6 ms·

I respectfully disagree because Gandhi's approach may seem idealistic, but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. Nonviolent met

I respectfully disagree because Gandhi's approach may seem idealistic, but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. Otherwise, they might not yield the desired results. While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.

tomohelix 2y ago
Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. That is why the GP put the "evolved" in quotes. It takes something more than the basest human instincts and the animal sides of us to take this approach. Some may consider it naive. I personally think Gandhi was smart enough to deduce this on his own yet still chose the nonviolent approach regardless. That alone shows he was a greater "man" than most, in my opinion.
- Bancakes 2y ago
  Kudos for putting man in double quotes, following the theme.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. The historical record says otherwise: * https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 * https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-erica-chenoweth-nonviolence-topple-dictators https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-er...
  - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
    You're using different meaning for the word violence (even easier to see since he said "violence and force").
callmeal 2y ago
>nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. And we have to watch out for thinking that "fittest" implies "strongest". "Smartest" or "most devious" as in the Cuckoo (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/birds/facts-about-cuckoos https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/birds/facts-ab...) also meet the criteria.
- corimaith 2y ago
  The fittest are by definition those who reproduce the most. In our modern world, the "smartest" and "devious" are headed to a dead end with below replacement birth rates while the "dumb" rednecks and religious are set to eventually become the majority.
  - PhasmaFelis 2y ago
    The Idiocracy theory. The trouble is that the traits behind the birthrate differences you're observing aren't genetic but financial: it's not genetically "dumb" people who have more kids, it's poor people, and genetic lines that transition out of poverty generally see commensurate birthrate drops. If poor people were going to "outcompete" and wipe out rich people, it would have happened a long time ago. Also, "religious" have been steadily declining for a while, so that theory doesn't work out. (Of course, the idea that most bad behavior stems from religion, and everyone would be nice to each other without it, is another fallacy.)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - callmeal 2y ago
    as PhasmaFelis pointed out, it's not the "dumb" and "religious", it's poor people, and the reason is simple - children are a source of "mostly free" labor, as the capitalist class here has (re)discovered. https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/labor-shortage-child-teenage-republican-states-sarah-huckabee-sanders/ https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/labor-shortage-child-teenage-...
- 2y ago
iwantgandhi 2y ago
"While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios." You do know his philosophy worked, right?
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  It did not give him the united India he wanted, and an independent India was on the cards for other reasons, so I don't think you can conclude that. Mandela initially followed Gandhi's example of nonviolent resistance to end apartheid but later abandoned it when it became clear it was ineffective.
- wetpaws 2y ago
  [dead]
- 0x1ceb00da 2y ago
  Yes it did, but it was a mistake to think hitler could be talker out of what he was doing. Nazi germany was to british rule what the american psycho would be to a thief. Britishers freed india when the income stopped justifying the expenses. That's what gandhi's plan was all along (non cooperation movement). This kind of reasoning doesn't work on people who are following an ideology.
- 7bit 2y ago
  You know it worked only due to vastly different circumstances, right?
- 7bit 2y ago
  Hitler would have killed Ghandi on the spot, and continued his breakfast.
- ConfiYeti 2y ago
  We gained independence when it was inconvenient for the British to continue their rule over India. While his work can not be understated, you also can't deny that it took a very long time. During that long period: Indians fought under British banners and died, and Indians were systematically starved to feed frontlines of war we had nothing to do with. Just imagine getting independence 5 years earlier by nationwide violent uprisings and non-cooperation moment together. Britain was already fighting on multiple fronts during WW2, it was a plausible path to early independence. Sure we saved some lives that would've been lost in violent uprisings, but we lost just as many if not more from inaction.
throw0101b 2y ago
> While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios. In her book Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc... * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resistance-works https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resis... Erica Chenoweth has an appendix listing six hundred movements dating from 1900 which are classified in how violent they were. She found that those that used violence (more) succeeded in achieving their goals 25% time, but those that did not use violence (at all, or much less) succeeded over 40% of the time: you almost double your odds by eschewing violence. Further, movement that were violent and succeeded were more likely to be oppressive/authoritarian (possibly because the movement leaders internalized the possibility that the same methods would be used against them: the overthrown often don't end up in pleasant places in those situations), while non-violent ones were less likely to be (though no guarantee, with 1970s Iran being the main outlier). So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy.
- deadlydose 2y ago
  > Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. You and I have a different interpretation of the parent's comment.
- wslh 2y ago
  > So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy. The world has been shaped by power and wars, an undeniable fact that stands without the need for statistical gymnastics.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > The world has been shaped by power and wars […] Yes it has. It has also been shaped by non-violent methods, e.g., one of the biggest being the fall of Communism, which was done without wars and those without power in: Poland (Solidarity); the Baltic countries (Singing revolution); Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Baltic Way); Czechoslovakia (Velvet Revolution). It was done in the Philippines (People Power Revolution), etc.
BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
> but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. You probably meant that the animal kingdom follows the law of the strongest, or "might is right". Time to post that legendary soundbite from Starship Troopers, I guess: One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.” “So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?” She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!” “You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea—a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
abhiyerra 2y ago
I agree with you. No one seems to remember the Quit India movement during WW2 which was led by Gandhi which was violent. Or that Gandhi was not the only Freedom Fighter and others like Subhas Chandra Bose were working with the Axis powers to fight against the British. Or that the soldiers that actually fought for the British in WW2 western theater came back with the ideas of democracy that didn’t really exist in India because of the various puppet governments that people actually interacted with. This is also true in the USA where you have figures like MLK who had complementary aggressive forces like Malcom X. It is interesting also because India has turned from Gandhi in a lot of ways. A lot of my own family now think that Gandhi was a useful idiot. Useful at the time, but long past his due and that there needs to be a refocus on a more assertive Hindu identity like Bose.
47282847 2y ago
> survival of the fittest You are aware that Darwin as the originator of that phrase specifically pointed to non-violent cooperation as the “fittest“ strategy for survival?

tomohelix 2y ago

Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. That is why the GP put the "evolved" in quotes. It takes something more than the basest human instincts and the animal sides of us to take this approach. Some may consider it naive. I personally think Gandhi was smart enough to deduce this on his own yet still chose the nonviolent approach regardless. That alone shows he was a greater "man" than most, in my opinion.

Bancakes 2y ago
Kudos for putting man in double quotes, following the theme.
throw0101b 2y ago
> Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. The historical record says otherwise: * https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 * https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-erica-chenoweth-nonviolence-topple-dictators https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-er...
- BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
  You're using different meaning for the word violence (even easier to see since he said "violence and force").

callmeal 2y ago

>nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. And we have to watch out for thinking that "fittest" implies "strongest". "Smartest" or "most devious" as in the Cuckoo (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/birds/facts-about-cuckoos https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/birds/facts-ab...) also meet the criteria.

corimaith 2y ago
The fittest are by definition those who reproduce the most. In our modern world, the "smartest" and "devious" are headed to a dead end with below replacement birth rates while the "dumb" rednecks and religious are set to eventually become the majority.
- PhasmaFelis 2y ago
  The Idiocracy theory. The trouble is that the traits behind the birthrate differences you're observing aren't genetic but financial: it's not genetically "dumb" people who have more kids, it's poor people, and genetic lines that transition out of poverty generally see commensurate birthrate drops. If poor people were going to "outcompete" and wipe out rich people, it would have happened a long time ago. Also, "religious" have been steadily declining for a while, so that theory doesn't work out. (Of course, the idea that most bad behavior stems from religion, and everyone would be nice to each other without it, is another fallacy.)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- callmeal 2y ago
  as PhasmaFelis pointed out, it's not the "dumb" and "religious", it's poor people, and the reason is simple - children are a source of "mostly free" labor, as the capitalist class here has (re)discovered. https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/labor-shortage-child-teenage-republican-states-sarah-huckabee-sanders/ https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/labor-shortage-child-teenage-...
2y ago

iwantgandhi 2y ago

"While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios." You do know his philosophy worked, right?

quietbritishjim 2y ago
It did not give him the united India he wanted, and an independent India was on the cards for other reasons, so I don't think you can conclude that. Mandela initially followed Gandhi's example of nonviolent resistance to end apartheid but later abandoned it when it became clear it was ineffective.
wetpaws 2y ago
[dead]
0x1ceb00da 2y ago
Yes it did, but it was a mistake to think hitler could be talker out of what he was doing. Nazi germany was to british rule what the american psycho would be to a thief. Britishers freed india when the income stopped justifying the expenses. That's what gandhi's plan was all along (non cooperation movement). This kind of reasoning doesn't work on people who are following an ideology.
7bit 2y ago
You know it worked only due to vastly different circumstances, right?
7bit 2y ago
Hitler would have killed Ghandi on the spot, and continued his breakfast.
ConfiYeti 2y ago
We gained independence when it was inconvenient for the British to continue their rule over India. While his work can not be understated, you also can't deny that it took a very long time. During that long period: Indians fought under British banners and died, and Indians were systematically starved to feed frontlines of war we had nothing to do with. Just imagine getting independence 5 years earlier by nationwide violent uprisings and non-cooperation moment together. Britain was already fighting on multiple fronts during WW2, it was a plausible path to early independence. Sure we saved some lives that would've been lost in violent uprisings, but we lost just as many if not more from inaction.

throw0101b 2y ago

> While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios. In her book Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc... * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resistance-works https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resis... Erica Chenoweth has an appendix listing six hundred movements dating from 1900 which are classified in how violent they were. She found that those that used violence (more) succeeded in achieving their goals 25% time, but those that did not use violence (at all, or much less) succeeded over 40% of the time: you almost double your odds by eschewing violence. Further, movement that were violent and succeeded were more likely to be oppressive/authoritarian (possibly because the movement leaders internalized the possibility that the same methods would be used against them: the overthrown often don't end up in pleasant places in those situations), while non-violent ones were less likely to be (though no guarantee, with 1970s Iran being the main outlier). So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy.

deadlydose 2y ago
> Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. You and I have a different interpretation of the parent's comment.
wslh 2y ago
> So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy. The world has been shaped by power and wars, an undeniable fact that stands without the need for statistical gymnastics.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > The world has been shaped by power and wars […] Yes it has. It has also been shaped by non-violent methods, e.g., one of the biggest being the fall of Communism, which was done without wars and those without power in: Poland (Solidarity); the Baltic countries (Singing revolution); Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Baltic Way); Czechoslovakia (Velvet Revolution). It was done in the Philippines (People Power Revolution), etc.

BoingBoomTschak 2y ago

> but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. You probably meant that the animal kingdom follows the law of the strongest, or "might is right". Time to post that legendary soundbite from Starship Troopers, I guess: One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.” “So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?” She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!” “You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea—a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”

abhiyerra 2y ago

I agree with you. No one seems to remember the Quit India movement during WW2 which was led by Gandhi which was violent. Or that Gandhi was not the only Freedom Fighter and others like Subhas Chandra Bose were working with the Axis powers to fight against the British. Or that the soldiers that actually fought for the British in WW2 western theater came back with the ideas of democracy that didn’t really exist in India because of the various puppet governments that people actually interacted with. This is also true in the USA where you have figures like MLK who had complementary aggressive forces like Malcom X. It is interesting also because India has turned from Gandhi in a lot of ways. A lot of my own family now think that Gandhi was a useful idiot. Useful at the time, but long past his due and that there needs to be a refocus on a more assertive Hindu identity like Bose.

47282847 2y ago

> survival of the fittest You are aware that Darwin as the originator of that phrase specifically pointed to non-violent cooperation as the “fittest“ strategy for survival?