Gandhi

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by Morag
Saketh, there isn't any reason why you can't have mixed feelings about Ghandi. After all, the great hero in my country, Canada, is Sir. John A. Macdonald. He was a drunken, corrupted, imperialist who was kicked out of office in a scandal, only to disappear on a very long drinking binge (very common for him). He returned with the National Economic Policy, a racist, capitalist idea that solidified Canada as a (very shaky) nation. But he founded the nation and he was a drinker and a Scot, and he began the very long tradition of Prime Ministers being kicked out of office because of scandal, and therefore, we love him. We don't like him much, but we love him. That's the beauty of the guy being dead, the ability to judge him fairly and honestly. Ghandi would probably like that more than mindless worship, wouldn't he?

To me it sounds like you're moving from loving him to hating him.

[orwellcommie]

@ Morag

Sir John A. Macdonald used a racist agenda to solidfy canada?  That's interesting as Canada was were U.S. escaped slaves fleed to excape Racist oppression of the United States.  I suppose things changed a great deal from Macdonald's time to the time of the Slavery of U.S. if what you are saying is true.

[Morag]

Actually, confederation happened in 1867, after slavery "ended" in the United States, so he didn't really have anything to do with the underground railway. And the racism *I* was speaking about was racism against Chinese and First Nations/Metis. I can't speak to his policies regarding other groups. (Although he did have a rather bitter dislike of Slavic and Southern European people, who were also exploited in his NEP).

But the point was that as long as you judge someone fairly, based on the historical information you really have as opposed to the sentimental attachment, your honouring them in a way. Now, Stalin probably doesn't appreciate the effort, but maybe Gandhi would. The point was the Saketh can be of two minds about the man without feeling bad.

[Volkov]

This thread is very interesting;  it has done well to dispel the myth of the "pacifist" Ghandi.

[aneeb]

i am from India
he spoled indias all glor . he worked as a secular.but in his mottos he is telling we need Ram rajyu( Ram means a a god from Hindu mythology and rajyu means Country
He is one of the most bad man world everseen
Red salutes

[marxiawathicommunist]

The one person who defended Gandhi in revolutionary left was me.


I think it is pointless to discuss about Gandhi and his accomplishments here. Any one thing we have to understand is Gandhi is product of the material conditions that existed in India at that time.

He is the person who had UNITED the Indian workers against the British rule. India is not a HOMOGENIOUS land . It is a country that had more divisions than whole Europe or Africa. It has 22 languages, a dozen religions and the number of castes in all religions are more than number of countries in the world today.

Gandhi's relevance today is that despite these divisions India stands as one country. Compare it with today's Yugoslavia or India's own neighbour SriLanka.

What Gandhi did was a Jacobin Revolution in India without much terror. He made Indian workers to unite and think themselves as one Entity. to make them realise that they are a part of the International proletariat is the Task of Us COmmunists. That task had been taken once by CPI before it was hijacked by Stalinist comintern.Now the real trouble here is there is no movement that represents proletarians.

[Universal]

All too true comrades

[Christopher Hill]

Gandhi was but another bourgeois-left revolutionary, although oftened considered a Socialist this is simply not true, in fact we have seen he was in many ways a Nationalist (such as in his claims that Indians and Whites are superior to the "Dirty African")