Dear Luisa, Let me elaborate Nizar's argument on this point.( taking responsibility as a reporter, i have gone through the recorded tapes of the discussion and the following is an edited version of the transcript)
Nizar pointed out the need to read Gandhi's position on Panchayatiraj and Sarvodaya together in order to see the contradictions involved therein. In a Young India article gandhi himself defined Satygraha as pure anarchy as society organises on the principle of satyagraha.There he denies state any soveriegnty. "Sarvodaya" is in fact the title of his translation of Ruskin's book.May be you are aware that Gandhi founded ashrams.his idea of ashrams was based on bread-labour, where people voluntarily produced cloth and food for themselves. Thus ashrams were self sufficient communities for him.His dream was a state where the whole society will organise like this. ( I hope, defenitions of anarchy, philosophical as well as political will qualify Gandhi as an anarchist in this sense. would like to listen from you, if the case is otherwise) Nizar went on to the need of reading Gandhi's writinngs / actions on panchayatiraj in conjunction with this.panchayat is a state, though confined to small boundary.It is not stateless as there is decision making involved in it.If state is defined as the final umpiring while negotiating/resolving differences among people , panchayats are hierarchical. Panchayats are based on the principles of modern democracy. there are discussions , debates and umpiring/soveriegn decision making. Hope I have made Nizar's points more clear. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Luisa Steur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To argue that Ghandi was an anarchist is to empty anarchism of all > meaning. It's all fine to dream of social organization without a state but > since anarchism is almost per definition never in power, fighting the state > is the foremost thing on any anarchist agenda, precisely because the state > is (in the present) the dominant organizing principle in society that cannot > simply be dreamed away. And anyhow, Ghandi's strict normativity and his > frequent invocation and legitimation of authority make him everything but an > anarchist. > > I've very often noticed that "anarchism" is used in India (and other places > too) to describe anything dreamy, inconsistent or chaotic. It would be > good if there was some more attention to the actually existing historical > social-political doctrine of anarchism (many people don't even know it > exists!). To quote George Woodcock in his excellent (Penguin pocket) study > of anarchist (entitled *Anarchism)* "All anarchists deny authority; many > of them fight against it. But by no means all who deny authority and fight > against it can reasonably be called anarchists. Historically, anarchism is a > docrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of a desirable > future society; and a means of passing from one to the other. Mere > unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, *nor does a philosophical or > religious rejection of earthly power*. Mystics and stoics seek not > anarchy, but another kingdom. Anarchism, historically speaking, is concerned > mainly with man [sic] in his relation to society. Its ultimate aim is always > social change; its present attitutde is always one of social condemnation, > even though it may proceed from an indivialists view of man's nature; its > method is always that of social rebellion, violent or otherwise." > > I don't think Ghandi fits into any of this really. > > I must admit btw that in most analytical, historical writing on anarchism, > such as also George Woodcock's book, there is something of a Eurocentric > bias but there are books that overcome this, for example Benedict Anderson's > great recent book (with Verso) "*Under three flags: anarchism and the > anti-colonial imagination*", which writes precisely on transnational > anarchism and anarchist thinkers in Cuba, the Phillipines, China and Japan. > > Anyway, if because there was no state in Ghandi's imagined desirable future > we start counting him as an anarchist, we can just as well start calling him > a fascist because of his call to the Indian officer to place discipline > before all else....i.e., I think we should stay a bit closer to the analysis > of actually existing historical movements of anarchism, fascism etc. when we > use these words. > > L. > > > -- > Dileep R I thuravoor > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
