Dec
8
Talisman of Mahatma Gandhi – Radical Egalitarianism
“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?
Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.”
- One of the last notes left behind by Gandhi in 1948, expressing his deepest social thought.[1]
Have we ever realized its essence? Or have we been indoctrinated of the Gandhi’s talisman through our school text books, obviously authorized by the government boards of education?
Since our school days, Gandhi Ji inspires us all to think before we act, to check our words before we speak them, to control our senses before we see anything. We have been taught, not to see bad, not to say bad nor to do bad. Yet, we have never been allowed to decide what is good or what is bad, for Gandhi ji and most of the enlightened ideal leaders never accepted us to be intelligent enough to decide for our own self whether something is good enough to say, or do or see. We are obviously not entitled to decide for our own self, whether something is good enough to do, we are not enlightened and free enough to realize the narrow difference between good and bad. Hence, we need help to conjecture what is good to do and what should not be done, and Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman obviously is the key to our help.
Gandhi ji says that some act or something is good or aesthetically beautiful only if it is beautiful enough for all.[2] If whatever you do is good for you only, but it is not good for others, or all, it can not be said good. Majority cannot decide good or bad. The idea of good or bad, is essentially relative. Something can be good for one, but bad for others, and if the majority is authorized to decide what is good, than obviously, the minority is forced to accept it as good, without any option to oppose that. Hence, Gandhi certainly was not exclusively supportive of the Majority rule; obviously, he was not a supporter of enslavement of minority against the majority rule. He was proponent of the freedom and savior of minority against the majority. That is why he supported the idea of organized anarchy
“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organised form. The individual has a soul but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its very existence”. — Mahatma Gandhi[3]
Yet, was Mahatma Gandhi supporting the idea of freedom of the individual, the smallest minority, to decide for his self and his pursuit of good and happiness?
Was Mahatma Gandhi an existentialist, individualist, supporter of Individual rights and ability to be free and independent to rule and decide for his own life? Was Mahatma Gandhi a Libertarian? No, he was not, his idea of “organized anarchy” constitute a meaningful government and bureaucracy.
Based on Indian ethos and values, Gandhi added some powerful features for containing consumption and promoting social justice and equity. These are:
1) Village governments in which the village assembly controls resources and decision-making;
2) Decentralised production systems to curb distress migration to urban centres;
3) Self-sustaining local economies providing resilience to regional and global economic turbulence;
4) A low expense clean election system;
5) National governments accountable to local governance as a check against arrogance of the state;
6) Industry as trusteeship of the people, reinvesting in production of goods and services and not indulging in ostentatious consumption; and
7) Religions integrated as a positive force at the grassroots level.[3]
Gandhi was not a Libertarian; rather he was a socialist, a deep rooted supporter of the philosophy of Kant, the very basis of Marxism and Socialism. He was not an Individualist, nor he was supporter of Lockean law of homestead and property rights, he was not capitalist. Yet, he did not want the majority to rule over government and dictate for what is good or what is bad. In a sense, Gandhi was Minarchist, yet was he an Objectivist?
Who if not the majority elected government be the dictator for the individual to learn and act for what is good or beautiful for all?
According to Gandhi ji, materialism was corrupt and despicable thus, he was against the theory of capitalism, which gains its roots from the Lockean principles of Property rights. Gandhi ji also supported Marxism and defined class competition as the evil of society, he was a radical egalitarian and hence he considered the theory of Division of Labour as a poison to society.
According to Gandhi ji, one should not be self-righteous, self-dependent and self-interested while performing any action, rather, before acting, one must consider whether his act would be of any good for the poorest, weakest person one knows. That is, no one should be free to decide for his own pursuit of happiness, rather he should consider and chase the happiness of the poorest and weakest person one knows. Gandhi ji dreamed of the rule of weaklings and deprived, where the stronger and better workers, producers, creators are willfully subjected to serve the weakest, most depraved person one knows. Obviously, Ahimsa was his second most important mantra, as he knew that stronger could not be enforced to serve the weaker by means of violence, rather it could be done only by means of democratically renouncing self-interest, self-reliance, selfishness. Gandhi ji was the saint of selflessness. He wanted every one to devote his life willfully and peacefully with utmost devotion, for the improvement and goodness of the weakest of the person by means of Trusteeship[4] .
Argumentatively, if every one becomes as spiritual as Gandhi was and determines to be selfless, always willing and acting only to serve the good of the Most poor and weak person he knows, it would be very easy to make the dream of Egalitarianism to be true. If every strong and better person were working willfully to fulfill the good of not his self, but of the poorest person, the materialistic, capitalistic, or individualistic difference between the stronger or weaker would be nil. For this, he proposed the idea of Trusteeship[4] .
Gandhi ji’s Talisman, which we Indians have been indoctrinated throughout our student life, is actually the mystical potion of spiritual socialism that tends everyone to willfully and peacefully accept his duty to serve the poorest person one knows. Gandhi ji simply declined the importance of Individual life, and his right to pursue his happiness, his good, rather he inspired everyone to willfully accept the servitude of the weakest person one knows and to devote his actions for the goodwill of the poorest person.
Here comes the undeniable hypocrisy and psychological illness. How can one be selfless? How can one devote himself to think before acting, not his good, his profit, but the good of the other, the poorest? Gandhi ji’s talisman becomes a psychological poison for an individual because he naturally is selfish and tends to serve his own good. Gandhi ji’s talisman enforces him philosophically to consider himself a wrong-doer.
Conclusion: Gandhi was a Radical Egalitarian[5] , his philosophical idea was socialism, yet he was a supporter of anarchism and opposed majority rule of state government. He was proponent of Non violence, yet, he wanted to destroy class differences and hence Division of Labour and capitalism but peacefully through spiritual indoctrinations. If capitalism and Individual freedom can be sacrificed for the cause of socialism, than one may call Gandhi a libertarian, otherwise he was not a Libertarian.
Footnotes:I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community. Mahatma Gandhi[4]
- Gandhi’s talisman [↩]
- A tribute to an unlimited legacy, Gandhi’s concern for individual welfare lead him to distinguish between man’s basic needs and human acquisitiveness. As a result of his democratic temper, Gandhi argued that a thing could be considered beautiful only if it could in principle be made available to all. Tested against that principle, the Mont Blanc pen is a moral and aesthetic failure. Why Mont Blanc Pen is a moral and aesthetic failure? because not “ALL” can afford it. [↩]
- Realizing Gandhian Democracy, People First India [↩] [↩]
- Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Freedom Versus Egalitarianism, Reason for Liberty [↩]
Related Posts
438 views25 Responses to “Was Gandhi a Libertarian-II?”
Leave a Reply
Meena Iyer Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pmThis seems to be genuine approach on inspection of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophical and political motive. I read the previous article by the another author on this same site and I found that the author merely wanted to use Gandhi’s name and fame to propagate his idea of Anarchism, I doubt if he has any understanding of Libertarian philosophy or even Gandhian philosophy. I assume that he actually has no understanding of philosophical motives of any political theory. May be he intentionally avoid the philosophical motives, but he should realize that any political theory, be it Socialism, or Capitalism, Libertarianism or Gandhi’s Radical Egalitarianism, strictly stands on the philosophical base of that political theory. Without the knowledge of its philosophical stature, no political or economical stream can be discussed, debated, explained or emphasized.
Gandhi was philosophically motivated towards Jainism and Buddhism and that is obviously socialistic approach, you mentioned relevance of Kant philosophy with Gandhi ji’s radical egalitarianism too, and that seems to correct.
What makes me wondering is the fact that in spite of well known movement of Radical Egalitarianism, how can any one suggest that Gandhi was some sort of Libertarian?
May be the other author is so much desperate towards anarchism that he would be ready to forget Individualism, Capitalism and existentialism too.
I think he should read Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard and Capitalism by Ayn Rand.
@Unpretentious Diva
May i suggest you a friendly advise? Please avoid engaging yourself in lively debates. I mean your comments on the previous article weren’t as proper as this current article is. I guess you get over-enthusiast during live debates.
Rekha Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pmA Libertarian can never be a supporter of Gandhi in any case.
Libertarian’s obviously support truth and discard corruption, supporting Gandhi would be corruption in Libertarianism. How can you expect to add lemon of Gandhi to fresh milk of Libertarianism? Milk will be spoilt.
Gandhi enhanced the Swadeshi and Non-Co-operation movement in India. Which of the libertarian will support any such movement? Both of them were highly against the principle’s of Free Market theory and Austrian economics, also they were certainly against the principles of Libertarianism and were inspired by racism.
Yet, Gandhi never forced anybody “VIOLENTLY” to be a part of his Swadeshi or Non-co-operative movement. But just because a person is not enforcing his wrong and ridiculous believes doesn’t make him a Libertarian.
All Buddhists support Non-violence to extremes, they denounce self-defence too, they aren’t libertarians, are they?
Non-violence or non-aggression principle is not the criteria for a person to be termed as Libertarian. Libertarianism is dependent on Individualism, capitalism and Objectivism, it is based on economical freedom and division of labour, free competition between classes of market, because that is the only way to reduce the gap between economic classes and provide materialistic prosperity in common masses, while Gandhi was against materialism. A libertarian can never be a supporter of Gandhi.
About gandhi’s propaganda of spirituality, anybody who have read Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, would realise that Gandhi was properly depicted in that book by the character Ellsworth Toohey! Although, the real time Ellsworth Toohey won praises and political mileages, in the book Fountainhead, he lost his fake grounds. But than, it was a fiction. In real life, people consider that Gandhi was the reason of Indian independence. As some one mentioned in the last article, Gandhi fought against british empire for independence single headedly with his stick. Can he provide clear explanation about How Gandhi won anything against Britishers and was he alone? What about the extreme number of Gandhi supporters who were killed by British rulers during his own life? Was the contribution of those leaders against british rule was nil who never espoused Gandhian ridiculous ways ever?
Such is the delusion Indoctrination creates in common people. Alas!, such people than blame anything against such propaganda’s as some sort of irrational hatred.
No sane person will respect Gandhi after reading his Talisman. He deserves similar hatred as was deserved by Kant. But than, Gandhi is revered as mahatma just like Kant was respected as the greatest philosopher of his time, an anyways, majority always defuses the truth in such cases, and corrupt people like Gandhi or Mother Teresa than are bestowed with accolades of sainthood.
Mammoth Memloch Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pmWell I have never respected Gandhiji and this article certainly does not allow any kind of respect to form. A Utopia and anarchism is an impossibility. If each acts for his or her own welfare actually it percolates down to the good of the community as a whole for each good turn in their life demands an increase in responsibility for the betterment of the community as a whole and Life without a sense of order and ruling or civilisation in other words is nasty, brutal and short and Personally the idea of Organised Chaos does not appeal to me.
It is a point that all these thoughts in concise are my own and neither do I wish to pressurise it on others or hurt their sensibilities. If I have I am sorry.
Fisherman Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pmgood one, I read Prashant’s post before and would have replied. Does he not understand individualism? His inferences are more dependent on economics and government system, but the root is always The individual.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 10:08 pmAS usual, GP again tried to destruct this post by his ridiculous comments.
His concern was that my argument that “Gandhi ji says that some act or something is good or aesthetically beautiful only if it is beautiful enough for all” is a wrong interpretation.
Well, as a matter of fact, it is not my interpretation but Gandhiji’s vehement point of debate.
Gandhi’s concern for individual welfare lead him to distinguish between man’s basic needs and human acquisitiveness. As a result of his democratic temper, Gandhi argued that a thing could be considered beautiful only if it could in principle be made available to all. Tested against that principle, the Mont Blanc pen is a moral and aesthetic failure.
http://www.indiatogether.org/2009/oct/opi-montblanc.htm
Why Mont Blanc Pen is a moral and aesthetic failure? because not “ALL” can afford it.
Rekha Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 10:20 pmIn the previous article, someone commented that without Gandhi, India could have suffered just like Vietnam or Cuba.
India suffered slavery under British rule for almost 200 years. For how long does Vietnam or Cuba suffer slavery against USA? British government kept exploiting Indian wealth for whole 200 years, was that any less?
Is Pakistan any good than Vietnam or Cuba even now, while Pakistan also got independence from British rulers by the same approach and for similar reason as India got its independence. Who will say that Pakistan is in better condition than Cuba or Vietnam? India for its large resources, has evolved a little, what were Indian condition till 1990’s, were they any better?
Also, will that commenter care to suggest why all the Gandhigiri failed in Tibet against China? He may try to explain why the Sumatran Lady Gandhi follower Sui failed to gain her own freedom, she is still in prison although she is certainly Gandhian, and not only people of Sumatra supports her, but even the foreign nations like US and India keep demanding her release in all possible gandhian ways. Gandhigiri fails. Dalai Lama is looming around here and there since long, how much Gandhi supporters think it would take to provide Tibet its independence through Gandhigiri?
If British army and government have not been very exhausted in the two consecutive world wars, it was impossible for India to gain independence with all its peaceful or otherwise movements for many more decades. The two World Wars changed the Political order of world and of India too. Gandhi was just the flagger.
No Gandhigiri can free Afghanistan against US army employment. Only the process of exhaustion of American army and economical strength will provide peace in Asia. And that will take some time.
Rekha´s last blog ..সমুদ্র ও কবি
Renegade Division Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 5:09 am@Meena Iyer:
I am sorry Meena if you got that impression, nobody gives a **** to Gandhi, at least not in my circle of friends. Not anyone I know in America except for a really few, and all because of the cognitive dissonance created by the state education and having use violence as the solution of everything but preaching non-violence for personal conflicts.
My point was that Gandhian methodology of non-violence is the most effective method to achieve a completely voluntary society.
And Yes a lot of Socialists quote Gandhi about his ideas on equality, but if I ask you the question ‘Do you think society should be equal or unequal?’, you are not really going to say that I wish inequality in the society? Sure any socialist can quote you on that.
@Rekha
About Gandhi’s advocacy for Swadeshi, then it was nothing but a tool against the British government. An economic disincentive for the British, economic ostracization of British products. In Indian market there were only two kinds of products available, the cheaper British products created by the Industrial Britain and the hand made Indian products. Buying the Indian products surely did make people worse than they were if they had utilized the British manufacturing, but you are committing the mistake of putting values on people, their value preference wasn’t to get prosperous, but to get rid of an aggressor.
As I said everything Gandhi did, if you put it in the perspective of only a tool to fight a ‘Moral’ aggressor then it will make sense.
Indian government has bastardized all his teachings. Gandhi instead of statutory law supported a third party arbitration system. Indian govt stepped in and ruined the whole Panchayat system. Similarly, banning alcohol sale on Gandhi Jayanti is the best way by which you screw up Gandhian value of non-violence.
No wonder people in India see Gandhi as some sort of Socialist god who stood for the poor(not the aggressed upon victims), who stood against the rich(not the aggressor).
Gandhi neither clearly supported Socialism, nor he clearly supported a Capitalist society, but he very heavily supported(and there is no doubt about it) a non-violent society. We all know that only a voluntary society(anarcho-capitalist/stateless society) is the most feasible non-violent society.
From Article:
Ok correlating Kant and people to make them appear Socialist/Communist/Egalitarian is just ridiculous. Mises was a hardcore Kantian, in fact he believed that there are no Objective morals, the exact anti-thesis of Rand, it wasn’t until Rothbard’s worth where he took Mises head on to prove him wrong on that.
Also Mises wasn’t anarchist/anarcho-capitalist himself to start with. Until 1970s I don’t think any libertarian wanted to eliminate the government.
Meena Iyer Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 7:15 amIts not about others, it is about you, you are surely enthusiast to exploit Gandhi’s fame for your feverish support to Libertarianism, But dear friend you forget to foresee that Gandhi Considered capitalism as an ultimate form of Violence, and to eradicate Capitalist violence, he gave the Philosophy of trusteeship. Now Libertarian concept of violence is merely A strict NO to Physical force for aggression” Capitalism is not violence according to Libertarianism. Even I have read that Blackmail is not violence according to you in some of your post. How can you claim that Gandhi was Libertarian? According to Gandhi Capitalism is violence, and to be Non-Violent, capitalists must adhere to Trusteeship. (Take a look for an essay on philosophy of trusteeship by a prominent Gandhian (http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/activities/essay_trusteeship.htm)
Yes trusteeship is most effective method for eradication of freedom and capitalism. But you see, to accept the Philosophy of trusteeship and Gandhian Non-Violence, you must first feel extremely guilty of being able to Own and Produce anything more than what the poorest person can earn/produce or own, guilty to that extent where you may start considering it as exploitation of poor and hence a form of Violence. Gandhian Non-violence wants you to be extremely guilty and seriously sick, so that you may voluntarily give away everything you own and produce which is more than the most poor person can earn, produce or own. Gandhian non-violence itself is a Violence against humanity, against Individuality and free persons.
That is why I suggested you to read Philosophy. You must read Ayn Rand, Dostoevsky and than you may start reading Rothbard. You should be clear about Violence. Is Gandhian theory of Non-violence which prompts you to give up your “extra earning for your own better life” right? If you won’t give that up for the community’s welfare sake, than according to Gandhi you are a violent capitalist and should be banned by means of non-co-operation and all other things, which obviously are non-violent and you appreciate them too, even I appreciate them.
I do not care what and how socialist will quote about me, But yes, I will try to never quote a wrong, I am libertarian and I am against Gandhian trusteeship and Gandhian definition of Non-violence. Yet I am definite supporter and follower of Non-violence principles of Libertarians.
ranjit Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 7:39 amI want to know gandhi’s stand his stand on private property?
Inviting the capitalists to be trustees doesnt mean forcing them to be trustees. asking or requesting someone to contribute or donote is nothing wrong except forcing someone to do so.
gandhi preached people to think of others and society but did he really force people to follow it?
as of what i know, gandhi has asked people to boycott not to destroy or hurt. and gandhi asked people and did not force them to boycott or join his movement. did he force someone to take his stand or follow him?
this comment is not in support or against gandhi. just trying to reason out.
Meena Iyer Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am@ Ranjit
I think you could have read the already provided links in the original article by Gargi to know the Gandhian stand on Private property, I also explained it in my last comment. According to Gandhi, if one owns or produces more amount than his basic needs requires, than he is a exploiter, a violent person. It is violence according to him and should be denied and restricted. Property rights are Violence, Capitalism is exploitation and Exploitation is the worst form of violence more’ dangerous than riot breaking out in the street or countries fighting across the borders for territorial rights. Every other economic system that has been tried in last 250-300 years is based on exploitation, exploitation of customers, exploitation of women, exploitation .of children and in short, exploitation by each one who is in a position to exploit the other.
So you see, according to Gandhi, renegade or Gargi or you are violent creatures. Now if renegade is Violent, how can he support non-violence?
In Mahatma gandhi’s own words —
(The link has been provided in the article itself by the author)
Please check the stress on words like “Must” and “Should”.
It clarifies his standard on private property rights.
Pravin Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:14 amthere is a serious misunderstanding of individualism in some of the comments above. Individuals dont live in vacuum. Just because I am an individual doesnt mean that I cant be influenced by other human beings.Libertarianism is definitely not each man for himself. It is about the principle of non agression. If Gandhi called for boycott of foreign goods and people willingly complied -then it is not anti libertarian at all.People have voluntarily chosen the costly indian good over the cheap but apparently unjust foreign good.It is a voluntary action.Using the state to enforce your ideas is socialism.Gandhi clearly hated the arrogance of a monopolist of power called the state
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:24 amRanjit says
You do not understand things clearly, you are misguided.
According to Gandhi and Gandhians, you are violent because you are capitalist/Austrain economist. You are a exploiter. He has a proper Non-Violent way to eradicate you. The way is Non-Cooperation. All gandhians will deny working for you, trading/dealing with you, they will openly burn your goods if they have already brought them and will strike against you, they will offer themselves to jail against you, they will fill you with that much remorse and guilt and pain that you will be spiritually and psychology forced to consider yourself wrong and exploiter and will turn to be another gandhian communist, ready to give away his property rights.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:52 amAnd who denies that? Not a single commenter here ever denied that truth. Gandhi sincerely hated the arrogance of a monopolist state. he knew that state is simply unable to bring egalitarianism, the ultimate goal of communism/socialism.
That is why he wanted No state.
You are too much misguided and deluded. may be you are also suffering from your sense of respect for Gandhi, after all he is the only Indian who gained that much respect through out the world. You think that by allowing Gandhi as your ideal, you may feel some sense of greatness for your own self.
if you read Socialist Philosophy of German and french philosopher, you will realize from where Gandhi took his roots. German and French socialist philosophers were exactly against State, they were anarchist socialist, they wanted an anarchist socialist society.
But you see, Libertarianism is not all about Anti-state, libertarianism is about property rights, capitalism, free market Individual Natural rights.
Gandhi was collectivist, he was anti-individualists, he was against natural rights. he was communist.
So, yes I agree that Gandhi was anarchist, he was not libertarian. All anarchists are not Libertarians, Gandhi was Not Libertarian.
Pravin Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 11:14 amgandhi might have advocated a lot of bullshit, but he never forced it down somebody’s throat. if you dont see the difference between talk and action, you are deluded.
also, so called gandhiwadis are not under discussion here. it is mr gandhi alone.the whole guilt by association argument doesnt fly
please provide me one example of an action gandhi forced someone to do. property rights dont exist in vacuum either. someone call always give up his rights.exploitation?if you are pretending that there was no exploitation at all, then you would root for goldman sachs of the world.all the exploitation comes from the nexus between businessman and the state.it is not a market phenomenon.so there is no need to pretend that all so called capitalists exist purely to serve his customer and make money peacefully. if there is an avenue to use force, most people will surely use it.capitalism is moral.crony capitalism is not
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm@ Pravin, I know I have touched your painful nerve, but that doesn’t mean that I will allow you attack me by your rhetoric.
You said —
I never said that gandhi forced anybody or he intended to force by any violent means. he simply was against violent means, he was Anarchist too.
Now Anarchism doesn’t make anyone an Individualism supporter. Even communists are anarchist and deny and oppose State government rule.
It is not about anarchy, or non-violence, it is about Libertarianism. Gandhi was not Libertarian. Also, here we are discussing whether Gandhi by his philosophy was a Libertarian or Not.
We are not discussing whether Gandhi was great or not, right or not, wrong or not or anything else, we are discussing whether he was Libertarian or not.
yes he had anarchistic views, he was adherent of Non-Violence, and he considered Self-defense also wrong, he never forced anybody to push gandhian ideas under his throat, I have already mentioned all that.
Does that make him a Libertarian?
Yes lad, its only Gandhi who is being scrutinized here, and He too, only on the principles of Libertarianism.
The words of Gandhi, representing his ideology shows that he doesn’t believe in property rights, also he considers Capitalism as exploitation (I am not talking of croony capitalism, but Laissez-faire free market capitalism. )
Now look further, it won’t be Gandhi who will be using his ideals and philosophy to make further, it will the Gandhians, whom you are trying to ignore. I really don’t need to bring them on too.
And what it has to do with your senseless rhetoric? Who said that Libertarianism supports Goldman Sachs?
Gandhi was not Talking of Goldman Scahs, he was talking of You, a common man, very able to earn and produce much more than any other man, much more than what he actually need for his mere life. He was talking of His own self.
So you see? he wasn’t talking of Goldman Sachs or Ambani or Tata.
Also he was not talking of forcibly snatching money from the rich, he never said attack the capitalist and rob them. Did I ever said that Gandhi said anything like that?
Were those Gandhi’s words? Where and when did he quoted like that?
And why should a capitalist invest his capital only to serve the community? Why not to serve his personal pleasures?
You see, Gandhi clearly said that a Diamond is not beautiful because not all can get one, a Mont Black pen is not beautiful because all can not get it, it is a failure.
According to Gandhi, living a standard of life that other millions of your comrades cannot achieve is exploitation. According to Gandhi the rightful wealth which belongs him or anybody else is “the right to an honorable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others.”
do you want to say that in an anarchic society use of force is impossible?
That doesn’t mean that I am not anarchist, I am anarcho-capitalist, I am libertarian. And I certainly know that an anarchic society will face all the violence present in current society, yes the means of facing and solving and securing against the violence will be different, there won’t be a monopoly on that. I am sure a Gandhian won’t be a criminal in any such case.
Anyways, apart from all this, how can you say that Gandhi was Libertararian?
Was Gautama Buddha also a Libertarian? Was Mahavira also a Libertarian?
What is your own definition of Libertarianism?
Renegade Division Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm@Pravin said:
Forget guilt by association, the article I wrote was about using non-violent means like Satyagraha to reduce the size of the state, but for some reason Diva here fails to see beyond her extreme dislike for Gandhi.
I am talking about using Satyagraha, but because it was given by Gandhi, and because she hates Gandhi, and she hates Gandhi because she hates Congress and all the Gandhiwadi statist morons associated with it, she criticizes Gandhian methods as follows:
There is ABSOLUTELY not attack of any kind on Satyagraha, and using non-violence to bring true color of state out. All attack is on how Gandhi wanted people in his ideal society to act. A capitalist in a Capitalist economy is nothing but trustee for most part of his property. Warren Buffet surely owns a major chunk of Coca Cola, but will he spend that money on his leisure tomorrow? Can he spend all that money on fulfilling all the desires he wants? No, he just owns the earnings of that billion dollar property as in the sense of not being a trustee. IF his salary is $1 million per month, then that’s what he really owns, rest he is all but a trustee.
If George Soros’s net wealth is given in billions of dollars, it doesn’t really mean he has billion dollar in cash available to him, its all invested, and until you pull that money out you are nothing but a trustee of that property.
I am pretty sure Gandhi would have liked the concept of a voluntary society(Anarcho-capitalist/Agorist/etc etc).
But anyways my point of the whole last article is, to wonder what was Gandhi really fighting against, and how his method of Satyagraha can be helpful to modern Liberty movement. MY conclusion was that Gandhi MASTERED the art of fighting an enemy who stood at a moral ground, even though he was completely immoral. All Unpretentious Diva has done here is made a really weak case against Gandhi by associating him with ****, his idea of a voluntary equal peaceful society with violent socialism. And even though she has written 5,000 words in reply of that article not even a single time she talked about the essence of that article, how to fight an enemy who looks more moral than you? Its all Gandhibitching in this article, and it will go on for 2,000 more words, trust me. There is no Objective evaluation of Gandhian principles of non-violent struggle or Satyagraha, only subjective ‘associate them with people all libertarians hate, and then demonize Gandhi a bit more’.
Rekha Says:
December 10th, 2009 at 3:53 amTo Renegade Division
Because of the current debate started by you, I felt forced to recheck my ideas on Gandhi.
Obviously, I found him a better communist than Marx, Lenin, Mao or Che.
he had some better ideas. Yet he wasn’t a libertarian.
That does not mean that we should not respect his greatness pertaining to the Non-violence principle, that was the only and most strong thread between him and Libertarianism, we must respect it, we must follow it, we must use it to propagate idea of Economic freedom. But you should also concede that Gandhi was not libertarian, and should start thinking about the flaws of Gandhian philosophy so that we may cure it and use the better one for the better cause.
You Must also understand that no matter Gandhi was libertarian or not, the end result of his strife was a failure, he failed and yielded to socialism.
Gandhi on Property Rights
Gandhi believed that communism could be built without abolishing the class-structure of society. He thought
I have read Mahatma Gandhi somewhere (I cannot recall whether it was his autobiography “My Experiment’s with Truth” or some of his article in the newspaper “Harijan”) saying that property rights are dubious as any farmer having his land near to a river obviously is at advantage than the farmer having his land farther from the river.
I wonder how could he forget that if a farmer enjoys some benefits of being close to river, he also suffers dangers and heavy losses every time the rain falls freely and river gets flood.
You will be surprised to know that while Gandhi was serving the lower castes, Gandhi himself was against abolishing the “Caste-System” of India too.
Gandhi’s light of Non-Violence
Obviously that makes him much better than Lenin, Marx, Mao or Che Guerra.
From Gandhi’s “My View on Trusteeship”—
I would say that Gandhi was a moderate cushion between the avid supporter of Capitalism and economic liberty like G.D Birla, Lokmanya Tilak and Sardar patel, and the avid supporters of Socialism and social welfare like Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose and others.
One may clearly see that Gandhi adopted the middle path between the laissez-faire capitalism and Marxism.
And the point that is extremely worrisome is, India fell trapped in the hands of socialism. We should check what was the flaw in Gandhi’s philosophy, don’t you think so?
Inequality of Wealth: Is it a bad thing? | Reason for Liberty Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 8:30 pm[…] Was Gandhi a Libertarian-II? […]
How could Gandhian philosophy help Jews in Nazi Germany? | Reason for Liberty Says:
January 29th, 2010 at 3:32 pm[…] to the possible resistance Indian citizens could have done to a foreign invasion. Footnotes:Was Gandhi a Libertarian – II – Author: Unpretentious Diva, Dec 8 [↩]Gandhigiri and Libertarianism - […]
Arvind Says:
February 20th, 2010 at 11:23 pmThis post if off the mark because Gandhi was known to have opposed Marxism for its inherent violence. He has on record stated that he can tolerate Capitalism but finds Communism abhorrent. Nehru has lamented about this point and has also stated that Gandhi’s position was based on a reading of Marx. I am unsure where you got your data from or if you are trying to give it a spin by picking up some random quotes. Gandhi’s aim was to eject the British and therefore he has not written a lot on economics. He had a desire for cooperative society at the local level, but he never wanted to enforce it using power of authority. So why should this not fit in with a libertarian view? Or is your idea of libertarianism a system in which no one is supposed to desire a village level economics and use force to prevent any such system coming into being?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 21st, 2010 at 12:49 amPost never says that Gandhi was Marxist, it says he was Hypocrite, vile and no better than Marx.
Yea, his way was Egalitarianism by the way of “giving up” peacefully under the effects of Guilt of being better, more capable and intelligent than the average common idiot.
Lol So bastardization starts again, I know you want to say that Nehru and Gandhi were libertarians and India is the epitome of Libertarianism, or India WAS an epitome of liberty during the Nehruvian era before 1991 when India was strictly socialist. I know you want to say that libertarianism is socialism and egalitarianism.
Data are from gandhi’s tale “Experience with truth”. There’s nothing random.
He never had any knowledge of economics. He was forced to NOT to appeal to Indian youth to join British Army and help them during the WW2.
Do not lie, there should be a limit of bastardization, you are crossing it. He surely had a desire for co-operative society at local levels, he always wanted to enforce it using a central power of authority in form of central government, state government, central police and army. Whatever he desired, he got it in the form of Nehruvian Panchsheel and Panchayat Raj system. India suffered Nehruvian/Gandhian form of socialist/egalitarian libertarization till 1991, only after that economical reforms started when India decide to get rid of Gandhian/Nehruvian madness.
Gandhi/Nehru’s central parental government system can be libertariazation only for your lot of people.
I know you are the sort who “knows” that India was better during the Nehruvian political era.
You should revolt against current norms of economical reforms.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 21st, 2010 at 1:04 amfor all Idiots who are trying to bastardize Libertarianism, I would like to quote Gandhi’s words here again about Communism. Gandhi claimes to be “Non-Violent Communist”
A communist should reduce himself to the level of the poorest of the poor. That is what said Gandhi, “I am been trying to do for last fifty years or more, and so I claim to be foremost communist.”
Gandhi’s idea of socialism was ‘Humanitarian’ it did not mean increase in the power of state or the nationalization of the means of production. It meant non-possession, trusteeship, equality and non-violence as also love for and identification with the poor.
But then how could equality be established? By the rich voluntarily giving away their wealth.
But what should be done if they do not? Then the workers can get all they want, Gandhi maintained, through the non-violent, non co-operation.
So yes one can say that Gandhi was proponent of Non-Violence, but that is not libertarianism.
Non-violence is a part of the philosophy of Libertarianism, it is NOT all libertarianism.
Gandhi was egalitarian, he supported No-Property rights, his economical base was “Non-Possession and Trusteeship”. Private property was an abhorrent idea for Gandhi just like violence was. But The desire and right to earn and save your fruits as your private property and to fight for property rights is not violence, he did never understood it. he claimed “NON_POSSESSION”
My contention is, Violent or Non-violent, a communist cannot be Libertarian. A communist is communist. Nothing else. and Gandhi was Non-violent Communist.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 21st, 2010 at 1:12 amAnd anyways, if all idiots go mad and claim that Libertarianism is Gandhian non-violent communism, than I say I am not libertarian, I am Capitalist.
I cannot feel guilt for being better, more productive, intelligent, resourceful, strong, etc while others are poor, worthless, idiots, weaklings, unwanted.
I Do not realize Guilt as the base of my life, I realize Happiness as the base of my life. I live for nobody else, but myself. I owe nothing to anybody and Nobody owes anything to me, and after that, whatever I deal with any other person is, on the basis of mutual beneficial agreement.
Gandhi supported Workers Unions and labor unions, he supported minimal wage laws, he supported free education, free health services and all, but yes he did not said that government should enforce it, he said rich should voluntarily provide it. and if they do not, than the poor should go for non-violent non-cooperation. Go to hell with gandhianism.
If I am able to eat two time meal, some other person who is unable cannot force me to give him my share of meal just because he is poor and ready to beg me my food by claiming that if I wont feed him he will commit suicide.
Gopi Krishnan Says:
April 20th, 2010 at 6:13 am“he said rich should voluntarily provide it. and if they do not, than the poor should go for non-violent non-cooperation.”
There is nothing anti-libertarian in asking others to contribute to the poor. Neither is it anti-libertarian to ask people not to co-operate. Is it anti-libertarian if the people refuse to co-operate or trade or work for anyone? I don’t think so.
Of course, if “he always wanted to enforce co-operative society using a central power of authority in form of central government, state government, central police and army”, he was anti-libertarian.
Gopi Krishnan Says:
April 20th, 2010 at 6:20 amGandhiji’s words that someone quoted here : “If God gives us power and wealth, he gives us the same so that we may use them for the benefit of the mankind and not for our selfish, carnal purpose..”
Now, that’s like a priest saying masturbation is wrong because it gives you pleasure. It’s a whole lot of bullshit; but there is nothing wrong or anti-libertarian in saying that. People may or may not wish to accept his statements.