> I'm not sure why Kenneth prefers the Ghandi of yesteryear
to the Havel of today.
Gandhi?
> His Satyagraha campaigns stressed that oppressors should
be treated as equals who could be convinced of the truth
and justice of the cause of the oppressed. What was key
here was that he refused to allow the use of force by the
oppressed. Satyagraha thus only served to reconcile the
oppressed to the continuation of their oppression.
!??!
Let's take the Indian Independence Movement of 1930 and 1931 as an example of "reconciliation of the oppressed to the continuation of their oppression."
The strategy of the nonviolent protagonists was clearly stated - independence was the functional objective of nonviolent resistance.
For a full decade before the campaign started, Gandhi and the Indian National Congress prepared itself as a fighting organization building on a long tradition of articulate nationalist sentiment. Organizations such as the Muslim League and various other networks were brought under an umbrella organization, the Congress' Working Committee - which served as an operational corps, turning broad policy into stratagems and local issue-oriented tactical encounters.
The tactics used by the nonviolent protagonists exhibited a wide range of sanctions - boycotts, civil disobedience, hartals, mass demonstrations, revenue actions, tree cutting, salt actions, ordinance actions, political noncooperation and so on. Nearly all of the sanctions used were easily replicable and had good "risk-return" characteristics.
The nonviolent actionists were also able to mute the impact of violence against their membership. The more concentrated violence became, the more support, local and international, the independence movement gained. Deaths of the nonviolent protagonists were turned to the maximum disadvantage of the perpetrators, fueling the movement and creating symbols to rally around. This created a hesitancy on the side of the government to continue with similar forms of repression.
Throught the campaign, nonviolence protagonists were able to maintain nonviolent discipline. And although this transcendent strategic commitment and calculation, its moral apsects served to shamed violent opponents, impressed third parties, and prevented the characterization of the movement as anything less than heroically nonviolent.
Had resistance taken a violent form, the resistance movement would have likely been crushed and the groundwork for success in 1947 would have delayed. The grounding in nonviolent action in 1930 and 1931 forced political official to treat him as an equal. This was hardly a conformative experience.
I will say this, the fact that Gandhi remained a charismatic leader throughout became on of the principle weakeness of the independence movement. Personal limitations and compromises made it difficult in 1930 and 1931 to achieve the stated goals. Had leadership been more widespread then the result might have been different.
> While Ghandi's campaigns depended on the support of lawyers, traders,
money-lenders, village officials and sub-contractors, his
affectation of traditional dress and customs also gave him
wide appeal to the impoverished masses whose support he won
to Congress. His methods allowed Congress to gain popular
support through a form of limited opposition to Britain but
at the same time avoided the large-scale violence which
could have threatened the vested interests of the Indian
bourgeoisie. The Oxford Modern History of India summed up
Ghandi's role as "in a sense the government's best friend at
that time" and credited him with ensuring that "resentment
did not flame into insurrection".
The *aim* of the nonviolent actionists *wasn't* an economic revolution. So you are confusing the aims of the strategy with your personal interests. The conflict was one of political independence, not economic transformation. From the viewpoint of this, success was achieved in 1947. You can't judge the merits of nonviolent resistance using borrowed criteria for success.
If you want to fault Gandhi for not being Marxist enough, fine. But tossing out his insights into the power of nonviolent action, which is what Zizek is appealing to here, because he wasn't a Marxist is monsterously unfair and does an extreme injustice to the courage and widespread participation of those involved in the independence movement.
ken