Myths about Gandhi

[Kat Kanning]

Reading another Mark Shepard article:

http://markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html

This struck me as very interesting:

The colonists used another strategy later adopted by Gandhi?setting up parallel institutions to take over functions of government?and had far greater success with it than Gandhi ever did. In fact, according to Sharp, colonial organizations had largely taken over control from the British in most of the colonies before a shot was fired.

[PowerPenguin]

This is true. It took between 10 and 20 years, depending on how you estimate things. One other thing to remember is that due to geography and technology (and politics), the British Empire was able to "crack down" on the Indians much more easily than in 18th century N. America. Dispite this, it worked in the 40s/50s there, and it should be able to here as well.

[FrankChodorov]

this is nothing more than the "dual power" or "counter economics" strategy of the anarchist movement...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power

from the agorist movement (movement of the libertarian left)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics

[Kat Kanning]

Nice quote from the article:

Gandhi said, ?I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.?

[Kat Kanning]

Wow.

Satyagraha?Gandhi?s nonviolent action?was not a way for one group to seize what it wanted from another. It was not a weapon of class struggle, or of any other kind of division. Satyagraha was instead an instrument of unity. It was a way to remove injustice and restore social harmony, to the benefit of both sides.

Satyagraha, strange as it seems, was for the opponent?s sake as well. When Satyagraha worked, both sides won.

That concept did not pass at all easily through my filter, and I understand why so many others miss it entirely. But it is, really, the essential difference between Gandhi?s Satyagraha and so much of the nonviolent action practiced by others.

You may wonder, how did Gandhi himself come to this amazing attitude? He said it this way: ?All my actions have their source in my inalienable love of humankind.?

You see, love for the victim demanded struggle, while love for the opponent ruled out doing harm. But in fact, love for the opponent likewise demanded struggle.

Why? Because by hurting others, the oppressor also hurts himself.

Of course, the oppressor isn?t likely to be aware of that. He may be thoroughly enjoying his power and wealth. But beneath all that, his injustice is cutting him off from his fellow humans and from his own deeper self. And when that happens, his spirit can only wither and deform.

[Moorlock]

http://www.mkgandhi.org/civil_dis/Speech14.htm ? ?I have made sedition my dharma?

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html ? The Collected Works of Gandhi online, and free

http://www.nwtrcc.org/mtap05/mtap1005.html#gandhi ? Gandhi's Three Elements of Nonviolent Social Transformation

http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=28Aug05 ? an interesting melding of satyagraha with the libertarian non-aggression principle and anarchist revolutionary thinking from Gandhi?s deputy Vinoba Bhave

http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=23Jul04 ? Gandhian nonviolence not only can be an effective technique of political force, but it has certain built-in safeguards that make it difficult to use in the service of injustice

http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=25Jul04 ? an interview with the spirit of Gandhi, as channeled through a clairvoyant tapeworm that is communicating telepathically with an imaginary friend of mine