against it .Unfortunately the congress leadership at that time became very much greedy to rule that his voices fell to deaf ears.

Prominent Muslim politicians who opposed it till their death were Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Quaide Millat.

Another Intresting group which opposed it not from a spiritual POV but with Marxist pov is Bolshevikl Leninist Party of India,Ceylon and Burma a much marginal trotskyist group of FI which played a very significant role in Quit India Movement and Bombay Mutinies. On the contrast the Stalinist Comintern controlled CPI snitched for British government against this group and the freedon fighters. So much for RavenBalde&#39;s criticsm of Gandhi.

Their resolution of Pakistan. (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol12/no10/blpi.htm)



Wasn&#39;t Gandhi himself killed because of that situation?

He was killed in January 30th 1948 precisely some 5 months after partition(August 14 1948). All these months was ravaged by communal tensions on both sides. He called for the Hindu community to stop attacking Muslims and called for stopping the Military action in Kashmir and also demanded Indian government to give 55 crores payment to Pakistan. He launched a fast until death to make Indian government make these things. Indian government budged before him after some time but what is more significant is the communal violence had stopped Immediately. This shows how much love and respect had the people had for him. This is the main reason for his assaniation by Hindu Mahasabha a fundamentalist Hindu Organisation.

The Main criticism people make against Gandhi is that he just changed India from British Capitalist to Indian capitalists. One thing we have to remember is that India situation is not black and white as you guys think. Especially when learning about the Indian people&#39;s struggle against the British colonialism we have to leave our philisophies aside and learn it from a very much neutral point of view.Without Gandhi India would not have been what it is still now a single nation state(a bourgeoisie one) despite the diversity of the people who call that place a Home.Yes i agree that it is not perfect but it can&#39;t until the Capitalism rules not only India but also the world.

Leo I would suggest you if you can please read Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins and India Wins Freedom by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to learn more about the back ground of Partition of India. These two works will demolish the shit spouted often in this boards that Gandhi did nothing to prevent partition and some time Gandhi partitioned India.

Sindhi Exodus (http://www.sindhiexodus.net/) an online resources which is from the POV of Sindhis who are the worst affected by Partition.