|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Peace |
|
Gandhi And The (establishment-supported) Myth Of Effective Nonviolence |
Current rating: -2 |
by GRINGO STARS
Email: gringo_stars (nospam) attbi.com (verified) |
29 Oct 2002
|
|
Gandhi's life was history's longest experiment in nonviolent political action. The result of the experiment is fairly clear: An exploitative class structure cannot be broken without violence somewhere along the way. Property rights, defended by state violence, have never yielded to the peaceful pressure of the exploited class. Put in other terms, no exploiting class has ever left the stage of history without being pushed. |
GANDHI AND THE POLITICS OF NONVIOLENCE
THE IDEAS of Mahatma Gandhi have had a lasting impact on the left, from the civil rights movement of the 1960s right through to the movements against corporate greed and racism that are developing today. Many see Gandhi as the embodiment of politically-effective pacifism.
The success of his nonviolent strategy, however, is largely a myth.
The most common version of the Gandhi myth is the simple assertion that a struggle based on pacifism forced the British out of India. This view of Gandhi's contributions has lent a false credibility to the principle of nonviolence in the fights against injustice around the world since then.
But the Indian revolt against British rule was anything but nonviolent. Gandhi's tactical ideas, moreover, had serious limitations as a guide to struggle. Movements that began under Gandhi's sponsorship often ended in premature retreats or escalated into physical confrontations. And the final ouster of the British in 1947 can't be counted as a victory for Gandhi's methods, since India's independence came as the movement was shoving Gandhi and his nonviolent philosophy to the political margins.
Gandhi, nevertheless, did make major contributions to the movement. Most crucial was his success in leading masses of people into struggle against British rule -- something he did better than any other Indian leader. But while Gandhi's political leadership was the spark for these struggles, it was not their cause. The struggles arose from real, deep grievances against British rule, and the masses, once mobilized, showed repeatedly that they were willing to adopt militant tactics when nonviolent ones didn't work.
The misconception of Gandhi as the one who kicked the British out of India was most effectively propagandized by Hollywood's Oscar-winning movie GANDHI, and more recently Michael Moore's excellent documentary BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE even mentions Gandhi as the widely-accepted prime example of effective nonviolent social change.
With such widespread (and establishment-supported) falsehoods concerning Gandhi's effectiveness at changing society "without" violence, I urge all of you peace fetishizers to read this thoughtful debunking of the "nonviolent" tactic of social change (written by Meneejeh Moradian and David Whitehouse): |
See also:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml
|
Comments
|
Nonviolence Vs. Violence Vs. Confrontational Grey Area |
by intheheart
intheheart2 (nospam) ziplip.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2002
|
iMportiMpoRtaNt to note that within our sometime desire for violence
there is a grist within. I call this grist within, the *confrontation*
side of our desires to GET IN THE FACE of unfair or aggressive
authoritarians.
Yet confrontation is not *always* violence. And nonviolence CAN
allow for CONFRONTATION, WHILE still actively promoting the
excellence of bringing about potential bridgings (as in classical
nonviolence orientations of *seeking connections with
opponents*).
Still, there should be more understanding, and i hope some of the
pro-passivists here will speak up on this! Because my attempt may
fall wildly short.
Unfortunately, confined in imagination as we are by our *thought
control* -oriented society, we often miss the reality that *all
methods* are really only imaginations, and that *we don't have
to* confine ourselves to those popularly Given (terroristic power,
enamored to hype as it has a systematic reason for being, certainly
doesn't confine itself to telling us when "violence" *Is*! And thus,
TELLS us that violence can suddenly be any militant challenge to its
Way of Doing Things, as we've noted in their using the label of
"terrorist" against quite a few nonviolent-oriented groups).
So, anyway, the popular notion of nonviolence, i agree, seems to
be quite stuck in the ideas of pacifism. And, while pacifism certainly
has its values as a method, it's not something for everyone!
Still, there are other ways of doing things beyond the dichotomy of
passive/violence. Consider:
The 1950s/early 60s Chicago social challenger Saul Alynsky. In a
book that's not easy to find (_Rules For Radicals_), Saul outlined
*another* form of nonviolence--a CONFRONTIVE form of
nonviolence. He spoke of various techniques of confrontive
nonviolence--re: a methodology which challenges another, often
authoritarian view, while NOT COMPLETELY severing any possibilty
of bridging in the future.
He called one method *Mass Ju-jitsu*.
One example which caught my attention the most was his
discussion of utilizing HUMOR as a TOOL. For instance, when BEANS
were EATEN in a large portion by a large group, and the group then
proceeded to an enclosed structure in which they could literally
*VENT* their frustrations out upon a target audience in a way that
authoritarian power could not, at that time, easily attack without
getting laughed out of court. Surely passing out information for why
they did as they did, or perhaps later *taking responsibility*, this
method brought a new kind of pressure upon unaccountable
structures.
And this method did not completely alienate and ENTRENCH the
other camp.
On the other hand, violence, in the classic form (killing, maiming,
hating), can COMPLETELY sever the possibility of bridging or
compromise. As we saw in the Chechen guerrilla method, at the
Moscow theatre, national governments *take no prisoners* with
terrorists; in fact, reading an english language Russian online
paper, 12,000 males were subsequently rounded up in search of
leads---kind of like the Palmer Raids in the u.s. in the early 20th
century...or like the situation that some in the IMC movement have
been warning us about----the internment camps that are ready in
case of need.
(Tho i do see value in *consensual violence*, or a situation where
victims of obviously violent aggressors choose to take up similar
violence DIRECTLY upon them. i see this angle as a *language*
which some cling to as a way of sometimes learning mutual
respect, at least in a situation like the infamous *bar room brawl
between two or more persons*)
So, finally, i see that we need to look at the bigger picture; what
are the consequences of our actions? Where may our methods
possibly lead us? Can persons trained to be a kind of soldier (re:
cops, social workers, others "just doing their jobs") be REACHED?
What other questions may be significant here? |
|
Regime Change Is Needed In The U$A |
by GRINGO STARS
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2002
|
"Strictly speaking, as a Nationalist, he was an enemy [of the British], but since in every crisis he would exert himself to prevent violence -- which, from the British point of view, meant preventing any effective action whatever -- he could be regarded as "our man." In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away."
-- George Orwell, in an essay on Gandhi
"The people in power will not disappear voluntarily, giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window."
-- William S. Burroughs
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is necessary to differentiate strictly between the pacifism of the diplomat, professor, journalist, and the pacifism of the carpenter, agricultural worker, and the charwoman. In one case, pacifism is a screen for imperialism; in the other, it is the confused expression of distrust in imperialism."
-- Leon Trotsky
"We have dedicated our lives, our blood, to the freedom and liberation of our people, and nothing, no force can stop us from achieving our goal. If it is necessary to destroy the United States of America, then let us destroy it with a smile on our faces."
-- Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther |
|
In Questionable Company |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2002
|
GRINGO STARS wrote:
>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
> with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
In addition to being a slaveholder, Tom J. was also quoted by Tim McVeigh on the T-shirt he was wearing when he blew up the Fed building in OKC. You're running with some good company there, alright.
If you are advocating violence and really believe in it, rather than simply using this argument to troll IMC with (a more likely explanation), you are obviously too stupid to survive long in the current political climate. Anyone stupid enough to take you seriously will join you in receiving a Darwin Award, i.e. using IMC in this way will attract the attention of the security services who will target you.
Real guerillas just aren't stupid enough to engage in such behavior. Wannabees do it constantly, but at least they deflect the attention and time of the forces of repression from those doing good clandestine work. They thank you for painting a big target on your forehead. |
|
Bad Associations |
by Robert Porter
rwp451 (nospam) altavista.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2002
|
Hi,
I'm not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist, and Indian history is too complicated for me to comment on intelligently, but I did find myself asking some questions here.
Does being a pacifist automatically make you an establishment stooge?
Isn't it true that violence also plays into the hands of the authorities? (I'm thinking about COINTELPRO's well-documented infiltration of the Black Panthers. The idea was to get a few agent provacatuers in there so the cops would have an excuse to take names and bust heads.)
Doesn't violence precipitate more violence in a nearly inescapable cycle?
Is violence the only way that revolutionary change is effected?
I dunno.
I want to believe that using violence is a sign that you've failed somewhere along the line.
I like the bean strategy, though.
Robert Porter |
|
Of Course I'm A Wannabe (duh) |
by GRINGO STARS
gringo_stars (nospam) attbi.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2002
|
The mere fact that I'm posting about violence means that I am not performing it, people. A real guerilla wouldn't do this. I am not a soldier. I am a speaker. I get people to question their beliefs. Email me and start a dialog to find out if I'ma troll. I don;t blame you for being paranoid, but I'm no fucking cop. The Black Panthers were not nearly paranoid enough, and had no idea that uniting feed children breakfast would get them in such deep schitt.
The fact that it is immediately assumed that I am a troll points to the monochromatic peace-dude nature of modern middle-class first-world activism. Violence is written off as too uncomfortable, when it is a historically-proven remedy for certain ills.
Yes, violence leads to more violence in a cycle. Isn't it OK to bring that violence into the restaurants and houses of the wealthy, instead of keeping it in the third-world, where everyone here apparently thinks it belongs? Fighting in the US would force people to choose sides. You are not as alone as you think.
It's true that violence is a strategy opf failure. But since there is no workable democracy, media, or protest-method...
None of the current methods are working. Things are getting worse. Because of the USA PATRIOT act, my posts are technically illegal. Yes, pacifism makes you a stooge of the establishment, because that's precisely what they WANT you to do. I am not an affiliated soldier, but I am aware of people doing direct actions. They are doing the good work. The peace marches, I attend most every one of them, if only as a show of non-support to the government. Gandhi would say to commit collective suicide to draw the world's sympathy, but Americans don't think like that, and plus the corporate media would somehow blame it on evil anarchists, spin it to their advantage, and discredit/jail those who said otherwise.
If anyone has some alternative methods, I would honestly love to hear them, but my point is: don't rule out violence. It works. |
|
Re: Of Course I'm A Wannabe |
by Robert Porter
rwp451 (nospam) altavista.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
30 Oct 2002
|
Can you give us some examples of cases where violence has worked? In the long term, I mean? Yeah, the Russians got the Czar off their backs, but I'm not sure Stalin was any improvement ...
I don't doubt your sincerity, but
before I start rioting in the street, I'd like have some assurance that it will accomplish something besides getting me killed.
By the way, I don't find the idea of violence in the third world any more acceptable than violence in my own neighborhood. In the same way that you didn't like being characterized as a troll, I don't like being stereotyped as a middle-class hippy. For the record, I'm living somewhat below the poverty line at the moment. I'm not starving, but I'm not taking any vacations in the Bahamas, either.
Robert Porter |
|
Re: Gandhi And The (establishment-supported) Myth Of Effective Nonviolence |
by ANQ
alba-quinones (nospam) uiowa.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Nov 2005
|
Dear Gringo:
To better understand your point of view and be able to have a meaningful dialogue, it would be very helpful if you would please provide more evidence supporting your argument (e.g. references of reports to actual events, interviews of observers or others engaged in the nonviolent movement in India, non-biased research articles and data.) Thank you for your time and prompt reply.
Sincerely,
ANQ |
|
