Humanity contra political realism.

[Guest]

You certainly do have a peculiar ability to interpret what people are not saying at all.

Likewise you appear to have an uncanny ability to say very little in a great many words.

If we boil down what you have said in this thread to its essentials we are left with the profoundly negative pessimism that perceived "good guys" often make things worse than perceived "bad guys".

Therefore I assume we are to favour the perceived "bad guys" because they are more "realistic" - or is it an invitation to "do nothing" in case in trying to be more humane we produce the opposite result?

Interestingly all the examples you have cited thus far as more "realistic" have been more or less conservative authoritarian type figures.

[Derek McMillan]

You know sometimes I think I have been listening to my son, the anarchist, too much, but bear with me

We can all list great humanitarian politicians.

In every case ppl can also list their "human" failings.

The American writer Frank Herbert described democracy as a system in which the people do not trust the government.

All leaders have feet of clay.

Don't trust them. Don't trust any of them. No saviour from on high is going to deliver us. A healthy society is never based on following leaders. Leaders just disempower the led.

And that does not mean anarchy. It does not mean not having leaders. It means that your leaders have to be as accountable as the people who empty the dustbins. It means that all posts of power need to be rotated and it means that no special privileges or inflated salaries should be attached to roles of leadership.

Derek McMillan

socialist

[Dalibor Svoboda]

Andy

Whaw, whaw you certainly have the ability to see what you want to see in my words, Andy. You certainly do have ability to disregard from nuances.

I do also think that you somewhat miss what is important in my answers to your responses you wrote to my articles. Nevertheless I won’t quote you because the continuation of our debate exchanges would most probably be the same.

We both will maybe be back at this thread in the future, right now it seems to me that the futility of debating (or not debating it does feel like separate monologues going on) mostly with one debater prevails ……..

[Guest Alma]

Well, given the Middle East situation, ninnies like Ghandi would be a disaster... And I am not a great admirer of Mandela either (I give 10 years for South Africa to become akin to all sub-Saharan countries I have seen, a hell hole...)

I will remind you some of the stupidities of Ghandi (http://www.triviahalloffame.com/gandhi.htm)

"Gandhi never quite seemed to realize that the non-violence he urged against the British would have failed horribly if applied to the Nazis. He urged the British to surrender, and suggested that the Czechs and even the Jews would have been better off committing heroic mass suicide.

Even as late as June 1946, when the extent of the Holocaust had emerged, Gandhi told biographer Louis Fisher: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

As the Japanese advanced into Burma (now called Myanmar), there was a real possibility of an Axis invasion of India. Gandhi thought it was best to let the Japanese take as much of India as they wanted, and that the best way to resist would be to "make them feel unwanted."

(In fact, the Axis was helping a buddy of Gandhi's to raise an army of Indians that would have seized the country from the Brits, but that's another story.)"

To this kind of idiot, I much prefer a Churchill, a Roosevelt or a Truman... In the case of Israel, I am quite happy to have Arik in power...

[John Simkin]

Well, given the Middle East situation, ninnies like Ghandi would be a disaster... And I am not a great admirer of Mandela either (I give 10 years for South Africa to become akin to all sub-Saharan countries I have seen, a hell hole...)

For an academic (according to your biography you are a professor of economics in a business school in New England) your use of language in debate is very strange. You describe Ghandi as an idiot and a ninny. I can understand people disagreeing with Ghandi but I think his views need to be taken seriously. As you say, his views might well have been ineffective against German fascism. However, as you know, Martin Luther King was deeply influenced by the ideas of Ghandi. King’s non-violent campaign was extremely effective when it was used against American racists and helped bring democracy to America. Therefore, don’t you think Ghandi deserves some credit in the contribution he made to turning America into a more civilized country.

[Guest Alma]

For having said what I quote (and other stupidities of the same kind) Ghandi WAS a ninny and an idiot... And while being a so-called "pacifist" he was the cause of a massacre of millions... I call it as I see it... And I tell my students to do the same...

I see that you don't comment on his affirmation, only on the fact that I attack your idol with his own words...,

Well academia isn't the place to adore (there is a Church for it!) It is a place to try and establish the truth by facts... like the affirmations of Ghandi you ignore...

Edited March 15, 2004 by Alma

[John Simkin]

For having said what I quote (and other stupidities of the same kind) Ghandi WAS a ninny and an idiot... And while being a so-called "pacifist" he was the cause of a massacre of millions... I call it as I see it... And I tell my students to do the same...

I see that you don't comment on his affirmation, only on the fact that I attack your idol with his own words...

I actually did agree with you that Gandhi pacifist views would have been ineffective against German fascism. However, I do think it is an effective strategy when used in a country that has democratic characteristics such as the United States. To support this view I used the example of Martin Luther King employing the ideas of Ghandi against the right-wing racist government in post-war America. Although it did not quite bring democracy to America it did bring it closer to the European model.

[Guest]

I actually did agree with you that Gandhi pacifist views would have been ineffective against German fascism.

I'm not so sure about this very small piece of common ground between the two of you.

What strikes me in my study of Nazi Germany is the almost complete lack of passive resistance from ordinary people - a truly staggering obedience to "authority" even before the consequences of resistance passive or otherwise was clear.

For instance, and for arguments sake, perhaps if more ordinary Berlin police officers when offered a tour of duty in the East shooting Jews in front of mass graves had declined to do so there may have been fewer deaths? Large crimes need the acquiescence of the many.

On the few times ordinary German citizens did resist (for instance over the killings of the mentally ill), the policy was usually reversed.

A lesson surely in the importance of challenging a culture where the authoritarian personality is seen as a virtue. On these grounds Gandhi I believe would have been an effective resistor of the Nazis.

I am reminded of a quote from Niemoller when incarcerated in Sachsenhausen Concentration camp near the end of the war:

This man Hitler is more frightened of me than I am of him

[John Simkin]

I would actually describe myself as a pacifist. However, I live in a democratic state and believe that the best way of changing government policies is by non-violent action. I am not sure if I would have been a pacifist in Nazi Germany. I suppose it would have depended on leadership and numbers. It is of course impossible to judge what would have happened if Gandhi or Martin Luther King had been living in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Would they have been able to lead the German people in another direction? There were of course pacifists in Nazi Germany but they were never able to obtain much support for their ideas. Does that reflect the power of Hitler’s government or a failure of the German population? It is one of the few questions in history where I tend to sit on the fence. I would be interested to hear the views of other members on this question. It is of course relevant in today’s world. For example, will the problems of the Middle East be solved by the emergence of a new pacifist leader?

[UlrikeSchuhFricke]

It is of course impossible to judge what would have happened if Gandhi or Martin Luther King had been living in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Would they have been able to lead the German people in another direction?

This sounds like one of the ifs in history: what would have happened if....

Actually I think that neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King would have been able to save Germany from the Nazis. The great pacifists who were able to influence people and world history needed a mass movement behind them to put pressure on governments to bring about change; I am afriad that at the end of the 20s and in the 30s the majority of people in Germany were not too unhappy with Hitler and the system he had established. For many Germans he seemed to guarantee work, safety and law and order after the chaotic years at the end of the Republic of Weimar. Hence neither Gandhi nor Marin Luther Kind would have found the backing they both had and needed.

John, I think there are two more questions inherent in your posting:

Are we allowed to use "terrorist" strategies and tactics e.g. to fight corrupt, dictatorial, and inhumane systems? In the final stage of World War II a large group of people planned the assassination of Hitler (July 20, 1944), but they failed, not Hitler was killed by the bomb planted in his camp but others. Was this ilegal, did those who planned it all have the right to do it, was it right to risk the lives of innocents? Would there have been another way to topple the system? What about the resistance movements in France and Italy fighting a guerilla war against the German army and their own fascist leaders?

You can ask the same questions when you study the history of South Africa: Was the ANC and Nelson Mandela right to leave the non-violent struggle behind and train as guerillas and plant bombs in front of police headquarters etc?

When are we allowed to use violence? What about the lives of innocents?

The second question I think refers to foreign affairs. Many German pacifists - among them our Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer - changed their attitude during the war in former Jugoslawia when they saw what was going on in Sarajevo and the ineffectivity of the blue helmets. Can we still uphold our conviction that conflicts must and can be solved by peaceful means only? Was there an alternative to e.g. sending armed forces to Bosnia, Albania to end the slaughter? And again the question is when has a conflict got out of hand so that peaceful mediation and conflict resolution is no longer possible? Who decides this, what are the ethical principles and the rationale behind the decision?

I am not quite sure if these questions can be answered on a theoretical and philosophical basis only. I think to find answers we must analyse either historical periods and precedents or real international conflicts.

Coming back to the Near East conflict I still think that the only way out is a non-violent roadmap, but I can understand Palestinians and people in Israel who are utterly frustrated because they have seen that neither the attempt to solve the conflict peacefully nor the attempt to put an end to it with the means of war has brought any feasible results, has made life in Israel and the occupied territories safer.

[Raymond Blair]

I think the emergence of a non-militant and charismatic leader is the most effective purpose for any cause where the challenging movement is not as strong.

Militant revolutionary activity seems to always cause more destruction than good and create a legacy of authoritarian government and bloodshed.

Gandhi (who was much more effective than King) had the benefit of working against a government caught in a hypocrisy. The British valued their civil liberties at home but did not accord those to their imperial subject. Yet they justified imperialism in part because of a civilizing mission.

Then emerges the civilized man who used western education and values (among other things) to speak out against the British system. In his protests the British system always looked more savage than Gandhi's followers.

Gandhi was victorious because the British system was fair enough to allow him to operate, so his victory is in part a victory of British values and liberties.

The biggest drawback is that Gandhi's (and Mandelas) accomplishments, which seem to be enduring in that both spawned stable democratic systems in societies with tiny middle classes (what I think is the essential ingredient for democracy is a large educated, propertied middle class, here I think a bit like Marx, but I like the middle class phase and want no revoutionary upheaval of it)

anyway, the biggest drawback is that their fantastic and enduring accopmlishments took decades to achieve.

I think the Palestinians would gain the most from using this technique. I am not sure what the larger Arab or Muslim world needs to achieve right now. The Palestinians needs a stable society and an independen nation and a truly non-violent democratic leader would get them to that point I believe.

Sorry to ramble.

As to Germany. No pacifist or non-violent leader would have fared well in Nazi Germany. But a German Gandhi should have been able to keep Germany from falling into the clutches of Nazism.

Gandhi's techniques worked because of exisiting civil liberties for speech and dissent inside the system he fought against. They are a great testimony to the values of those rights. Under Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Khomeini those same techniques (IMO) would have failed horribly and a Gandhi-ite would noit be remembered at all.

Gandhi himself may have been the type of leader who would have adapted and led a different type of movement, or more likey, those systems would have had him live alife that did not reach the history pages.

That is my hurried rant on the subject this AM.

[Derek McMillan]

Calling your opponent a ninny degrades your own argument, why bother to argue with ninnies? Ghandi believed in a lot of things which I don't believe in, but in order to debate his ideas we certainly don't start out by dismissing him.

I do not know whether non-violent resistance to Hitler would have worked. I do know that a general strike defeated the Kapp Putsch. I do know that Walter Citrine excused the failure of the German Trade Unions to call a general strike against Hitler's accession to power on the grounds that "it might have led to violence!"

I am absolutely not opposed to non-violent protest...

I think violence and non-violence are tactical issues. The Chartists had a slogan, "peacefully if we may, forcibly if we must."

A general strike is an example of non-violent protest. (The non-payment of the Poll Tax was also a non-violent protest btw and it brought down Thatcher)

OTOH I think the trade unions had to defend themselves by any means necessary and that means not ruling out violence in advance. Some ppl, such as The Independent Labour Party said they had an "open mind" about this....Leon Trotsky's response? "The butcher has his big knife, the lamb for the slaughter has an open mind!"

Derek McMillan

socialist

[Dalibor Svoboda]

Somehow it is difficult for me to truly recognize the greatness of Gandhi and King. It seems to me that they are a product of the British Empire or USA democracy much more than a product of their own thoughts and deeds. For how long would they last in a totalitarian system of Marxist-Leninism? Somebody keen on a guess?

I remember how envious we always have been on them. They were depicted at least in Czechoslovakia during my upbringing as a heroes standing against injustice but none of us could understand how this huge capitalistic injustice could let them go away with the protest which in the case of Britain led to dismantling of the Empire. How many of the grown ups, when seldom debating politics at modest picnics at weekends with closest friends, didn’t shake their heads in an utter disbelieve.

In my country the capitalists countries were described us having an utterly corrupt political system depriving the people of everything. And at the same time the decently clothed King could go around in cars with bodyguards delivering speeches attacking the system. With the police around doing nothing more than listening. For this in our part of the world there were few other answers than “9 milligrams of lead” in the back of one owns head.

This situation is not passed into the past. During Iraq war last Spring the occupied “world opinion” gave Fidel Castro a chance to handle his own opposition. Some were executed for nothing more than their wish to escape “the workers paradise”. (By the means these desperates could find ….. by taking over an obsolete ferry boat doing service in the harbour of Havana!) Others received the sentences for up to twenty years; for trying to create a library of uncensored books.

Such kind of inhuman treatment of the citizens is a powerful deterrent! Gandhi’s or King’s kind of opposition or any other kind of opposition feels suddenly very futile when own life and also lives of dearest are at stake.

Not surprisingly there basically never had been the person acting like Gandhi or King in totalitarian part of the world.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Dalibor Svoboda

[UlrikeSchuhFricke]

Dalibor,

I think you are right that King and Gandhi could be so effective because they could work within a democratic framework.

As was said Hitler would not have been stopped by peaceful means and those who tried to resist using peaceful means (e.g. The White Rose) failed and were executed. The only chance of stopping Germany from her slide into a dictatorship would have been in 1933 and the only force would have been the trade unions and the only way would have been a general strike. There are some reasons why the German trade unions did not call the workers to such a strike: at the end of the economic depression and a huge number of unemployed it would have been questionable if the trade unions still would have been able to rally the masses; already at the beginning of the 20th century the German trade unions had decided against strikes as a means of politics and had limited themselves to economic and social demands only ( the reaction to the Kapp Putsch was an exception) and the trade unions like the bourgeois parties believed Hitler would reward their compliance and it was Hitler who made May day a national holiday; on May 2nd 1933 he then destroyed the trade untions, had their leaders tortured and put in concentration camps.

Coming back to the problem of your last posting I must say that I do not know of any successful non-violent opposition against authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, which in a consequence means that an opposition movement working in such a system sometimes has to use violence: see July 20, 1944 the futile attempt to assassinate Hitler. Those who planned the coup knew about the risks and they had had long discussions about the ethical implications of what they were about to do.

[Raymond Blair]

Lech Walesa seemed to be a fairly nonviolent guy and he worked within such a system.

If we are talking the modern era, isn't it reforms within and not violent upsrisings that have stopped the totalitarian systems.

WWII got rid of Hitler and Mussolini.

Was it a revolt that undid Pol Pot? (Not sure there)

The Soviet and Chinese systems had/have their dissidents but I cannot recall effective violent opposition.

The Soivet Union is now democratic and China is now (with new Constitutional amendments for property and human rights) at least a highly reformed system.

It may feel better to pick up a rock against your oppressor, but I don't think violent revolutions have been more succesful than non-violent reform movements since WWII. The legacy of violent revolution tends to carry into the new era. (Castro, Hussein, for example)