Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

GANDHI

Discussion in 'Documentaries & Movies' started by Probe, May 28, 2010.

  1. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     

  2. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    Gandhi and his actions are highly overrated.
     
  3. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    I like Ghandi because he showed that peaceful protest can lead to something.

    That he was homophobe and racist and all that... Well, that was the time. He was not an enlighten being, but he did send a good signal to the world.
     
  4. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Gandhi fucking sucks.

    Moreover, the 'success' of his peaceful methods were largely due to external circumstances. The british were having a shitload of difficulty with maintaining the empire in the face of violent anti-imperialist movements elsewhere, and even within India. Peaceful protest meant nothing without the threat of the explosion of violence as was occurring in the other colonies.

    Moreover, Gandhi's movement largely allowed for the 'success' of de-colonisation on the British's own terms, allowing the establishment of a proxy british government, the poms 'lost' territorial control without comprising economic control of the region. This is the revolutionary success of Gandhi's work- fuck all.
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,336

    62

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada Canada
    Couldn't have explained it better. Totally agree with you. I hate it when some opponent to violence quote Gandhi and try to prove that it was an example of a successful peaceful social change, but they also ignore all other attemps of peaceful social change that turned into a blood bath, from the revolt of the Tian-Anmen place to the Bloody Sunday and the amerindian revolts. Even Nelson Mandera was better than Gandhi. Definatly over-rated.
     
  6. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    For humble me I agree, gandhi was lucky with the Brits still recovering from ww II and occupied elsewhere - and he is highly overrated, 'cause he couldn't prevent the separation of Pakistan and the resulting everlasting feud between the muslims and the hindus, his influence on the society burdened with tradition changed nothing, his personal morality was traditional, he was ignorant on womens lib, he never questioned authority really deeply/basically, he wasn't an Anarchist.

    I am no pazifist, but his tactical use of organized mass social defence/resistance against repression - at the "salt march" for example are a bit to consider, 'cause the Indians succeded in breaking the Brits economical pressure, in this case at least. The same counts more or less for his self-sufficiency/self-supply ideas breaking dependency and colonial exploitation.

    I think non-violent tactics are considerable, think about the Czechs "success" 1968 in preventing the the bloodbath of the soviet punitive expedition that happened at another soviet punitive expedition 1953 in Hungary.
    The czechs demoralisized the russian soldiers believe of fighting counterrevolution by social defence only, many russians fraternized with the czechs and Moscow had to replace the unreliable becoming troops with a second wave of soldiers mostly from east germoney, unable to communicate with the czechs and finally breaking the czechs resistance.
    Ok, the czechs lost too, but they made their point and they prevented the blood bath.
     
  7. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    I think it's great that people have him as a symbol of resistance, for those who aren't ready for a big revolutionary fight. If it wasn't for people like him, fewer would protest, and fewer would listen to the protest's.

    On a historical note, all that has been said here is true, but as a symbol, he works.

    As long as it makes people try to protest, and be enlightened about the wrongs of society, maybe it's good.
     
  8. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    following symbols of resistance gets a bit difficult if the symbol is shot dead... I think gandhi is a good example for this problem.
    Many followed him, some sacrificed themselves because they were convinced by his thoughts and example - and he and his followers achived something - and then he died, was buried with honor - and?
    India is a nuclear power, india is a police state, India is still suffering from unequality, poverty, exploitation etc. - did you hear anything about gandhis heritage?
    Gone with the wind I guess, 'cause the hero's gone and was forgotten... Attonborough made an entertaining movie, and the mass scene extras still complain about the little money he gave them...

    Don't follow leaders, think and decide for yourself, be your own personal hero, look for others of your kind, unite, maybe give an example - but never become a symbol... symbols risk to get shot and leave nothing behind.
     
  9. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    True, but people believe that he achieved a lot, and that they can be able to achieve something political, if enough stand together. This keeps them from total Apathy at least.

    India is a country with a lot of bad elements... But i guess so are so many other countries. Poverty, inequality, religious indoctrination and such is the norm rather than the exception.

    Of course people should think for them self, but they don't. People are following. Wether it's human nature, or just the way we've been indoctrinated through tradition and authority is another discussion, one i've had many times when discussing anarchism.

    I believe it's like Nietzsche's theory of the übermensch. Some have to lead people to realization and into thinking for them self, even if it sounds like a paradox.
     
  10. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    shuei,
    India is not different from any other authorian state today - but in gandhis case - whats left of him in india?
    Maybe he raised many out of apathy - but when he was gone - they fell back into apathy, so what went wrong?

    People will have to take over responsibility for themselves, think for themselves, live, act, fight for themselves
    and if they get the message right, they will do it together/united - what's the consequence if they don't start to do it - I don't want to think about that...

    I don't think it's human nature, through our evolution we spend most of the time as free individuals joining together in mutual communities (wrote you a bit about history in "anarchism vs. communism") the era of authority isn't that old/long. It's just the tradition of brainwash that needs to be overcomed, that's why we talk about it here, get a agreeable picture about to show it elsewhere. It's a hard job, but we have to do it.

    I don't know much about ol' fritz, I suffer under some strange kind of allergy against "free" thinking not combined with the ability to get a nail straight into the wall. People like nitzsche or stirner rose to the heights of individual divinity, but they never shared the sweat and fun of a single day of collective work - so let's talk about realism and experience necessary to lead people to take over self responsibility?

    Each of us has a brain - and if we throw them together we have more between us than just a single one...

    I remember an article in the most important liberal weekly magazine in germoney, "der spiegel", about the scientific view on nitzesches paperwork, the autor was blaiming his sister to have "edited" his writings while he was getting mentally ill - to spread her brothers fame and please the rising racist right wing movement with the "übermensch" to justify the atrocities of white power.
    We already talked about the problem of professionals doing the thinking/decicion buisness for others - they always tend to get corrupted and dangerous, even it they - like ol' fritz at his end - are too mad to do so themselves...
     
  11. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    It's the same. Kill the leader and the group disbands. Always the same.
    Just see Rosa Luxemburg, or just any of the feminist's musicians of the 60's, 70's and early 80's - Look what modern music look like today, and so called feminism.
    Watch Martin Luther King - There's still racism all over the united states!

    Therefore i mentioned Nietzsche. People must learn to think for them self, which is hard in this circus of mass media propaganda

    But it seems we agree. I don't believe human nature tells us to be that obedient, but authority has years of practice in making people believe, that they are incapable of taking control of their own lives. How often don't we hear the media speak of "youth with no respect for authority" and such.

    Well, what you say about Nietzsche might be right. I've always admired his works, actually his works was some of which got me into reading about anarchism. Nietzsche may not have done much work collectively, but we all have our qualities, and his thoughts were his. He told, that it was necessary for any society to get the most out of each individual by training them, not oppress them.

    Realistically, what we can do is inform people. People, at this point, do not wish to be informed, as it destroys their black'n'white view on the world. Therefore, we need to destroy this structure of the world, making sure the flaws become obvious and close to the general public.
    It's about getting people out of this state of apathy, realize the flaws of society, and the good alternatives. Which lead us back to Gandhi, being an example of people inspired to do so. But how do we keep the spirit alive without the leaders? It's all about having lead them so far, that they will think for them self. Idealist's are necessary to creative realistic changes.

    And Nietzsche was another example, though he spoke on a different less direct level. "God is dead" is an example of a rebellion against a structure in society that needed to be destroyed. That he ended up mad, and his works were used as nazi propaganda (which can in no way be justified, as it has no consensus with the actual ideas of Nietzsche), is because he claimed he had "found the meaning of life", but friends of him tell, that the frustration for him of not being able to create these changes was one of the things that drove him mad
     
  12. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    shuei,
    Right, thanks for compressing my thoughts with your very effective short version:
    Kill the leader and the group disbands - it's exactly what I wanted to say.
    (and we have another practical proof that we can do it better - together - than anybody else on his own)

    Still opposing authorian communism, Rosa Luxemburg is my personal favorite of the misguided, so I'll have to mention that she had some relevance after her murder in berlin - and before she died, she inspired the separation of the radicals from the social democratic spd, to form the USPD, that later became the kpd - the communist party of germoney, ending up as a stalinist subdepartment of the kpdsu destroyed by the nazis.
    She opposed the war and the support of the war by the social democrats, her early citics on bolshevik theorie/action show some surprising insight and may have prevented the later lack of autonomy of the german communists - but she wasn't an Anarchist.
    Today her writing are still the most important inspiration for the leftwing communists to oppose the strict authorian communists.

    Talking of images or their bad copy- today we have sarah wagenknecht - ex-sed-communist from the former DDR, still trying hard to look like Rosa Luxemburg and already in the german parliament in berlin for the leftwing movement (die linke partei) - huh, what a bad example...

    But I found another good example against charismatic symbols like ganhi's or marthin luther kings:
    che guevara - or whatever people made out of him after seeing this faaaaaamouuuus picture...

    He's not mentioned for his individual action during the guerilla war in cuba, he failed while in office as a minister in the castro regime, he failed in his analysis of the situation in Bolivia, wasted more than 50 of his comrades, starting a fight that couldn't succeed and lost everything to be captured and murdered by cia and bolivian army. He left his picture and his signature on the cuban papermony, a few theoretical books about guerilla warfare - and?
    The farmers around Higuera/Bolivia sold him to the bolivian army for being a "foreigner" and he was killed - now they regard him as kind of a saint, putting that faaaaamouuuus picture next to jesus pictures in the churches...
    Paradox, isn't it?

    Taking nietsche as another example - after reading his writings YOU made the consequenting next step:
    After overcoming the brainwash of religion, tradition and individual repression by realizing it for what it is - let's see how to overcome the source of the brainwash... consequently ending up in Anarchism.
    But nietzsche wasn't as smart as you are - and he never made this necessary next step - remaining all alone in his individual divinity as the fool on the hill...

    Real life is going on all around that hill, and you have to step down to participate from it, staying isolated on the top will get you nothing.

    Maybe it's important to really realize that we are unique individuals - but you should't stop short - 'cause everybody else is an unique individual too, so we are alle equals regardless the individual difference that makes everybody unique.

    Practical example for our true nature as social beings:
    If somebody is asking one of my triplet daughters these days: "who are you" - each of them will give the statement: "my name is... and I am my sister's sister..." - when I heard it for the first time, I was really shocked, 'cause they are still very young, only a little more than babies and we don't tell them/teach them to give statements like that.
    Now I'm a real proud father and Anarchist - 'cause I realized that the girls prooved the fundamental principle:
    We are individuals, each of us has a name - and we have brothers and sisters that are equal to us.

    Their mother and I try hard not to "lead" the girls, we only try to protect them from the dangers of their age,
    physically and inclusive we try to keep the kid-brainwash away from them, no blessings of religion, no teletubbies or barbies, no commercials in tv, no fashion thingies for the girls...

    It's a kind of "anti-authorian education", they teach themselves 'cause they want to learn, we only support them in doing this, and it's amazing how fast they learn and how serious they are about it.
    When I make the mistake of helping them a bit too much, I always get a serious protest: "I can do it myself!" from them, and they are always right - they can do it for themselves, and learning from this I think:
    WE can do it too... or we should, at least we are adults...

    Sometimes I wonder what will become of the girls when they grow up to face the brainwash in kindergarten or school, learn about the "blessings" of capitalism... it's easy to give in into the widespread sedated black&white-view you mention, but I think the girls have already a strong mind of their own, always ganging up WITH each other to overcome whatever is limiting their opportunities. Revolution in the girls rooms is every days business:
    Yesterday they told me that they would like to learn to read... and after some weak evading response from me, (I try to evade to tell them "you're too young to read") they started to "read" one of their childrens books to me - in a brand new version of the story that nobody has ever heard before...

    Reading nietzsche may be not a waste - I might be a bit too intolerant against petit bourgeois philosophy lacking the experience of the reality the majority in capitalism has to suffer outside the library - but I think you shouldn't "adore" their writings - take inspiration from them if it is possible - and think for yourself.
    You already did it - your taking of the next step prooves that and your contributing to the discussion is just another proof - never stop thinking for yourself!

    Again we agree in the necessity of "teaching them" - to emerge out of the brainwash/fear/ignorance/apathy, to be able to take over their part of responsibility for themselves and us.
    You can't force them, thats obvious and against our fundamental principle so we don't want to force them, most of the time you can't convince them 'cause of the brainwash/fear/ignorance/apathy,
    doing practical work you can give an example of the deed - and you need time and patience to do so
    We started some kind of neighborhood net around here, offering mutual support for everyone taking part in the net, organizing repairs, painting jobs, garden work, babysitting, shopping service, distribution of free food and clothing - little pathetic things to make everybodys everydays life a bit easier.
    But pathetic as it is, it has some side effects: People get together, think about solutions for their problems, overcome ethnic differences by communication and collective work, learn to respect each other as equals of need and deed and beside mutual help there is no Anarchist trait in it - for now.
    Immigrants and germans start to fight back against the boneheads on the street, oppose the cops and some of them start to think about the situation in their homeland compared with their situation here - and I think thats a start...
    Many of them know about my Anarchist believes and the majority gives no shit about it, some still have their problem with my looks, punk that I am. But they tolerate me and give me the chance to give an example of whats possible to do even if you look like me, or in other words: proove the theories in real life.
    We have little progress, no Anarchists except my girlfriend, my mates and me - but the little progress around us spurs on our activity, makes us trying harder consequently without taking over the lead.
    I think it leaves a little impression and it will take lots of time to see the seed growing into blossom, but there's no alternative to it.

    Again I have to admit my lack of detailed knowledge about nietzsches life, so I can only speculate about the reasons for his mental problems - he has my sympathie for his suffering and I don't think he's wrong 'cause he was only mad. Living in the western capitalistic "culture" is a hard job and may drive you mad...
    God is dead, thats right - and the individual limitation "justified by god" is just another aspect of the repressive nature of our society corrupted and abused by capitalism.
    On the abstract/theoretical level nietzsche opposed the limitation/repression of the individual. He was right about this and is obviously the same today - but he stopped too short, dwelling in his intellectual divinity without realising the consequence.
    The source of a repressive society is capitalism - using it's destructiv influence on the controlled society.
    Christian believes spreaded first amongst the slaves and the poor people in the late antique and according to it's growing influence it changed more than one time in it's meaning. Around 450 a.c. it became the believe of the late roman empire - it joined forces with an authorian state and since then it was always allied with the repressive authority. Christian believe is all about the blessing of the slaves chain, just slave and suffer, don't fight back - you will get to heaven at last, so don't mind living in hell...
    nietzsche opposed that and he was right with this opposition - but he never opposed the source...
    And don't forget about the important fact that even after capitalism is abolished there will still be a society,
    'cause we want and need to live together - without limitation by class, superstitions of believe, ethnics ect.
    so it's not the society as such that is the problem.
     
Loading...