>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.
I never mentioned an "economic revolution". Mass sentiment was however against British imperialism and the growing tendency to a violent confrontation at the time is not just part of some sort of retrospective wishful thinking on my part. Ghandi's later political invovlement specifically aimed to undercut the more radical approach of Chandra Bose, founder of the Indian National Army. Bose was arguing for armed resistance and was picking up widespread support. Ghandi's non-violence once more came in useful to limit the extent of resistance and undercut him.
For me the real measure of Ghandi's politics was in his support for the
British partition of India. Here his non-violent approach couldn't make any
impact on the slaughter of some two million people who paid the price of
restoring the imperialist order under two formally independent regimes in
India and Pakistan. This was the immediate product of liberation and the
real "success" of the style of liberation politics which he helped
popularise on behalf of India's British rulers. We're still seeing the
consequences today in the regular upsurge of tensions in the region.
>
>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.
Who mentioned Marxism? I merely pointed to Ghandi's role in damping down popular resistance and the consequences of this for the development of the liberation struggle in India. I also never questioned the "courage" of participants in the resistance movement. Ghandi was not *the movement* and in fact undermined its effectivenss.
It is testament to the limited expectations of the "left" today that this charlatan can even get a look in as a great twentieth century leader and his spoiling tactics be recommended on this list.
Russell