At 12:00 30/10/97 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>Ajit:
>>Gandhi did not form any party nor was member of any political party. To
>>implicate Gandhi with "nasty communal fights with Muslims" is sheer
>>nonsense. Where you get your informations from?
>
>His disciples Nehru and Indira Gandhi certainly did. If we can blame Marx
>for Stalin, why not blame Gandhi for the Congress Party's repression and
>brutality. The point is that this is a poor method for understanding
politics.
_____________
I think the poor method is on your side 100%. First of all, you seem to say
irresposible things about decent people in public. First you imlicated a
person like Gandhi, who lost his life in fight for communal harmony in
India, with "nasty communal fights with muslims". Now, if it was not
Gandhi, then it "certainly" must be Nehru. Where did you get your "certain"
information about Nehru from? Even severe critics of Nehru would accept
that Nehru was a strongly secular minded person. Again, in what sense
Nehru, and particularly Indira Gandhi could be characterized as "followers
of Gandhi"? But the most defective aspect of your argumentation is that you
have produced not one single uttrance of Gandhi to show that following him
would lead to "nasty communal fights with muslims". On the other hand, my
comments was specific to a particular text, and the evidence from the text
was quoted. And you have not been able to refute my arguments or the
interpretation of that text.
______________
Ajit:
>>
>>This only proves my point. There is a clear teleological stages theory of
>>history here. Crimes of capitalism, in this case colonialism, is pardoned
>>because it was essential preparation for socialism. I think later on, e.g.
>>in CAPITAL, he is no longer tied to such theory of history.
>>
Louis:
>Pardoned? This ascribes a moralistic quality to Marx and Engel's writings
>that does not apply.
___________
Why don't you take a look at the text that is being discussed. And the text
is by Marx and not Engels. So I quote the text again.
"The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental
revolution in the social state in Asia? If not, whatever may have been the
CRIMES [IMPHASIS ADDED] of England she was the unconscious tool of history
in bringing about that revolution.
Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient
world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of
history, to exclaim with Goethe: [Should this torture then torment us Since
it brings us greater pleasure? Were not through the rule of Timur Souls
devoured without measure.]"
If this is not called pardoning the 'crime', then what is it?
Cheers, ajit sinha
