Gandhi - ...

[Charred Phoenix]

I have a question for the cappies; "What do you think of Gandhi?" - a lot of you use Churchill quotes and he demanded that Gandhi be stopped from freeing India. He also called Gandhi a whole assortment of names, in private AND public.

[weepingbuddha]

i'm no capitalist, but i'll just say ghandi was probably the greatest man that ever lived. long live ghandi!

wb

[Charred Phoenix]

Of course, but I think we can assume that all the leftists on this board would say that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ghandi was all right. His tactic is very risky, besides, anyone know what happened to India after Ghandi died? Anyone? The country broke out in turmoil as the Muslims and Hindus quarreled over land. With that said, I still admire the man for his noble achievements, he heroicly drove off the British, with no bloodshed.

But, I'm not a capie, so never mind.

[hazard]

did ghandi REALLy say "oh my god, I am dead" when he got shot? he did in the movie. it just seems like a strange thing to say. even if you were dying.

[weepingbuddha]

india broke down becuase they didn't fully listen to ghandi. if they had, india wouldn't be so fucked up. hazard-thats my fav. movie.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from weepingbuddha on 11:03 am on April 27, 2003
india broke down becuase they didn't fully listen to ghandi. if they had, india wouldn't be so fucked up. hazard-thats my fav. movie.

oh, ok

[Domino]

Hm. Cappies aren't answering http://216.40.249.192/s/contrib/blackeye/hihi.gif. I'm no cappie, so I won't comment, you know my answer.

[Liberty Lover]

"Nauseating" and a "half-naked fakir."

J/K I don't have strong opinions about Ghandi. Except that his tactics would have failed if he were rebelling against Hitler or Stalin.

[Organic Revolution]

gandhi is one of the greatest mean to every live.. period

[Charred Phoenix]

His tactics would also have failed against Dubya.

[Liberty Lover]

In short: You're an idiot.

[hazard]

lover:

then again, stalin never had to deal with foreign dissidents because he wasn't an immperialist hell bent on expanding an empire to every corner of the globe. thats a strange point to bring up, as neither leader had the will or oppurtunity to deal with conducting an empire with governers sort of like ancient rome. speaking of which, how do you think caesar would have dealt with ghandi? thats an accurate comparison.

[Charred Phoenix]

In short: You're an idiot.


That's as may be, but what I said was true - also, try reading a book called "Stupid white men" and you will see that Dubya also denies people essential libery based on colour, how well do /you/ think Gandhi would go against him?

[Liberty Lover]

Hazard,
The reason Ghandi's methods would have failed under Stalin was because he, Stalin, would have used violent repression on a level that would have made tactics of non-cooperation impossible.

If Stalin genuinely was not aiming for world revolution (or, more accurately, world domination), why was the Soviet Union pouring millions of dollars into funding Communist parties, propaganda efforts, front groups and revolutionary activity abroad?

[Liberty Lover]

try reading a book called "Stupid white men"

Watching the pseudo-documentary, "Bowling for Columbine", was enough Michael Moore for one lifetime.

[hazard]

lover

tell me something I don't know. but stalin never had a world empire, did he? no, the USSR never once attmpted to expand its borders. unlike uk which never really stopped its colonial phase until the creation of the USSR to hold them in check. anyway, stalin never had an oppurtunity to supress foreign dissidents so to claim he would have treated them worse than the UK is unnaceptable.

as for your question. DEFENSIVE PRECAUTIONS. from both american military expansion and subversion.

[synthesis]

If Stalin genuinely was not aiming for world revolution (or, more accurately, world domination), why was the Soviet Union pouring millions of dollars into funding Communist parties, propaganda efforts, front groups and revolutionary activity abroad?

Clearly, only someone with a total deficiency in Communist history and theory would make a statement like this.

The historical disparity between Trotskyites and Stalinists is the struggle between the 'world-revolution' theory and the 'socialism in one country' theory.

[Liberty Lover]

DyerMaker,
Communist theory has proven itself to be totally foreign to communist practice. It was only American nuclear capabilities that stoped Stalin from marching west of Berlin. And don’t forget that he gave approval to Kim Il Sung to invade South Korea

Hazard,
stalin never had an oppurtunity to supress foreign dissidents

The USSR constituted of about 15 nations. Stalin didn’t just send Russians to the Labor camps.

[hazard]

lover:

again, you are comparing the wrong things here. border countries are not the same as distant colonies like india where different control measures would be implemented. its like your're saying northern ireland should be and is treated the same as india was.

the difference is in how the mother land views these countries. while the english somehow believe they have every right to keeping northern ireland, the same english men didn't think they had any right to india. so, brutal suppression of the irish and moderate suppresion of india.

once more, before you try and weasel out again, USSR had no foreign colonies that were distant, and TRULY seperate for the mother land. your comparison should focus upon how ancient rome treated distant colonies. which, you will notice, was and is the blueprint that ALL imperial nations follow. close captive nations were suppressed more brutally than distant ones for fear of losing the central power base and cutting off influence to the other colonies. as for distant colonies, their loss would not jeopardize the unity of the empire so suppression was typically much lighter.

(Edited by hazard at 8:57 pm on April 27, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Hazard,
The soviet union practised what is known as internal colonialism, where one nation or ethnic group dominates another within the same geographic area. English rule over other areas of the British Isles, and Russian control over the states of Eastern Europe and central Asia were examples of internal colonialism.

[Fidelbrand]

This contemporary world needs people like Gandhi to peace out those who have weapons in their hand, but "freedom" in their stinking mouth... like Bush.. Not to say North Korea Mr Kim..(totally fucked up in the brain)

[Fidelbrand]

Yeh.. some ppl might say that guns are louder n more effective than mere words of compassion + love by Gandhi........ But when he unites people, the saliva of the masses will drown the ambtious mind and guns of the bastards~

Yeh.. bit idealistic. i agree. But Every commie shld have a dream to adhere to.. :wink:

[HankMorgan]

Two things on Ghandi.

I've heard it said that a thousand years from now, Ghandi will be the only person from the 20th century still remembered. Maybe so.

The other thing is a sci-fi story I read some years ago. It goes along with what was being said earlier in this thread about Ghandi not having to contend with Stalin or Hitler. In the story, Nazi Germany won in Europe and expanded into Asia where the Wermacht came face to face with the non-violence of Ghandi. There is a scene in the story where a Nazi colonel riding in a Panzer meets Ghandi in an Indian street. They have a dialog about non-violence meeting force. It ends with the colonel ordering the gunner in the tank to open fire and Ghandi finishing in a pool of blood.

It kind of goes with what I believe about those who turn their swords into plowshares. They end up plowing for those who kept their swords.

For what it's worth.

[synthesis]

I've heard it said that a thousand years from now, Ghandi will be the only person from the 20th century still remembered. Maybe so.

I'm honestly wondering why someone would hypothesize something like this. I would have thought that it would be Hitler or Stalin.

Although he didn't live in the twentieth century, Marx's ideas affected more people than any other ideology or religion in that timespan, so I'd think he'd qualify. I don't think there's a single country out there that has never had a socialist movement of some sort.

[HankMorgan]

I guess who ever said Ghandi would be remembered was looking at the example of Jesus. Perhaps in Jesus' time, people thought he wouldn't be remembered either.

I'm not sure Ghandi is another Jesus. There's no way anyone can see how their current age will be viewed a thousand years from now so who can say.

My exposure to Ghandi is really only the movie. I like his style. It's far better to impose one's will without killing anyone than any glorious military victory.

[Umoja]

If you were comparing Ghandi to a religious figure, he'd be Krishna (because Jesus was "supposedly" Krishna as well). Whoa.... I didn't mean to touch off religiously.... Not saying Krishna is real or anything....

[mentalbunny]

We need another Ghandi figure, another martin Luther King Jnr. Look at this world, it is begging for someone to show us just how badly we are screwing up.

Ghandi is definitely a hero of mine, when I saw the film I was amazed, that was one of the first moments I remember being a leftist and a pacifist, even though I didn't know the actual term for the former.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 5:15 am on April 27, 2003
"Nauseating" and a "half-naked fakir."

J/K I don't have strong opinions about Ghandi. Except that his tactics would have failed if he were rebelling against Hitler or Stalin.


Make no mistakes, even when Ghandi and his support rebelled in a peacefull way many of them got shot at by the English Army, police and the Indian Imperial police.

Probaly the only reason why they didn't shoot Ghandi is because it would have caused massive rebellions.

[Klondike]

Ghandi was a great and succeful leader of the oppressed people of India. The Brittish in the case of Ghandi, can best be compared to the Romans, I suppose, as they were the ones who strongly centralized their government in an effortr to rule many-a distant lands, as did the Brittish in colonial times. All empires must be dismatled, as the Roman was by foreing invasion and uprisings, the Brittish was, partially by the efforts of Ghandi. For this, he is a hero and a great individual.

[mentalbunny]

When the aim is successful resistance, the circumstances must be carefully examined. in countries like the UK and the US, an obvious peaceful movement will hold more influence than "terrorism" but in countries suffering from obviously oppressive regimes, like in Lain America, etc, guerrilla action seems to be more effective. As you can see i haven't done a deep analysis of this but this is the impression I get.