Agreement Between Gandhi And Marxism
One criticism I followed in trying to understand the failures of modernity is to point out first (which is certainly well known) that their two main ideals of “freedom” and “equality”, once articulated by the Political Enlightenment, were developed theoretically and methodically so that they were in tension with each other. It is for reasons that have been well studied, such as the fact that property has given the owner a notion of freedom that has everywhere been invoked as a fundamental right in the diffusion of liberal modernity to the law of the country. The way this creates tension for the purpose of equality is so well known and so well appeased that I have nothing more to say about it. Much less well studied is another source of tension between freedom and equality, which arises from the promotion of talent, the dimension of freedom associated with the conceptions of dessert. For centuries, when there was excellent production (for example. B a work of art), it is the spirit of the time that produced it, which received praise and admiration. If one takes a long historical view, it is relatively recent that individual talents have begun to receive praise and to reap the reward for these productions. And this was partly the result of a growing ideological vision, that it was a question of praising the spirit of time for such excellence, of denying the individuality of a human being, of seeing the person responsible for these productions as mere physical incarnations of the spirit of the time. Thus the notions of dessert were linked to the notion of individual freedom and talent was encouraged. Indeed, it has become an integral part of a general freedom, because it has extended to the idea of the freedom of others to enjoy the excellence of individual talent productions, the latter being now encouraged to be as excellent as possible. So when you get to our time, you will have salary increases for employees, bonuses for bankers, recommendations for sportsmen, prices for book authors, day by day… all this in the name of individual freedom; and it should be obvious that all of this also creates tensions with the search for equality. It is for these (and other) reasons that the main political tradition of modernity has developed its two great ideals of freedom and equality in a way that could not be achieved together.
A common agreement between Gandhism and Marxism is (a) the ultimate goal of a stateless society (b) class struggle (c) the abolition of private property (d) economic determinism Response: (a) Gandhi, in his categorical rejection of the rigid dichotomy between goals and means, and in his extreme moral work with the means that serve rather than the objectives , seems to be almost alone among social and political thinkers. He was led to this position by accepting satya and ahimsa, truth and non-violence, as a double absolute moral and his coherent vision of their relationship. In Hind Swaraj, he wrote that even the great men considered religious committed serious crimes because they mistakenly believed that there was no moral connection or interdependence between means and end. You can`t have a rose when you plant a weed. “Drugs can be compared to a seed, the end with a tree; and there is exactly the same intangible link between means and the end as between the seed and the tree. It is not as if violence and non-violence are just other ways to achieve the same goal. Since they differ morally in quality and essence, they must necessarily achieve different results. No philosopher or system of thought has shaped my thinking, although Marx`s thought has created, in a casual sense, a framework in which one can think of politics and society. I was very interested in politics and society when I was studying in Bombay [now Mumbai] and Oxford, and then in the late 1980s.