Gandhi and the (establishment-supported) Myth of Effective Nonviolence
GRINGO STARS | 29.10.2002 17:40
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):
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):
GRINGO STARS
e-mail:
gringo_stars@attbi.com
Homepage:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
This shows how wrong the starshine people are
29.10.2002 18:53
Sometimes their alternative protests explode into violence for example the Reclaim The Streets organised Liverpool Dockers March in 1997, the Mayday protests and the J18 event in the City of London in 1999, but when ever that happens it is met by a howl of condemnation for nearly everyone on the left and in the aternative green movement.
I follow Lenin's line that revolution will only come about by a dedicated group dedicated to overthrowing the ruling class and capitalism by whatever means neccessary including violence. This nearly happened as recently as 1968 in France when France came only days away from a successful workers revolution which only collapsed when the French president threatened to send in troops. If only they had stood their ground and fought on!
Harlequin
Homepage:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
harlequin
29.10.2002 22:26
You talk andf talk about action, but nerver do anything. The violent upheavel in russia led to millions of deaths and ultimatly the establishment of a brutal regime under stalin. Trotsky was forced to flee and was murdered in mexico. He who lives by the sword....
If you try it again how do you know the same thing wont happen.
For a revolution to succeed, it must have the support of a majority of people: witness Guevara's failure in bolivia.
Dont take cuba as an example. Those were special circumstances: a brutal regime, able and honest revolutionary leaders, and finally the support of the masses
Better to go the Chavez way. Working thru democracy.
I recall thta marx was critical of the free market, but said that to make things worse was good if it could foment revolution. I see his point of view, but think it is iresponsible for a philosopher to overlookmthe great suffering that will ensue for a society that will be corrupted later on.
Go read Animal Farm
brian