Global
Relevance
of
the
Social
Philosophy
of
Mahatma K. Gandhi
By Franz J.T. Lee - January 18, 2005 at 9:42 pm
The historic life and heroic struggle of Mahatma K. Gandhi (Oct 2, 1869
to Jan 30, 1948) against British colonial injustice, human degradation,
economic exploitation and social discrimination are well known, here we
will just spotlight certain selected aspects of his social philosophy,
its moral principles and its contemporary relevance for global
revolutionary and emancipatory efforts. Not by any means are we
ignoring the worldwide invaluable works and moral contributions of the
global, erudite, academic titans on the topic Gandhi, that definitely
concern his social principles and ascetic modus vivendi, however, here,
we will just quote K. Santhanam, who is also an expert in this matter,
and who best describes our own philosophic deliberations:
"... he (Gandhi) lived an austere life, practiced strict vegetarianism
and abstained from alcoholic drinks, tobacco and even the milder
stimulants like coffee and tea. His attachment to simple natural
remedies against illness and disease and his radical ideas on education
are not so well known to the outside world and, even in India, they
have not made much impact. Gandhi deliberately refrained from making
these issues public and thereby confusing the people. The only
exception was prohibition of intoxicating drinks which became a tool in
the armory of satyagraha."
See: K. Santhanam, "Basic Principles Of Gandhism":
http://www.mkgandhi.org/gandhi-his%20relevance/cha p26.htm
Now, what are the fundamental political principles of Gandhism? Why
should they concern Latin America and Venezuela? What relevance do they
have for social conflicts, for an attempted military coup d'etat, for
oil sabotage, for electoral campaigns, for Citizen Power?
Gandhism, existing on the other extreme of Marxism, surely should
concern us, as Ernst Bloch would say, as the warm human current of
emancipation, of revolutionary processes that are "neither
Marxist nor Anti-Marxist", that are against brutal violence,
imperialist "terrorism" and that categorically favor real world
peace and true social justice.
Here in Venezuela, where morality is even elevated to a constitutional
State power, surely Gandhi's social philosophical views have become
topical again.
In fact, in his many addresses to the nation, very often, underlining
nonviolence, social justice and human happiness, President Hugo
Chávez Frías ocassionally refers to Mahatma Gandhi and
Martin Luther King Jr. However, it can not be in our emancipatory
interest eternally just to glorify any social reformer or
revolutionary. On the contrary, as time passes by, in fairness to
Gandhi himself, our scientific and philosophic duty is to enrich his
life work, to criticize and "up-date" it constructively.
Firstly, as we know, Gandhi developed the famous social technique of
"satyagraha" -- peaceful social action, a social philosophic system
that enjoins nonviolent personal behavior and social responsibility.
However, in essence, it is not totally passive or pacifist, in cases of
liberatory self-defense, it "holds fast to truth", defends it with
"resistance", for example, like it was the case in the struggle against
Apartheid in South Africa, in which Gandhi, the "Indian Congress of
South Africa" and the African National Congress (ANC) had
participated. In more detail, below we will deal with these basic
principles of his philosophy.
(See: http://www.stanford.edu/~piber/nonviolence/glossar y.html)
Secondly, well-known is his life long struggle in India and in South
Africa, against "untouchability", that is, against the ideological,
discriminatory, psychological, caste and colonial notions of "race"
superiority and inferiority. In this case, like many of us, Gandhi
found himself between the devil and the deep, blue sea, between
colonial racist ideology and ancient cultural traditions. He had to
defend Indian cultural and moral values, to grasp the millions of
pariahs on their level of social imagination, but at the same time with
new, independent values, effectively he had to confront British
colonial immorality and racism.
In the current revolutionary process of Latin American integration, of
finding our own historical roots, of applying our own Bolivarian moral
values, with the truth trying to ward off malicious, disinformation
campaigns and US war-mongering, we find ourselves in a similar
situation. Surely, Gandhi could give us a historic lesson, not to copy
it, but to enrich, to materialize it.
Now, very briefly, let us critically highlight some of the basic
elements of his social philosophy.
1. DIALECTICAL UNITY AND CONTRADICTION BETWEEN HUMAN ACTION AND SOCIAL
THOUGHT
In typical, oriental tradition, using his specific idealist, religious
terminology, concerning individual human beings, formal logically
neglecting their social, class nature, their master and slave
relations, nonetheless, he taught about the indivisible integrity,
about the dialectical unity and contradiction of the human corporeal
body and divine mind. According to Santhanam, confirming his
dialectical philosophy:
"He (Gandhi) was never tired of saying that the body should be
controlled by the mind and the mind by the soul."
(Santhanam, ibid.)
Of course, across the past century, the concept "control" has acquired
very negative, modern connotations, especially in the realm of the "war
of ideas", of "mind and thought control", that is, in general, in the
realm of political domination, manipulation and indoctrination; hence,
to understand Gandhi in an emancipatory sense, a better term would be
"related" in a human, humane and humanist sense of harmony. In this
way, by enriching Gandhi, together with him, we could surpass the
blatant, mundane lies of reactionary ideology, and thus head towards
the revolutionary theoretical cliffs of truth, of emancipatory Pico
Bolivar.
In his own words, for us Santhanam expresses this as follows:
"But this control is not to be achieved by despising or neglecting
either the body or the mind or in the mystic exaltation of the soul by
itself. He attached to physical health and well-being as much
importance as to plain and logical thinking or moral responsibility."
(Santhanam, ibid.)
Leaving the generally emphasized Gandhist "spiritualization of
politics" for a while aside, rather we should note that Gandhi , in his
idealist dialectics, had underlined that, on the one hand, real thought
... we would say true, praxical theory ... organically must be related
to highly moral endeavors, and on the other hand, to socially useful,
right, righteous action ... we would say, to real, theoretical praxis.
However, in the last analysis, delving much deeper into his social
philosophy, diving further into his favorite daily prayers, that is, in
the verses of the Bhagavad Gita, it becomes obvious that Gandhi had no
faith in purely abstract, virtuous spirituality by itself. He regarded
it just as a kind of aureole or illumination which should accompany any
liberating social thought and action.
2. A SIMPLE SET OF MORAL HUMAN VALUES
In a corrupt society of British colonial egoism, avarice and
immorality, for India to gain social independence, Gandhi saw the
liberating necessity of introducing ethical and moral social action and
thought in the independence movement.
Precisely this was also the revolutionary motive of the Bolivarians why
constitutionally a Moral Power had to be introduced in Venezuela, to
erase forever the ossified, racist and alienating vices of centuries of
oligarchism and "puntofijismo".
Concerning the selection of the kind of moral values we could differ,
but he considered the following to be of paramount importance:
"the main elements are selflessness, non-attachment, non-violence and
active service." (ibid.)
Whether the human species, whether all or some human beings, or whether
certain social classes are by "nature", by essence or spirit
non-violent, pacifist or unselfish, we leave this to the thousands of
erudite scholars to determine. However, what we have noticed across the
last centuries is that the ruling social orders in which we are living,
all have been violent, were killing millions of earth-dwellers by
social order itself. We are being born in violence, live in violence,
die in violence; even more so today, at the eve of global fascism.
But, in the words of Santhanam, let Gandhi explain to us the moral of
this bloody, historical story:
" ... he believed that the growth of a man's personality is
proportionate to his faith in and practice of these virtues. This is
possible only when he identifies himself more and more with an
ever-increasing circle till it embraces all humanity and even all
living beings. He judged the value and vitality of social institutions
by their capacity to foster such growth." (ibid.)
Surely, very soberly we can say that at the current level of the global
production process, of permanent natural destruction and boundless
social alienation, in a violent, capitalist, imperialist, corporate,
fascist environment in agony, this human endeavor, as sublime as it may
be, is impossible to attain anymore.
Gandhi, we ourselves, did not choose our serpentine road towards
emancipation. Bush, his local opposition Quislings, his international
CIA lackeys and the Pentagon-White House war-mongers with their
"Project for a New American Century" and "Colombia Plan", paved the
violent road of humanity with their belligerent, depleted uranium
"mother of all bombs".
3, CONCERNING THE POLITICAL STATE
Precisely with reference to the above, concerning the colonial,
political State, Gandhi suggested the following alternative. For him,
what enjoys primary significance is only "the growth of
individuals". The State should only serve the interests of the
individuals that make up society.
Here, in total contradiction with Socialism or Marxism, a
politico-economic analysis of colonial and neocolonial realities is
totally absent; no mention about any class interests or class
struggles. In fact, on the contrary, in his earlier years, because of
its social and sexual discipline, rather of its sexual repression,
Gandhi defended this very oppressive caste-system in India. This ideal
notion was not completely abandoned in his more mature writings.
Nonetheless, contrary to Maquiavelli, whose views he repudiated, Gandhi
considered means just as important as ends, even more relevant than
ends, never mind, even if they were socially desirable and
"good". Social ends direct, but human means constitute life
itself.
According to him, in real political life, in the struggle for
independence, human means have to be righteous, good, truthful and
non-violent.
Of course, in a classless society, in the absence of competition,
monopolization, centralization, globalization, accumulation of capital
and profits, any sane person or individual would be inhuman not to
agree with these Gandhist humane ends, however, in the true reality in
which we currently live and die, for example in Iraq, more precisely in
Fallujah, the sole application of this practice against our
bloodthirsty arch-enemies would not only result in mass suicide,
globally, it would be genocidal for billions of working, toiling
pariahs. In fact, Gandhi, and his disciple, Martin Luther King
Jr., themselves had to take this bloody, Socratic hemlock.
Definitely, neither raw violence nor myopic pacifism can emancipate us.
4. FAITH AND HOPE IN A GOD
This is the rock of ages on which Gandhi's social philosophy stands and
falls. However, not only the world of Gandhi, but of over 90% of the
global population, no matter whether they are actively, passively or
culturally believers in a myriad of different divinities. Here, we
refrain to comment about religious critique or critical religion in the
21st century, in the "Information Age". Let us allow Santhanam to
summarize Gandhi's views on the matter.
"Faith in God is, according to Gandhi, the foundation of all moral
values. He never defined God and was prepared to allow every person to
have his own idea of God. For himself, he was inclined to think of Him
as the Upanishadic Brahman. But, so long as a person believes in some
source of spiritual life and holds it superior to the material
universe, he is a believer in God."
CONCLUSION
Finally, in honor of Gandhi, we have to state that morality, that
ethical behavior and thought, stand higher than any religious
fantasies, chimeras or phantasmagorias. He himself preferred any true
agnostic with high moral values to a corrupt, megalomaniac pharisee or
to a State president, who in messianic bellicose array daily blesses
Mammon or the nation.
Inter alia, across the twentieth century, the views of Gandhi on
politics, economics and society played an important role in the
independence movements against British colonialism in India and also in
South Africa, where indentured Indian cheap labor was exploited to the
maximum. In India itself, much later, to a certain extent they were
even implemented in the various Five Year Plans, and in the program of
Khadi and Village Industries. Also, the social philosophic views of
Gandhi had influenced liberatory movements across the globe, in this
way, Gandhi has left his own emancipatory imprint on the destiny of
humanity.
***************** *********
A Brief History of Mohandas K. Gandhi
by Richard Attenborough
Mohandas K. Gandhi was born in 1869 to Hindu parents in the state of
Gujarat in Western India. He entered an arranged marriage with
Kasturbai Makanji when both were 13 years old. His family later sent
him to London to study law, and in 1891 he was admitted to the Inner
Temple, and called to the bar. In Southern Africa he worked ceaselessly
to improve the rights of the immigrant Indians. It was there that he
developed his creed of passive resistance against injustice,
satyagraha, meaning truth force, and was frequently jailed as a result
of the protests that he led. Before he returned to India with his wife
and children in 1915, he had radically changed the lives of Indians
living in Southern Africa.
Back in India, it was not long before he was taking the lead in the
long struggle for independence from Britain. He never wavered in his
unshakable belief in nonviolent protest and religious tolerance. When
Muslim and Hindu compatriots committed acts of violence, whether
against the British who ruled India, or against each other, he fasted
until the fighting ceased. Independence, when it came in 1947, was not
a military victory, but a triumph of human will. To Gandhi's despair,
however, the country was partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim
Pakistan. The last two months of his life were spent trying to end the
appalling violence which ensued, leading him to fast to the brink of
death, an act which finally quelled the riots. In January 1948, at the
age of 79, he was killed by an assassin as he walked through a crowed
garden in New Delhi to take evening prayers. end of Attenborough's
summary.
http://www.engagedpage.com/gan1.html
* Franz J.T. Lee's Reporter's Notebook
* Email this pageEmail this page
* Digg Digg
* StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
* Reddit Reddit
* Facebook Facebook
* Google Google
About Franz J.T. Lee
Personal Website
http://www.franz-lee.org/venezuela00001.html
Biography
Currently, as Professor Titular, I am living in Mérida,
Venezuela, lecturing at the University of The Andes, and in the
Post-Graduate Department of Political Science. I am the Director of
Investigation of the Centro de Estudios Políticos y Sociales de
América Latina (CEPSAL), Co-Editor of its Revista de las
Cienxias Políticas.
View full user profile
Latest Notebook Entries
* Venezuela: Waterloo or Dien Bien Phu?
* Latin America: In Defense of the Venezuelan
Revolution
* Venezuela: Angels Don't Play This HAARP
* Global Relevance of the Social Philosophy of
Mahatma K. Gandhi
* Venezuela's Possible Black Golden Future
* Authentic Journalism: The flip side, the torturing
thorns of rosy Internet.
* President Chavez Frias studying Trotsky,
Revolution and Emancipation
* Stark, dark realities facing Latin America and the
World
* VHeadline.com's firewall eliminated 11,468 viruses
in the space of one hour
* La esclavitud de la mente: El control mental en
sus dimensiones psicológica y fisiológica
more
Comments
Mac James
Submitted October 3, 2008 - 6:49 pm by Kristina Frye (not verified)
znvm7n7cnm4gk0nn http://ubxygf.com >ejlydnz ifdxojpw
http://pbuvcrbg.com http://ywcrvydlafm.com >ylkuak wjcwtkr
http://jhrbvjuqdfz.com http://vhbtgocsmllt.com >fnrknof uloojwdx
http://fgeuax.com http://lashasnlxdqx.com >jygrswn djvivmd
http://tbjwppaez.com
* reply
Ghandi's View as Collective, not Individual
Submitted February 9, 2009 - 11:51 am by Pat (not verified)
One of the great lessons of Mahatma Ghandi and his peace-promoting
views was that the collectve non-violence would win in the end, and is
the only method of approaching peace. But Ghandi was a passivist who
relied upon collective sacrifice to pursue that view, and millions
followed. America is not India, and its individuals value life far more
than reducing life to the sacrifices of oppression that Ghandi used to
elevate the conscience of his followers. It doesn't apply therefore to
America. There is no reason to suspect that India and America have
similar objectives, methods, or conscience - in the deliberation and
exercise of daily lives. Allowing India the privilege of dictating
American lives, or American finances, therefore, is unacceptable, and
unrealistic, unless Americans want to become like India in their
perspectives on life.
* reply
@ Pat
Submitted February 9, 2009 - 12:11 pm by Al Giordano
Pat - Utilizing the strategic and tactical breakthroughs developed by
Gandhi in the last century is not akin to "allowing India the privilege
of dictating American lives" and you haven't made a case that it is.
Here's an example: Every hear of a reverend named Martin Luther King?
According to his own writings and statements, Gandhi's strategies and
tactics were the foundation of his own in the Civil Rights movement of
the United States. And this month we're living another milestone in
that struggle's successes, something that would have been impossible
had King and others not adapted Gandhi's methods to the United States.
Of course all struggles and their methods must be adapted to the land
and the population in which they are utilized. But borrowing the best
from another place does not surrender sovereignty anymore than those
who play the saxophone - developed by a Belgian named Saxe - are
subjugating jazz to Belgium!
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/franz-jt-lee/2005/01/global-relevance-social-philosophy-mahatma-k-gandhi
By applying dialectical logic and
by even
venturing beyond its internal, systemic, universal limits, Franz tries
to explain that Violence and Peace are just two different sides of the
very same historical process. This Janus-faced, democratic-fascist
monstrosity has to be annihilated in its total capitalist, imperialist,
corporate quintessence, to be transcended by creative, creating
emancipation, by natural-social humanity. The opposite, the negation of
Violence is not Peace. As Marx explained it already a century and a
half ago in his article 'The Jewish Question', the 'superation' of both
social processes, which determine and perpetuate themselves, is Human
Emancipation. Below we are publishing the second part of a series of
Franz's videos on this urgent topic and enlightening excerpts from
previous publications which definitely will blaze the trail to
understand the current globalized terror and terrorist globalization.