Gandhi

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

Btw Ghandis methods led to violence. And as some of my quotes show he was not against violence, only if it was against the rich.
Ghandi was a prick and shouldn't be put on a piedestal.

[mir]

Also, due to the spreading anti-imperialist sentiment growing in the world, England only gave India independence so it wouldn't go over to the Soviet side, which it did by becoming a leftist member of the nonaligned movement with president Nehru, while Pakistan remained right wing.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by T.K.A.-Denmark
Btw Ghandis methods led to violence. And as some of my quotes show he was not against violence, only if it was against the rich.
Ghandi was a prick and shouldn't be put on a piedestal.

Yeah, totally agree. Workers´ revolution would be the last nail in his propaganda coffin. He seems to be very popular with some people....

[Miestermatt]

He was a guy with some really good ideas but many many many bad ones.  My favorite quote he had.  An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

[petrel]

Another good saying: when someone talked to Gandhi on "Western civilization" the reply came: "That would be an excellent idea."

[System-Failure]

Ghandi's non violence was even less 'morally acceptable' than if he had instructed the use of violence.  
What it really represented was allowing the British to commit violent acts against the Indians for his political gain.  This meant that civilians were sent to their deaths with no instructions  to protect themselves.  
Even worse, none of the intentions to end the caste system (that even the Imperialist occupying forces were trying to stamp out) were ever meaningfully followed through.  

And what has it been good for? Absolutely nothing!  It has set the wheels turning for dynastic leadership, tension with pakistan and a vast gap between rich and poor.  
Only really now are the Indian communist begining to be worth considering in the worlds largest democracy. Stalled they may be, but not non existant.  Only their calibur remains questionable, and only time can tell us that.

[orwellcommie]

That line about never snaching away the properties from their owners or ever depriving people of their property is quite intreging considering had he been HONESTLY inclined to hold that creed he would have never gotten involved in depriving the British Imperial Government it's property, namely INDIA!

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by orwellcommie
That line about never snaching away the properties from their owners or ever depriving people of their property is quite intreging considering had he been HONESTLY inclined to hold that creed he would have never gotten involved in depriving the British Imperial Government it's property, namely INDIA!

So what's your opinion of him anyway?

[orwellcommie]

It seems to me that he's to best be judged by his effect on the nation of india, the class oppression the poverty the wage slavery and continued oppression.  Right now India is the trump card in the game of "Globalization".    It's population tops a billion of which only a VERY small fraction are employed for oursourcing purposes by major multi-national corporation who use then as ultimate scab labor.  So while this tiny fraction collaborate with "Globalization" the vast majority are left in squallid poverty, held in submission by the caste system where either you are born to be held in contemp or born to privilidge.  

The world would greatly benifit from communist revolution on the continent of india, as well this would have a profound effect towards the benifit of the masses within that country.  So one can say that if Ghandi had truely been a foe to Imperialist oppression of India the current state of affairs would indicate that he failed in that persuit, as this nation is more controled by foriegn capital and more exploited by "Globalization" then even during british imperial rule.

[Saketh]

Man...I hate this thread.

I'm from India, so I think Gandhi was an extremely great man. He basically fueled the movement against the British.

But he did not support certain ideals that were stated above.

I feel so torn! I think I'll stick with Gandhi's non-prick-ness.

[turnoviseous]

Saketh, have you read the book "Partition - can it be undone?". Maybe it will answer some your questions.

I don´t really think he fueled the movement the movement at all. Maybe an interesting fact is that most of British politicians at the time actually liked him.

If you are interested in more interesting information, read the book. You can find it on http://www.marxist.com

[Saketh]

Originally posted by turnoviseous
Saketh, have you read the book "Partition - can it be undone?". Maybe it will answer some your questions.

I don´t really think he fueled the movement the movement at all. Maybe an interesting fact is that most of British politicians at the time actually liked him.

If you are interested in more interesting information, read the book. You can find it on http://www.marxist.com

Hmm...for some reason, I think my beliefs will be shattered when I read that book.

Bring it on!

[turnoviseous]

Never be affraid of information if you want to know the truth. And everybodys beliefs are once shattered, that way or the other.

Hmm, I just checked and noticed that the book is not available as an e-version :confused: I thought it was, since most books published by wellred are available in e-version. You can buy it on http://wellred.marxist.com tho

[orwellcommie]

Well hell it's not like we can't be criticle of Communist leaders and still be pro-Communist.  Where is it written you have to be engaged in leader worship of Ghandi to be Pro-India?  If he had flaws you shouldn't shy away from examining them, heck we'd all be Stalin worshipping if leaders were "Off Limits", and from where I'm sitting there isn't a Stalin worshipper here because folks have looked at the record, and the record speaks for itself.

[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?