Ghandi vs Guevara - ways to revolt?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was just wondering before I go to bed....who do people think employed a better method of achieving their goals? I know this is a Che site, but I also know there are people here that would favour a non violent revolution.

[Anonymous]

The Question is: Would a non-violent revolution be possible?

I have nothing but respect for those who can peacefully protest no matter what is done to them, i just am not one of those people.

[Larissa]

Personally, I admire BOTH of them. I wished an unarmed non violent revolution could be achieved, like Ghandi, but at the same time, I think that was like an exception and it is not very feasible to achieve.

Both were great men, and fought (each with its own method) for a good cause.

I would always prefer a peaceful alternative, but when there is no other option left, then an armed revolution naturally arises.

[thursday night]

A peaceful revolution is of course always prefered over an armed struggle, but alas it is not only possible.

[Kapitan Andrey]

Yes, Ghandi was the man of the century as Che, but his method is unuseable in Latin America!!!

[Palmares]

Both are logical, depending on the situation. Peaceful revolution would require a fairly peaceful society and government. But if it is crushed, and nobody notices, it has alas failed. But it push comes to shove, other means may prove to be necessary, but not preferable.

[Comrade Daniel]

I think armed struggle is the only way in these days, but I think the things Ghandi did were very good.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I think it depends upon the situation. Mandela tried Ghandi's methods and failed. In the end he had to turn to violence. I don't agree with senseless violence, but sometimes force is needed. The upper classes will never voluntarily hand over control. However, they might be able to be slowly pushed out (as the bourgeoisie pushed out the fuedal overlords)... but not any time soon.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from thursday night on 11:25 pm on Feb. 13, 2003
A peaceful revolution is of course always prefered over an armed struggle, but alas it is not only possible.


Well it would appear to be as above lol. People see Ghandi as a one off, but the again there have't been to many Cuba's as succesful. Mandela tried and failed, but ultimately Che failed in one of his attempts using his methods. Ultimately he died.

Many people see violence as the answer because peace is improbable. However there are those that see conformity as the answer because change is improbable.

A violent revolution is perhaps not the answer, and as we look for a way of starting this revolution we need to do it peacefully. A people's revolution would require us to boost the intelligence and self respect of the people. Make it their change. Pull the mark of "victim" from their necks, but not attatch it to their oppressors. As it stands the lack of willingness is fear of change because of the doubt of its possiblility, the reason for this doubt is because people are fearful, it is a vicious cycle. Violence will spread fear and confusion. The revolution will not be the people's but the "leftists" thus making it really heading towards right wing. Not debating whether or not this is right or wrong, the fact is with the world today and the poor awareness of the west, a revolution started with violence would just be moving further apart the people we aim to unite. Being the only one's remaining peaceful in a world of hate will strengthen us so much. The time may be right with the seeming violence ahead, more people willing not to just go along with everything, but on their level be it. Peace, love and tollerance, this should be the way of the revolution, start as we mean to go on.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Che used his convetional violent methd as an attack, Ghandi used his peaceful method as a defence. You simply cannot use Ghandi's method to revolutionize a nation. I admire both men greatly, but for the proletariat class to supress the burgois class, a violent revolution is necessary.

[Eastside Revolt]

Ghandi had a different situation, because they were still in a feudal economy. The people could still grow their food while they worked peacefully to shut the country down. It wouldn't be the same if we tried to do it in Canada, the US, or Europe because while we were shutting the stores down, we would starve.

[lostsoul]

people in the cities of india were eatting and not straving during Gandhi's fight. From my study of him, i think he basically just tried to get the people to ignore the goverment. not obey their unfair laws, and not pay their tax's. The store owners and everyone else, to my knowledge, were still selling food and all other material.

His logical basically is, if the goverment doesn't want to cooperate with its own people, then its people should not cooperate with it. When people totally ignore the goverment, the goverment doesn't make money(as in South Africa, the workers basically slowed down the econmy).

The Cuban revoluation also called strikes like that, encouraging people to cooperate with the goverment, but they used it as a side tool, voilence being their main.

I personaly think voilence can be avoided in almost 99% of the situations, but voilence brings quick results(sometimes unstable results..), so most people are quick to go for voilence. Gandhi's civil disobeyence should always be used in revolutions, but if nessary then voilence should only be used in balance with civil disobeyence. The fighters should fight the military, and the people should fight the goverment(by stopping its economy).


c ya

[Krobanikov]

An armed revolution is never led by non-violent men and a peaceful end cannot be reached by ruthless men.It seems everyone has a clear vision of a utopian society but none possess the means of achieving it.
Were a hardened vanguard of communist comrades to arise and with fortitude rally the masses onward to sure triumph over the capitalist exploiters would they relinguish their former role as a revolutionary elite and allow the eradication of wealth and power?
I too once thought that statecraft was a necessary evil but am now convinced that any appearance of separation brought about by biased power structures and the force they wish to exert as signs of dominance is a basic evil among humanity that must never be permitted to endure.
A society gained by violent force will itself one day fall victim to the same.What then? ... do we rebel? ... of course,we must!How then can we rebel? ... by the one force that is justifiable ... the force of Will.How do we defeat an enemy that can crush us easily by force of arms? ... by depriving it of our cooperation,by taking back what is rightfully ours by birthright as human beings ... our freedom that is granted to all earthly creatures!
We must no longer take part in our own enslavement.We must cease to feed the beast!Stop flinging your hard-earned dollars into the system,be it the music and entertainment industry or any other corporate-sponsored business.
Never again cast a single vote,stop patronizing political parties - all of them!Earn only enough for the upkeep of you and your immediate family thus cutting back on in-paid taxes.Separate yourselves from the upper classes as they wish to separate themselves from the lowliest of our brethren.Be an Anarcho-Socialist and encourage others to do likewise.
There are countless souls espousing socialist slogans and talking endlessly of what should be done ... words. thats all they have,nothing more than empty words.I too once believed in words but have at last seen the folly in words.Brothers and sisters let us join together and take a solemn pledge to bury these useless and idle words spouted by socialist pretenders by choosing to act rather than waste what otherwise can be a meaningful life through sheer determination and unremitting resolve to make the proper change for a better humanity.


(Edited by Krobanikov at 3:18 am on Feb. 15, 2003)

[Kapitan Andrey]

Comrade Daniel...I agree!

lostsoul...hm-m! You are not SO lost as I thought! You got clean and cleaver mind, but you shouldn't insult my Che!!! Your position is very interesting!

[redstar2000]

I respect those who are committed to non-violence and hate to argue with them...perhaps it's better to let experience show the way.

Paradoxically, Ghandi, who wanted a communal and tolerant society for his independent India, was murdered by a Hindu fundamentalist and the subsequent partition of India between Hindus and Muslims involved the deaths of millions.

Success?

:cool:

[sin miedo]

I feel sorry for Ghandi. He was a great man who was shafted by religous nuts. Fucking religion.

[Umoja]

But generally during violent revolutions the leaders always feel they are best fit to take power, and fear any dissidents. Be it the minor effects of Jomo Kenyatta (Until a few months ago, they had only had one main party) or even Castro. Neither solution is exactly effective, and both have their faults, that's why we are arguing over them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

you say a society achieved with violent means is not stable? Look at India after Ghandi's death.

[Larissa]

Quote: from Krobanikov on 11:59 pm on Feb. 14, 2003
...Brothers and sisters let us join together and take a solemn pledge to bury these useless and idle words spouted by socialist pretenders by choosing to act rather than waste what otherwise can be a meaningful life through sheer determination and unremitting resolve to make the proper change for a better humanity...Welcome to the board comrade Krobanikov!!

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 4:20 am on Feb. 15, 2003
you say a society achieved with violent means is not stable? Look at India after Ghandi's death.


I am not 100% sure if this is true or not, but according http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/indians.html Brtian came into india in around 1600(i always thought it was 1800's). Imagin for so many years, India was under control of another country, they couldn't do anything that conflicted with Britian. Britain wanted to take resources from India, and then sell it back, thats why india never got industrialied when all over europe and the world it was happening. If a country is so dependent on another, when it finally gets freedom off course it'll be unstable, its basically starting all over again. Look at india now, their doing pretty good, not the best, but they economy is doing well.

for non-voilence and voilence to work, you need the support of the people, if you don't have it then either will not work. Voilence just requires less support, thats why i think its the one people choose first, while they fight they work to ralley and spread their messages(as in Cuba and China).

There is still voilence between hindu's and muslums right now, and it has been going on for an extremely long time(even before Gandhi was born). When india's partition happened, people had to leave their homes and saw their great country split up, and they took out their anger on the other religious group. That had nothing to do with Gandhi, the leader of the moslem league told him to gave muslims their own country or risk civil war. Gandhi argeed because he thought it would be peacful then to have a civil war. What i'm trying to basically say is, that it could have been alot worst.

I am not trying to put down Che's methods, he was a great man and did all that he could. He gave up everything to help people including his life. But please don't forget, Che was not crazy about war,(in a book i read about che called "A brave man") it shows that he may had fought many battles, but he went to more protests, diopliomatic meetings, and wrote many letters(to promote peace in his country and others).

Che, Gandhi, Mao, Lennin, Stalin, Hilter, Buddha, Jesus, etc,etc....all showed methods to change the world, we should pick and choose the best for our needs and/or combine it with other ones. (like Makavillie said, its better to like a lion and fox, because a lion has courage and strengh, but can fall into traps...Fox's are not strong, but are very smart, so they don't fall into traps. No one's method is perfect, but if combined with other methods or using your own, you can cover its flaws).

i hope that made a little sense.

c ya

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from lostsoul on 2:44 pm on Feb. 15, 2003

Quote: from Victorcommie on 4:20 am on Feb. 15, 2003
you say a society achieved with violent means is not stable? Look at India after Ghandi's death.


for non-voilence and voilence to work, you need the support of the people, if you don't have it then either will not work. Voilence just requires less support, thats why i think its the one people choose first, while they fight they work to ralley and spread their messages(as in Cuba and China).


c ya

The support of the people yes, this makes it "their" revolution, it may require less support to be successful, but violence makes it far harder to get support. That is why at this, a potentially violent time, non-violence can be the popular option. In today's society of conflict, a revolution as a peacful escape from conflict would be far more tempting for so many people. Violence isolates the revolutionaries from the the non-revolutionaries. We can not afford to do this especially when the propaganda will run so deeply against us, we need everyone we can.

[Krobanikov]

Thanks comrade Larissa for your warm welcome


Although I find that oftentimes the use of words can be a senseless endeavor I must admit that in such case we are all somewhat word-mongers via the internet,but we must speak out and clear the air as it were and say those things by which to cast off our anguish and inform others that we have viewed the world openly and found reason to state in no uncertain terms that things arent as they should be.
As long as there are people living in splendor at the expense of another mans poverty how can good people be silent and inactive?As long as power-hungery men strive to achieve dominance,as long as wars are waged for supremacy and possession of territory allotted to a foreign people,as long as resources are manipulated for the build-up of weapons of mass destruction by which one nations people are kept in poverty for lack of sufficient funds and another nation is threatened with such weapons then we are bound by integrity to shout from the rooftops that a change must somehow be made,for one nations people suffer want because its government robs the coffers to forge such weapons in order to violate another nation thus throwing its people into greater poverty and thus perpetuating deprivation and death.
Poverty is the greatest evil and those who cause it are to be accounted among the most wicked of men.Freedom and bread,these are the two essential things that mankind requires,all else comes by overwrought desires.No one man should enjoy benefits that cannot be obtained by all,equality in education,in medicare,in work and leisure ... true egalitarianism.
Now for the means to accomplish such ends and bring about a just society,this is a needful topic,one in which we can freely discuss those avenues available by which we can make a planned attempt to do what others only dare dream of,and with that said let us begin such talks.

[mentalbunny]

As a pacifist I prefer Ghandi's approach but I agree that in Che's situation violent revoltion was the only way.

It really depends on who you are against, in somewhere like Britain, or in the Middle East, non-violence will be more effective, but in Latin America and in some situations with despotic leaders guerrila warfare is more effective.

that's my attitude in a nutshell.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from lostsoul on 8:44 pm on Feb. 15, 2003

Quote: from Victorcommie on 4:20 am on Feb. 15, 2003
you say a society achieved with violent means is not stable? Look at India after Ghandi's death.


I am not 100% sure if this is true or not, but according http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/indians.html Brtian came into india in around 1600(i always thought it was 1800's). Imagin for so many years, India was under control of another country, they couldn't do anything that conflicted with Britian. Britain wanted to take resources from India, and then sell it back, thats why india never got industrialied when all over europe and the world it was happening. If a country is so dependent on another, when it finally gets freedom off course it'll be unstable, its basically starting all over again. Look at india now, their doing pretty good, not the best, but they economy is doing well.

for non-voilence and voilence to work, you need the support of the people, if you don't have it then either will not work. Voilence just requires less support, thats why i think its the one people choose first, while they fight they work to ralley and spread their messages(as in Cuba and China).

There is still voilence between hindu's and muslums right now, and it has been going on for an extremely long time(even before Gandhi was born). When india's partition happened, people had to leave their homes and saw their great country split up, and they took out their anger on the other religious group. That had nothing to do with Gandhi, the leader of the moslem league told him to gave muslims their own country or risk civil war. Gandhi argeed because he thought it would be peacful then to have a civil war. What i'm trying to basically say is, that it could have been alot worst.

I am not trying to put down Che's methods, he was a great man and did all that he could. He gave up everything to help people including his life. But please don't forget, Che was not crazy about war,(in a book i read about che called "A brave man") it shows that he may had fought many battles, but he went to more protests, diopliomatic meetings, and wrote many letters(to promote peace in his country and others).

Che, Gandhi, Mao, Lennin, Stalin, Hilter, Buddha, Jesus, etc,etc....all showed methods to change the world, we should pick and choose the best for our needs and/or combine it with other ones. (like Makavillie said, its better to like a lion and fox, because a lion has courage and strengh, but can fall into traps...Fox's are not strong, but are very smart, so they don't fall into traps. No one's method is perfect, but if combined with other methods or using your own, you can cover its flaws).

i hope that made a little sense.

c ya


I wasn't trying to put down Ghandi's pacifism, I was simply trying to say that it makes to difference to a countrie's stability weather or not it's independence was achived with peaceful or violent methods.

[Lefty]

I think a mixture of both is needed. Both used the support of the people to win their respective wars, and each could've benefitted in the long run from taking a little from each other's philosophies. Of course, Ghandi couldn't have, and didn't really need to, but Che's eventual downfall was due to his militaristic and authoritarian nature. I, however, am a pretty pacifistic guy, but of course revolution through violence is a worthy method, and one that I would support.

[Hegemonicretribution]

One little point though about a violent revolution now the ethics have been kind of discussed, how about a personal level. The people that would be affected by this violence could well be our friends and families not sharing our views. Would you be willing to smash the red flag through the heart of your mother, or blow up your father working for shell? Another reason for a peaceful revolutiuon is because people we care about WOULD stand in our way. Not all will accept and would you want those to be the tales of the victory?

[mentalbunny]

That's a really good point, hegemonicretrobution, and a definite reason to try to use peaceful methods before violence.

I think sit-ins rallies and marches are the best way to start, if you can get enough people interested, otherwise you could use passive resistance like Ghandi did, before turing to violence to overthrow the system.

[lostsoul]

I think peaceful resistance proves that more people are on your side then the goverment. I think most people, if they saw gurillia's with guns, they'd probally just argee with them so they don't get hurt(even if they are not going to harm them, that thought is always there).

But with peaceful methods, the people have nothing to fear for not believing, so their actions are more true to their beliefs.

but fighting would still slightly be nessary, if not in an extreme form, just simply to protect the people from police or military brutality.

[honest intellectual]

Guerrilla revolution is a form of populist uprising. The guerrilla revolutionaries should be the vanguard of the people. If the people cannot seize power directly, as they did in India, (usually because of fear of the army), then armed revolutionaries need to 'soften up' the state.

[Cobber]

What of Ho Chi Minh - I recently read a biography on him and came to a conclusion as half Che/half Ghandi. He was willing to use all means of diplomacy and peace first and foremost, but when it came down to the only language and actions understoood by the French and Americans was violence.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Cobber... I agree with you completely. Ho Chi Minh is a classic example of someone with wide-spread support (he would have won a democractic election), who was willing to take violent measures when neccessary. I think a revolution needs a degree of popular support to succeed; however, I do not think this should make us dependent on democracy. As Emma Goldman said, 'in America voting is the opium of the masses'. In democratic nations we all have this vague impression that by voting every 4-5 years we are actually making a difference.

[Hegemonicretribution]

No one has yet responde saying whether or not they would harm those close in a revolution.

Although I am not a pacafist, well not totally...I do think still that violence is contrary to our goals. The revolution will have already been won by the time violence is worth while. If we win the battle of people's minds, violence will only be a very small part, if truelly the masses are in favour, there need be little bloodshed, if not then it is too soon for a revolution. I agree when you are not given the choice, but theoretically (although there are exceptions) we do still in theory have a voice. At least in some countries. While we can put over our oppinions, we must use that not as the key weapon, but the only weapon.

I fear that more violent action may have to be taken though, as restrictions on even the theoretical freedom are imposed...Perhaps we have thought and talked enough? We need not wait for our readiness, we will be presented withan oppurtunity where we are oppressed to the point that rebellion is all we have? "The capitalist system carried within itself the seeds of it's own destruction"

[CruelVerdad]

Personaly, I support Gandi, I mean the way he made the revolution possible, but in the other hand I think that now, in the present, we need a CHE, because his way was more radical. People heard him, even if they didn´t wanted to. It´s a shame people died, but it´s just the way it had to be...

[Aleksander Nordby]

We need people like Che not people like Gandhi!!!!