In Gandhi’s Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place,” it appeared as if Gandhi was tackling many of the problems we see in modern times (i.e. concentration of wealth in the top 10%). It also appeared as if he was giving many of the suggestions that the SD department has been teaching. Specifically, Gandhi talks about “levelling down the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth” (176). Gandhi states that “a nonviolent government is clearly an impossibility as long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persist” (176). This is a similar struggle that we try to tackle in modern times, as the gap between the excessively rich and the poor continues to widen. Specifically, modern times is about to witness Jeff Bezos become the first ever trillionaire. Clearly, Gandhi’s ideas about eliminating the concentration of wealth were not successful, particularly in the west. Therefore, if the tactics that SD students are learning about now didn’t work when Gandhi was around, then why would they work now? Have tactics not evolved and is there not a better way to fight capitalistic mindsets? Furthermore, did Gandhi actually have the lasting change that he was looking for?
In “Gandhi on Machinery: 1919-47”, he discusses his opinions on machinery. He explains the dominance machines have gained through this quote, “if man controls the machines, then they will not; but should man lose his control over the machines and allow them to control him, then they will certainly engulf civilisation and everything” (167). Gandhi does not like the fact that humans will allow machines to control man to make a profit. He believes that everyone should be offered the same opportunities as the next person, but it becomes difficult when machines are the people’s priority. The use of machines are taking away people’s jobs and leaving them to starve. While reading this chapter, it made me think of our discussion in our last class. Gandhi said he did not particularly like doctors in his chapter, “The condition of India (cont.): doctors”; however, the medical field is one of the most advanced fields involving machinery. He thinks we should not use machines for jobs humans can already do. Doctors can do most of the procedures without the machines, but it is typically more successful with the use of machines for both the doctor and patient. Many of these machines have been proven to be more successful than the hands of a doctor and saves them unnecessary labour. Gandhi says “the mad rush for wealth must cease” (166); while these machines are invented for the improvement of the people in the hospital, they are also thinking of the profits to be made from it. What would Gandhi think of the advancements in the medical field with his view on machinery? Would his view about doctors change?
While Medical Technology is very helpful and can contribute to more efficient care, it is evident that those with more wealth are more likely to have access to these resources. I cannot help but think about the current pandemic. I read an article the other day stating that “If a coronavirus vaccine were to be distributed to those who need it and not just wealthy countries, then more than half of cases could be prevented”. A handful of wealthy countries already own more than half of the world’s COVID vaccine supply (article by Market Watch), and this just highlights the inequalities of our capitalist system that Gandhi has referenced. The “mad rush for wealth” has allowed rich countries to have control over who’s life matters in a global pandemic, and will most likely seek to give vaccines to those with the heaviest wallets. If Gandhi were alive today, I believe that he would advocate for creating a vaccine that would be free for everyone who wants it. Sadly, that is not the case in our selfish system that is centered on making profits off of the sick/poor who lack access to resources/livelihoods that keep them safe amidst a global outbreak. I do not think Gandhi would be surprised to see the polarization of our medical advancements, and when looking into why we have failed to control this pandemic is due to the greediness of our Government/Economy. Our society is based on the profits, and although “shutting down” would benefit our common people, it would have negatively impacted those who own the corporations that control our daily consumption, therefore those at the bottom must continue to put their lives at risk for the sake of those at the top accruing all of the benefits of their exploitative labor-structure. In order to change their circumstances, according to Gandhi, is that they should act in “self-rule” and demand systemic change. Gandhi wants affordable alternatives, “How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence”. Alternatives would be taking preventative steps to mitigate the chances for outbreaks in marginalized communities such as access to sanitation resources, or even by improving the sanitation of public markets (where the disease is thought to have originated). A proactive, not reactive, medical system that ensures equitable access to life-saving resources for all is what I think modern medicine would look like in Gandhi’s vision. That would require a lot of technology, so do you think that he would object to this wide-distribution of vaccines? Or would he only require that it is in the name of Human Rights and not profitability?
In Nehru’s October 9, 1945 reply to Gandhi’s previous letter, he challenges Gandhi’s claim that Indian society should transition back to living in villages in order to make social progress. Nehru demonstrates his own bias towards western culture in stating that “no progress can be made from a backward environment” (p. 146). In making this broad claim, he attaches himself to the idea that western culture and the western view of “progress” are superior, whereas Gandhi was challenging this notion and trying to assert that the values of Indian culture are being lost in the midst of westernized India. It seems that sustainable development leans more toward Gandhi’s side of this argument and renounces the sole value of western advancement and knowledge. However, Nehru brings up an interesting point later in his letter: “we have to put down certain objectives like a sufficiency of food, clothing, housing, education, sanitation etc. which should be the minimum requirements for the country and for everyone” (p. 146). Nehru argues that a certain quality of life or standard of living should be available to everyone. How can we reconcile these two points with the principles of SD? How do we get to a world where everyone’s basic needs are met and everyone’s culture and way of life is respected (i.e. western ideas not forced onto people)?
Within part one of the “Wheel of Fortune” Gandhi primarily discusses the concept of Swadeshi and its importance to achieve home rule (Swaraj). Ghandi states; “I have come to include Swadeshi in the program of non-cooperation…Non-cooperation is nothing but discipline in self-sacrifice” (Gandhi, 5). Swadeshi is a concept that relates very closely to the modern economy which India, in Gandhi’s view, is and was subjected to under British rule. This was the economy of free trade and competition, which caused India to become more and more reliant on foreign goods as opposed to being able to produce their own goods and means of reliance. In this way, Gandhi is criticizing globalization as a system that is immoral, however he acknowledges that it works for some countries on the basis of a cultural relativist argument towards the end of the chapter (pp 38-42). Swadeshi allows for consumers to work within the system to change it and work towards more of a home rule, by voting with their dollar. This is a concept seen in many places today, specifically in more developed countries. Is this principle universally applicable? Can everyone practice Swadeshi or is it exclusionary? Why or why not?
“A little voice within us tells us, ‘You are on the right track, move neither to your left nor right, but keep to the straight and narrow way.’ With such help we march forward slowly indeed, but surely and steadily. That is my position. It may be satisfactory enough for me, but it can in no way answer the requirements of a society such as yours.” Gandhi brings up several interesting points in this brief excerpt from Hind Swaraj, namely: the fact that each of us holds an inner-knowing/voice that leads us onwards through instinct and trust. The second is that one cannot hold the nation of India (or any developing nation) to the standards nor methods of a Core country. This second idea in particular is fascinating and makes a lot of sense. If we hold a Periphery country’s methods and thought processes in comparison to that of a Core country, of course academia and the statisticians will see deficite (likely because they are also looking from a Core country’s point of view) but also because the measurements by which the countries would be judged are not of the same value by the people within said countries. For instance, in the passage above, I interpret that as Gandhi saying that he is holding his country to the standard of what is reasonable and valued with them, which is simply “we are growing, and are better than the day before.” In turn, I took the second half of the excerpt as him saying that though they are marching slowly as a nation socially, the economics are not yet caught up in the level of progress, which is the main tenet by which the Core countries present are judging the other nations. So my question is: should development charts and reports be more than just economics reports? Obviously a lot of them are, also speaking on women’s rights percentages, birth mortality rates, and so on. I guess a better question would be: should we change the mindsets and definition of “development” in the eyes of Core nations and the people within to take into account the evolution of individuals, ideals, and mindsets of the Periphery nations as progress as well?
In “Gandhi on Machinery (1919-47)” his writing in 1934 stated, “ We can never industrialize India unless, of course, we reduce our population from 350 million to 35 million or hit upon markets wider than our own and dependent on us.”(165). He wanted India’s independence and to solve the question of unemployment and exploitation of the poor, and without succumbing to the western idea of consumerism. He later states that “ We cannot industrialize ourselves unless we make up our mind to enslave humanity.”(165). Today, India does an average of 300 billion dollars annually in exports and is the number 16 exporter in the world. India is the second-most populous country after China with about 1.2 billion people and only a small percentage of the Indian population has benefited from the country’s economic boom, as the majority of people in India are still living in abject poverty. My question is how would Gandhi feel about the state of India right now and how they have developed. I feel that he would be shocked to see how large the population has grown and how they too have fallen in the hands of western consumerism. However, I feel he would still be proud of the number of people that have been lifted out of poverty. I believe he would be against the material consumption and the western way of life that is prevalent in some sections of society. He thought that the western economic system, i.e. capitalism, was both unsustainable and devastating to the environment and the human spirit. Gandhi wanted India to have economic self-sufficiency without an emphasis on material pursuits or compromising human development. How do you think Gandhi would feel about the state of the world today and the development of India?
In response to your question, I would say that Gandhi would be somewhat unhappy of how India’s society has expanded to become an area of continuous production but to think bad about the continuous growth of people (their rights in particular), would that not also be going against his acknowledgement that “every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary to clothe and house himself”? Within the chapter Economic Development and Moral Development, many examples from previous historical reflections and even a particular passage from the bible state that “ With material gain has not necessarily meant moral gain and that the greater possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude.” So can we even say that the growth of India through economic development is even correlated to Gandhi’s idea of moral development? I would argue that it would not be connected because even though they are bringing people out of poverty through the means of industrialization and economic expansion, it is making them rely on materialistic growth and not that of moral or spiritual growth.
In ‘Economic Development and Moral Development’ Gandhi provides a few religious examples of how wealth leads to corruption and will not allow you access into the afterlife. He brings up the classic quote, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God! (pg 156).” A little later in the text Gandhi brings up several religious prophets such as Mahomed, Buddha, Jesus, and Nanak. He mentions how each of these great and wise men all chose to live without riches. Gandhi writes, “And they were all men who deliberately embraced poverty as their lot (pg. 157).” Every major religious prophet purposefully does not seek wealth, allowing the people to see their humility and to show that it is not a valuable asset to chase in earthly life. With considering both of these arguments provided by Gandhi, why is it that western culture has completely abandoned this sentiment? Western societies such as the United States are built on a foundation of Christian beliefs, but will constantly chase wealth over morality. Why did this happen? Where did the embrace of living with less and having humility get lost? Or are these arguments provided by Gandhi even valid? Should we embrace poverty? Or is there a way to pursue wealth and still be moral?
In the chapter “Gandhi’s Letter to Lord Ampthill” Gandhi contacts Lord Ampthill of London, England in order to convey his message on the state of India in terms of British rule. India, at this time, was suffering due to the exploitation of its people, resources, and land in the interest of foreign capital. Through India’s national awakening spiritual correspondence was lacking, hindering the understanding of self-sacrifice which is required for Gandhi’s mission of passive resistance against British rule. Hatred, impatience, and distrust of the British and British rule was increasing as time passed, especially with the extremist party favoring methods of violence and retaliation in order to drive out their oppressors. Gandhi dissented from the views of the extremist party who practiced violent methods of acquiring freedom from British occupation, as well as the moderates who desired adopting British ideologies in order to gain more power. The solution that Gandhi presented in his letter to Lord Ampthill was for England to reject modern civilization, which encompasses selfishness and materialism, reflecting narcissism and lacking purpose. However, Gandhi felt that this (his ideal solution) was asking too much of England, or expecting too much out of what they would actually be willing to do. Gandhi then suggested that the British do as the Indian’s do and not impose upon them the modern civilization. Gandhi states “the fault is not of men but of the system and the system is represented by the present civilisation which has produced its blasting effect as well on the people here as on India” (134). What might the world appear like, not only in Britain and India but on a global scale, if the modern system Gandhi described to Lord Ampthill was dismantled and rebuilt in an image without excessive materialism? How do you think Gandhi would interpret the current state of our world in regards to the imposition of modern civilization?
In Swadeshi, Gandhi casts a vision of the national government surrendering power to the local villages. The logic Gandhi uses is that since the soul and spirit of India lies within villages then those village republics should have the most agency. This means that “Swadeshi avoids economic dependence on external market forces that could make the village community vulnerable” (Swadeshi). Economic dependence would limit the villages agency. Gandhi continues the argument that the structure of village republics with provides villages agency upholds human dignity. Establishing human dignity is the foundation for the doctrine of trusteeship and the spiritualizing of interpersonal relationships by searching for wealth in man and not in the earth (Doctrine of Trusteeship). The recognition of human dignity and the seeking of wealth in man reinforce each other. Gandhi is saying when we find wealth in each other there is no need for excess. Rather, “the rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community” (Doctrine of Trusteeship, 5). Gandhi goes as far as to see accumulation of excess as theft. Since trusteeship is tradition in India Gandhi’s argument is advocating for returning to precolonial institutions. As a descendant of colonizers living on stolen land, can I advocate for same things as Gandhi? Can I advocate for returning to precolonial institutions, avoiding economic dependence and searching for wealth in women? Or is that not my place?
In the Theory of Trusteeship, Gandhi writes about what he would do if one day he had a lot of money. He would believe that all of the money he had did not belong to him and that all he needs is an honorable livelihood along with everyone else. He believes that his excess wealth belongs to the community. When talking about people that do have a lot of wealth, he says, “I want them to outgrow their greed and sense of possession, and to come down in spite of their wealth to the level of those who earn their bread by labour” (Harijan, 3-6-1939, p. 145). Gandhi goes on to say that he “desires to end capitalism” and that his Theory of Trusteeship is the only theory that is compatible with non-violence (Harijan,16-12-1939, p.376). What Gandhi is talking about here really reminds me of Jeff Bezos who makes $321 million dollars a day. This is more money than any single person could ever spend. He uses his money to buy real estate and fund his space exploration company but what he spends does not even make a dent in the amount of money he has. This money could be used to fund programs that would help people/save the world. Do you believe that extremely wealthy people owe it to society to help people with less money than them? What would you do if you had that much money?
Gandhi’s ideas regarding machinery provoked much controversy. He believed that the use of machinery led to the unemployment of many. Gandhi explained that he did not have the problem with the machinery itself but rather the implementation of it. “What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on “saving labour” till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation…Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions” (Hind Swaraj, 166). Gandhi argues that those who are affluent exploit machinery for their own gain at the expense of others. The economic benefits acquired from the use of machinery may not be in the best interest of society as a whole. “Machine-power can make a valuable contribution towards economic progress. But a few capitalists have employed machine-power regardless of the interests of the common man and that is why our condition has deteriorated today” (Hind Swaraj, 170). Do you agree with Gandhi’s sentiments that the exploitation of machinery/technology does more harm than good? If so, is this currently reflected in the United States? How would Gandhi react to our current capitalistic system?
In “Economic Development and Moral Development” Gandhi asks the question of whether moral progress increases in the same proportion as material progress, and if there is a point where these can both exist together or one can spark the other. He quotes “…thirty millions of India…to be living on one meal a day. They say that before we can think or talk of their moral welfare, we must satisfy their daily wants” and “Every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary to clothe and house himself” (154-155). Reading this made me think of all of the environmental problems that we, as a population, face today and how often-times poorer or “third-world” countries are blamed for many of the aspects of climate change when the wealthier countries are the major culprits and are looking for someone to place the blame on. They are quick to blame the poor for degrading the environment when they simply are just using more resources around them in order to survive and meet their basic needs, as they cannot afford to think first about the environment when they are just trying to stay alive. Do you think that if their basic needs were met and they had material progress, they could begin to focus more on preserving the environment that they live in and that this would therefore generate moral progress? If everyone’s basic needs were met and especially if no one was living in poverty, would there be anyone to exploit or use as a scapegoat for environmental problems? Would wealthy countries have to own up to their actions against the environment?
In “Economic and Moral Development” Gandhi acknowledges that “every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary to clothe and house himself. But, for this very simple performance, we need no assistance from economists or their laws (157). Lawyers and economists are concerned with monetary advancement not the welfare of the society in which they exist or control. Their power to oppress people sets them up for a path of least resistance for monetary and political gain. It is not the textile mills, the white man, nor the invention of the engine that limit the Indian people but the deliberately corrupt laws and allocation of money that oppress and divide India and its people. The East India Company capitalized on the bounty of cotton production and spinning in India; requiring people to work in mills for minimal pay only to make the employees purchase the goods that they previously made for the same price that developed nations pay. The cyclical nature of this makes it so Indian people spend most of their salary on clothes that they could have made themselves; they then have little money left to feed their families. Their basic needs are no longer covered because the laws and economy exploit the needs for economic development. Countries have developed GDP to measure the success of nations but “the test of orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses” (157). Is the desire for wealth and authority learned or is it a predisposition that people have to conquer? If it is learned, why is it taught? More importantly, why is this futile desire obviously immoral but neglected by the mass of people in developed nations? How can we make our communities more collective and less greedy?
In “Economic and Moral Development” Gandhi observed in South Africa that “…the greater the possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude” on page 155. When Gandhi makes this observation, what he means is that as people or countries gain more economic wealth, their morals become increasingly immoral. By immoral people’s morals could essentially become more selfish and their morals overall can become more corrupted or negative. In fact Gandhi refers to the fall of Rome, stating that the reason that Rome collapsed was because there was a significant amount of wealth. In Gandhi’s perspective economic and moral development are directly related, but people or countries who typical excel in economic wealth do not have good morals or even hinder the growth of their own morals. Thereby bringing attention the concept of economic wealth restricting the moral growth of people. Gandhi (page 155 as well) makes the statement that everyone should have the right to the basic necessities or daily wants such as food, but how can these be obtained if everything cost money. On page 156 Gandhi quotes the bible where it says “We must have money or we cannot even be reasonably moral.” I think this quote recognizes the issue that in order for anyone to meet their daily needs, you have to have or make money.
This overall concept of economic and moral development, especially with economic wealth ties into a previous conversation we had in class about what does it mean to live the good life? For some people maybe living the good life means being able to meet their daily necessities or minimum requirements to survive. Whereas for others living the good life could incorporate more than just the basic necessities such as a well built house or a car. Even though living the good life looks different for each person the problem of never making or having enough money still stands. Having a lack of money or access to resources prohibits people from being able to obtain the basic necessities they need to survive. In westernized countries such as America this issue is very prominent, where we constantly focus on growing our economy, but in the process we are hurting the environment as well as increasing social inequities.
What ways or practices can be utilized to decrease the focus of economic development and increase the focus on moral development?
How can the systems America has in place be improved or changed in order to provide equitable opportunities and access for those people who cannot obtain their daily basic necessities?
When “people” are referred to in this question, this could also be other countries other than America and or other western/first world countries.
In “Gandhi’s Political Vision” he describes the ideal society of Independent India by needing the belief in God, as he states, “This society must be based on truth and nonviolence which, in my opinion, are not possible without a living belief in God, meaning a self-existent, all-knowing living Force which inheres in every other force known to the world and which depends on none and which will live when all other forces may conceivably perish or cease to act” (Gandhi, 189). What does he mean by this and how does this interpretation play into his definition of Swaraj?
While reading, I became confused about Gandhi’s position on individuality and community. He seems to believe that, in order for India to free themselves of the oppressive and destructive rule of the British, they must set aside their individuality and put themselves after the greater good when seeking Swadeshi, employing a selfless mindset. One must be “prepared to embrace death and renounce his body for the sake of human service” (Trusteeship : Not a Legal Fiction). Gandhi actively supported socialism and communism to a certain degree. Both of these forms of governance require that communities remain selfless/put aside their individual wealth to support one another and achieve equality. However, at the end of “Trusteeship : Not a Legal Fiction” Gandhi raises concerns about the rise in state governance under socialism because “although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress.” What arguments does Gandhi make for individuality to be the root of all progress? What extent of individuality is advantageous for moral advancement in a socialist/communist government? What is more important to Gandhi in the pursuit of Swadeshi or home rule: individuality or selflessness?
While reading, “Gandhi on Machinery: 1919-47”, I was able to expand my own views on machinery, as well as better understand those of Gandhi. More specifically, “There is thus room in the country for both the mill industry and the handloom weaving. So let mills increase as also spinning-wheels and handlooms. And I should think that these latter are no doubt machines. The handloom is a miniature weaving mill. The spinning-wheel is a miniature spinning-mill. I would wish to see such beautiful little mills in every home. But the country is fully in need of the hand-spinning and hand-weaving industry. Agriculturists in no country can live without some industry to supplement agriculture”. This further shows how important it is to have both aspects of the world. Our world is in need of both machinery and hand-crafted material. Throughout time, there has been many questions about whether or not machinery has corrupted our society, yet Gandhi depicts that his argument is not towards machinery because there is need for it in our world. Because of this, we must realize that that our world can be supported and benefitted by both. Nevertheless, my question is whether or not you think Gandhi’s opinion on machinery would change now due to the concerns of climate change? Or if, regardless of the environmental impacts it may have, machinery is still necessary?
I found the reading “Gandhi on Machinery (1919-47)” to be very interesting as it demonstrated the gradual changes in Gandhi’s perspective on the use of machinery in India. In 1919 Gandhi stated that “there is thus room in the country for both the mill industry and the handloom weaving,” contending that, “opposition to mills or machinery is not the point” (Gandhi 1919, 162). Over the course of the next thirty years his opinion on machinery appears to be the opposite of his initial statements in 1919. I wish that in addition to the chronological writings on the impact of machinery, there were footnotes labelling the specific experiences Gandhi encountered that forced him to change his opinion. One of the eeriest passages of the chapter is when Gandhi mentions, “it is possible to visualize a stage at which the machines invented by man may finally engulf civilization” (Gandhi 1931, 165). I am concerned that we are currently at this stage that Gandhi warns of.
Following the above statement, I wonder what Gandhi’s position on using technology for fighting climate change would be. It appears as though today many intergovernmental organizations support technocratic solutions to climate change that involve using machinery rather than changing the dominant model of capitalistic consumption and economic patterns. Do you think that the use of machinery will be able to free communities to become self-sufficient in the context of climate change? Or is Gandhi right in his thinking that machinery is “antagonistic to man’s labor” and the common man? Would the use of machinery to combat climate change further blind us from the fact that the underlying problem is the existing economic system that relies on environmental and societal damage to fulfill its goal of growth?
Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship seems to fairly closely resemble similar democratic socialist of our current political system. Where the workers are entitled to their fair share instead of capitalists gaining all the wealth and inevitably moving it out of the community where the wealth was developed. Much like Gandhi I feel the same way towards the movement “There is nothing in this theory which can be said to be beyond the grasp of intellect, though you may say it is difficult of practice.“ What would be some similarities in opposition and difficulty of practice that Gandhi has received as compared to someone like Bernie Sanders?
In part one of The Wheel of Fortune Ghandi says, “Non-co-operation is nothing but discipline in self-sacrifice. And I believe that a nation that is capable of limitless sacrifice is capable of rising to limitless heights.”(5). Ghandi thinks that sacrifice is very important in order for positive progress to occur. I think this frame of mind has not translated to any society truly, humans typically push the boundaries of life without attempting to make sacrifices. Ghandi felt that sacrifice had to occur to the fullest extent in order for real change to happen,he said, “Boycott of British goods to be effective must be taken up by the whole country at once or not at all”(3). This connects the idea of sacrifice and community, we must all work towards one common goal and accept the sacrifice in order to truly make a change. I think this idea of sacrifice perfectly applies to the idea of a sustainable society; we must work together and sacrifice the unsustainable activies that we do each day and work towards a communal goal of being more sustainable in order to better the world. How can we alter peoples mindsets towards sacrificing what they know for the better of others? Is it truly possible for society to adopt this mindset or is it delusional to anticipate sacrifice from individuals globally?
Gandhi is quite frank with his views on machinery. He views it as a capitalistic mechanism for the rich to gain even more power over the poor. I do not disagree with his views, and find that technology is advancing to unnecessary heights. On page 167, Gandhi states “it is possible to visualize a stage at which the machines invented by man may finally engulf civilization.”
Have we reached this stage? Have machines engulfed civilization? Particularly now, it seems that much of humankind would be lost without machinery. Without the technology that we possess, the pandemic would have entirely different implications. Additionally, much technology has reached a point of increased complication, making it difficult for most users to understand the mechanics. Whether the technology is a cell-phone or a car, increasing control of software and information has led to a lack of technological autonomy. Has civilization become engulfed by machines? If so, is it good or bad?
In The Wheel Of Fortune, Gandhi explains why foreign independence and globalization cannot coexist with Indian freedom and prosperity. He says that to improve the state of India they must dissolve all dependence on the British market place. The most important role in achieving Swaraj is the popularization of the spinning wheel. Gandhi says, “…true Swadeshi consists in introducing the spinning wheel in every household and every household spinning its own yarn.” (22). He says that the spinning wheel should be re-popularized not as a livelihood, but as a leisure activity that is seen as one’s duty to India. Gandhi stresses even further the need for spinning wheels in schools by saying, “If you are a schoolboy or schoolgirl, you should consider it a sin to receive literary training, before you have spun, carded or woven for the nation for at least four hours per day till the establishment of Swaraj.” (49). What societal conflicts could arise from the allegation that everyone must give up leisure and educational time for spinning? With the time period’s economic climate (and translating it into the economic climate of today), how do you think, if at all, these suggestions could became problematic?
I have given a lot of thought to the theory of trusteeship, and all the documents written on the topic, and about how this would look in our community. As much as people may use Gandhi’s idea to point out the richest classes faults in returning their wealth to the community, Gandhi is speaking to the individual. Gandhi says, “Man will ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part to try to be perfect. So that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal as long as we are alive, but towards which we must ceaselessly strive” (Trusteeship: Not a Legal Fiction). He also says, “When the people understand the implications of trusteeship and the atmosphere is ripe for it, the people themselves. . . will begin to introduce such statutes. Such a thing coming from below is easy to swallow. Coming from above it is liable to prove a dead weight” (Theory of Trusteeship). Both these quotes speak to the individual and to the individuals need for moral change. This change does not truly come from below, but from within themselves, as their own realization that they active trustees, or stewards, of the community’s well-being. Although many of us do not own large wealth or estates, can we not consider time as property? How much of that time do we give to the community? Gandhi never strictly defines “property” or “wealth” in his text about trusteeship. Do you think it’s possible that he does this on purpose, so his audience has to answer “The question … of convection” for themselves?
Gandhi obviously rejects the western way of living as well as consumerism, in Economic Development and Moral Development he goes on to talk about how as society become more affluent with material things their moral development goes down eventually leading the society to fall, “Now let us take a few illustrations. Rome suffered a moral fall when it attained high material affluence. So did Egypt and so perhaps most countries of which we have any historic record. The descendants, kinsmen of the royal and divine Krishna, too, fell when they were rolling in riches.“ (158). What this goes to show is how is how after a society advances to possessions being more important that the moral standing in the country it will soon fall, Gandhi provided us of many examples and I can think of many more. Is Gandhi’s idea of Swaraj a nation that does not fall into this obsession of material things? I like to think that Gandhi and Thoreau would have gotten along with their rejection of consumerism and the need for material things. Today all of western society has advanced dramatically in a way of material possessions and our moral development has gone way down, according to Gandhi when this society fails will it be the fall of capitalism due to all of the resources being exploited or will it be the climate catastrophe that capitalism is causing? What would Gandhi have to say about today’s late stage capitalism?
While laying out his case for boycott and non cooperation with the British, Gandhi spends a great deal of time mulling over the production of fabric in India. In a nutshell, he urges the nation to boycott fabrics produced outside India and for the people to hand spin their own fabrics (khadi) in order to promote Indian self reliance and independence. “The revival of hand spinning is the least penance we must do for the sin of our forefathers in having succumbed to the satanic influences of the foreign manufacturer” (13). Gandhi argues it is practical enough for Indians to produce their own fabrics, he even wove his own cloth himself. Fast forward to 2020 and the world has become even more globalised. Is Gandhi’s khadi movement even a possibility anymore, especially in the USA where domestic manufacturing has all but disappeared? Are there any political or social movements where national boycotts and localized production could be an effective means to an end?
In the chapter, ”Passive Resistance” Gandhi writes, “And what is true of families and communities is true of nations. There is no reason to believe that there is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is a record of interpretation of the course of nature. Soul-force, being natural, is not noted in history” (90, Gandhi). Gandhi here is speaking to passive resistance, more specifically, the true normality of peace and soul-force. Moreover, this peace as the true norm is not what is captured in history. History tells us that war is the standard and what is ordinary in society. This history that is falsely written is written by those in power that present false interpretation. How would Gandhi few the Black Lives Matter movement in terms of peace and violence? Would Gandhi view Black Lives Matter as maintaining peace or presist the problem of violence? What are some examples?
In the letters between Gandhi and Neru they are discussing the best ways to go about governing India, and trying to iron out their different approaches and understandings of Hind Swaraj. The tone of the writing begins with Gandhi acknowledging their obvious differences and detailing his own view of how India can obtain freedom and peace, he says this on page 3,894 (of my book) “I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world alsom then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces.” He also says later on the page, “We can realise truth and non-violence only in the simplicity of village life…” This is opposed by Neru in his response, on page 3,935 saying, “A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment.” and then later on the page saying, “Again it seems to me inevitable that modern means of transport as well as many other modern developments must continue and be developed.” These are obviously fundamental differences in the direction of India as a nation, but in his next letter in response to Neru, Gandhi details Neru’s overall stance and insinuates that for the most part they actually agree, although he leaves out the fact that Neru thinks scientific and technological development is essential for their nation. Based on the previous letters, would you say that they are on the same page? Or is this a misunderstanding by Gandhi, and if so is it intentional? What would be the purpose of Gandhi omitting some of Neru’s points in his second letter in order to feign agreement?
In the series of readings on trusteeship the ideas of private ownership and wealth are discussed as being incompatible with a non-violent society. “I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.” (cited from the “Theory of Trusteeship” website as Harijan, 3-6-1939, p. 145) Here the principle of trusteeship is described. What is interesting to me about this idea is when it is discussed how a government would go about enforcing this new type of ownership, it is discussed on the “Trusteeship: Not a Legal Fiction” webpage and cited from: The Modern Review, October, 1935, p. 412, “Q. Why then not have State-ownership in place of private property and thus minimize violence?
A. It is better than private ownership. But that, too, is Objectionable on the ground of violence. It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the evils of violence itself and fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship.” This is a dense statement so my main question is, do you agree with the idea that the state can “never be weaned” from violence in enforcement? If yes or no, what does this mean for modern issues that will require the efficiency and cohesion of state lead government?
In the supplementary writing titled “Gandhi on Machinery,” Gandhi says that “machinery is a grand yet awful invention. It is possible to visualize a stage at which the machines invented by man may finally engulf civilization” (167). I found this really interesting because I find myself engulfed in technology, especially now that we’ve transitioned to a completely online lifestyle. Is it possible in this current time to not be engulfed by technology? Have we already reached the point that Gandhi feared of machinery/technology controlling humans? As we work to save the planet, is it wrong to depend on new technology in the climate movement?
In the Gandhi-Nehru Dialogue they go back and forth on the idea of a village as an ideal structuring and unit for society. Gandhi says, “I am conviced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces (p. 144).” Nehru in his response says, “A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment (p. 146).” Despite this, Gandhi says that after a talk they had he thinks “there is not much difference in our outlook (p. 149).” Is Gandhi or Nehru right or wrong? How do these concepts around “village” relate to conversations around the good life, equity, means of production, autonomy, and community?
In his foreword to “Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place,” Gandhi states, “Civil Disobedience, mass or individual, is an aid to constructive effort and is a full substitute for armed revolt. Training is necessary as well for civil disobedience as for armed revolt. Only the ways are different.” (iii) Later in ‘Students’ he says that, “Appreciation of non-violence means patient research and still more patient and difficult practice.” (21) He seems to be advocating for a military level of discipline and organization for best practice and maximum effectiveness of civil disobedience. How is that seen, and how is that not seen, performed in the United States today with regard to the current racial civil unrest? Also, and importantly, how is the perceived lack of order and discipline from the side performing civil disobedience used as a weapon against it? William Barr and the Trump administration have projected an image of “Law and Order” to counter protests and demonstrations, a forseeable tactic. How would Gandhi rebut their claim that they are the voice of discipline and order?
“As for the present owners of wealth, they would have to make their choice between class war and voluntarily converting themselves into trustees of their wealth. They would be allowed to retain the stewardship of their possessions and to use their talent to increase the wealth, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the nation and, therefore, without exploitation (63-64).”
I feel like this is one of the central issues that the world at large is facing, should the rich risk class war so they can stay rich or should they distribute their wealth for the good of the working class people? In America, I really feel like this can be seen in politics and industry, namely the fact that politicians and CEOs benefit from tax breaks and bailout that the working class aren’t entitled to. I believe that the pandemic has underscored this disparity in wealth distribution specifically in small business loans. Not only is America experiencing extreme social disruption, the capitalist economy is favoring the rich over the poor more than ever leading to increased poverty, especially amongst minorities. Why is it that the idea of being a trustee of wealth is such a foreign and seemingly frightening concept?
The main question that runs over this chapter is “Does not moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?” When I think about economic progress I tend to think about western culture; development, huge mass production of goods, large coffers of wealth for a few people, ultimately capitalism at its peak. When I think of moral development, I see spirituality, looking out for one another, community, and everything that opposes the west in a way. In a world where there is moral progress and development there is not need to worry where your next meal will come from or how you will pay for your rent because the government, and or your neighbor will be there to help you no questions asked if needed. Much like the quote Ghandi sited form the Bible, “Take no thought for the morrow”. In a world with adequate moral development achieving the necessities like food, shelter, and even contentment should be one of the easiest things a person can do. My question is, in a world with suitable moral progress is there space for economic progress? When you think about economic progress—within the western culture at least—it is built off the exploitation of the poor. If a nation was progressive morally, everything in which they would do would be clean and non-controversial. There would be space for economic development I guess just not in the way that it is viewed in the west. Every penny made would be earned ethically. Can people achieve the same type of economic progressive when they must take into account the cost morally for said progress?
In Gandhi’s speech “Economic Development and Moral Development”, Gandhi frames wealth as the antithesis to morality. On page 159, he states “I observed almost invariably that the greater the possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude”. While this point may have been on point and more thought-provoking to a group of economists who aimed to promote material development, I think that Gandhi’s analysis of this issue is problematic. He points to South Africa, Rome, and Egypt for his examples. Curiously, each of these nations included a defining factor of severe exploitation and/or slavery. With this in mind, it seems more appropriate to state that material wealth in this culture is obtained through a process that demands immorality. That is to say, that wealth is not the cause of immorality, rather immorality is the prerequisite to wealth. This distinction feels important as framing to this question: Does Gandhi’s glorification and call for material poverty in some ways condone the material and economic theft of colonialism and capitalism? Perhaps his stance is more nuanced that I picked up.
In the supplementary writings, Gandhi gives us some of his personal views on machinery. He states “Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions.”(157) and it is a “grand yet awful invention”(165). He argues that if there are no limitations on machinery, it is possible we might lose control and machines could engulf our civilization. While reading this it reminded me of artificial intelligence and some of the dangers associated with it. Do you believe there should be limitations for machinery? If so, what should they be?
In the supplementary writings, Gandhi gives us some of his personal views on machinery. He states “Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions.”(157) and it is a “grand yet awful invention”(165). He argues that if there are no limitations on machinery, it is possible we might lose control and machines could engulf our civilization. While reading this it reminded me of artificial intelligence and some of the dangers associated with it. Do you believe there should be limitations for machinery? If so, what should they be?
In chapter 16, Brute Force, of ‘Hind Swaraj’ and other Writings Gandhi states a great line to me “The force of arms is powerless when matched against force of love or the soul.” and “the force implied in this may be described as love-force, soul-force or, more popularly but less accurately, passive resistance.” I think these two lines are very important and emphasize one of the themes of passive resistance and the importance of Gandhi’s efforts. His idea of “truth-force”, or Satyagraha, reverses the old idea of force against forces while replacing it with loving and compassionate refusal to go along with injustice. To Gandhi and his followers, this simple power of that stance cannot help but inspire respect even from the enemies.
in Gandhi’s critique on Machinery, he touches base on his ideas and opinions on machinery in relation to India. He feels as though machinery, or technology helps those in power positions gain more from the poor of India by cheap labor and more. He has a problem with the poor being forced to work just so they can survive and believes that machinery and technology along with those power positions are what play a major role in this occurrence. He goes on to say, “What I object is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labour, not for a fraction of mankind, but for all. I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of few, but in the hands of all.” I chose this quote because I believe he is explaining what I was saying. I believe that Gandhi is saying that by encouraging the use of machinery and technology that is supposed to “save labour” that leaves the opportunity for those poor who need to work, left without jobs. This in turn continues to put money in the pockets of the rich and less in the pockets of the poor. Gandhi believes that the poor should not be replaced as such. He feels as though wealth should not be in the hands of a select few; it should be dispersed throughout all so that everyone has an equal chance. My question for this week would be what kind of economic and societal system do you think Gandhi would suggest that would work best in order to accomplish this? I believe that he is referring to a more independent and democratic society but, is there another way? if so what do you think would work best?
In chapter 19, Gandhi is very critical of machinery. He argues that machinery has “begun to desolate Europe. Ruination now knocking at the English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization; it represents a great sin.” Gandhi is mainly critical of the way in which machinery is used to exploit workers, and the ways in which people have developed a “machinery-craze.” He believes the use of machinery must be gradually reduced, and in essence driven out of India. I think some of Gandhi’s views on machinery are a little over-cynical and misled. Technological advancement and machinery objectively have made peoples’ lives easier, and better over time. To completely undo with machinery I think is foolish, and I think it would have hindered many more people than it would have helped. I think Gandhi’s main problem is really not with machinery itself, but the economic structure in which it happens to be utilized in. What do you think of Gandhi’s assessment of machinery? What parts of his critique do you agree with if any?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In Gandhi’s Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place,” it appeared as if Gandhi was tackling many of the problems we see in modern times (i.e. concentration of wealth in the top 10%). It also appeared as if he was giving many of the suggestions that the SD department has been teaching. Specifically, Gandhi talks about “levelling down the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of the nation’s wealth” (176). Gandhi states that “a nonviolent government is clearly an impossibility as long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persist” (176). This is a similar struggle that we try to tackle in modern times, as the gap between the excessively rich and the poor continues to widen. Specifically, modern times is about to witness Jeff Bezos become the first ever trillionaire. Clearly, Gandhi’s ideas about eliminating the concentration of wealth were not successful, particularly in the west. Therefore, if the tactics that SD students are learning about now didn’t work when Gandhi was around, then why would they work now? Have tactics not evolved and is there not a better way to fight capitalistic mindsets? Furthermore, did Gandhi actually have the lasting change that he was looking for?
In “Gandhi on Machinery: 1919-47”, he discusses his opinions on machinery. He explains the dominance machines have gained through this quote, “if man controls the machines, then they will not; but should man lose his control over the machines and allow them to control him, then they will certainly engulf civilisation and everything” (167). Gandhi does not like the fact that humans will allow machines to control man to make a profit. He believes that everyone should be offered the same opportunities as the next person, but it becomes difficult when machines are the people’s priority. The use of machines are taking away people’s jobs and leaving them to starve. While reading this chapter, it made me think of our discussion in our last class. Gandhi said he did not particularly like doctors in his chapter, “The condition of India (cont.): doctors”; however, the medical field is one of the most advanced fields involving machinery. He thinks we should not use machines for jobs humans can already do. Doctors can do most of the procedures without the machines, but it is typically more successful with the use of machines for both the doctor and patient. Many of these machines have been proven to be more successful than the hands of a doctor and saves them unnecessary labour. Gandhi says “the mad rush for wealth must cease” (166); while these machines are invented for the improvement of the people in the hospital, they are also thinking of the profits to be made from it. What would Gandhi think of the advancements in the medical field with his view on machinery? Would his view about doctors change?
While Medical Technology is very helpful and can contribute to more efficient care, it is evident that those with more wealth are more likely to have access to these resources. I cannot help but think about the current pandemic. I read an article the other day stating that “If a coronavirus vaccine were to be distributed to those who need it and not just wealthy countries, then more than half of cases could be prevented”. A handful of wealthy countries already own more than half of the world’s COVID vaccine supply (article by Market Watch), and this just highlights the inequalities of our capitalist system that Gandhi has referenced. The “mad rush for wealth” has allowed rich countries to have control over who’s life matters in a global pandemic, and will most likely seek to give vaccines to those with the heaviest wallets. If Gandhi were alive today, I believe that he would advocate for creating a vaccine that would be free for everyone who wants it. Sadly, that is not the case in our selfish system that is centered on making profits off of the sick/poor who lack access to resources/livelihoods that keep them safe amidst a global outbreak. I do not think Gandhi would be surprised to see the polarization of our medical advancements, and when looking into why we have failed to control this pandemic is due to the greediness of our Government/Economy. Our society is based on the profits, and although “shutting down” would benefit our common people, it would have negatively impacted those who own the corporations that control our daily consumption, therefore those at the bottom must continue to put their lives at risk for the sake of those at the top accruing all of the benefits of their exploitative labor-structure. In order to change their circumstances, according to Gandhi, is that they should act in “self-rule” and demand systemic change. Gandhi wants affordable alternatives, “How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence”. Alternatives would be taking preventative steps to mitigate the chances for outbreaks in marginalized communities such as access to sanitation resources, or even by improving the sanitation of public markets (where the disease is thought to have originated). A proactive, not reactive, medical system that ensures equitable access to life-saving resources for all is what I think modern medicine would look like in Gandhi’s vision. That would require a lot of technology, so do you think that he would object to this wide-distribution of vaccines? Or would he only require that it is in the name of Human Rights and not profitability?
In Nehru’s October 9, 1945 reply to Gandhi’s previous letter, he challenges Gandhi’s claim that Indian society should transition back to living in villages in order to make social progress. Nehru demonstrates his own bias towards western culture in stating that “no progress can be made from a backward environment” (p. 146). In making this broad claim, he attaches himself to the idea that western culture and the western view of “progress” are superior, whereas Gandhi was challenging this notion and trying to assert that the values of Indian culture are being lost in the midst of westernized India. It seems that sustainable development leans more toward Gandhi’s side of this argument and renounces the sole value of western advancement and knowledge. However, Nehru brings up an interesting point later in his letter: “we have to put down certain objectives like a sufficiency of food, clothing, housing, education, sanitation etc. which should be the minimum requirements for the country and for everyone” (p. 146). Nehru argues that a certain quality of life or standard of living should be available to everyone. How can we reconcile these two points with the principles of SD? How do we get to a world where everyone’s basic needs are met and everyone’s culture and way of life is respected (i.e. western ideas not forced onto people)?
Within part one of the “Wheel of Fortune” Gandhi primarily discusses the concept of Swadeshi and its importance to achieve home rule (Swaraj). Ghandi states; “I have come to include Swadeshi in the program of non-cooperation…Non-cooperation is nothing but discipline in self-sacrifice” (Gandhi, 5). Swadeshi is a concept that relates very closely to the modern economy which India, in Gandhi’s view, is and was subjected to under British rule. This was the economy of free trade and competition, which caused India to become more and more reliant on foreign goods as opposed to being able to produce their own goods and means of reliance. In this way, Gandhi is criticizing globalization as a system that is immoral, however he acknowledges that it works for some countries on the basis of a cultural relativist argument towards the end of the chapter (pp 38-42). Swadeshi allows for consumers to work within the system to change it and work towards more of a home rule, by voting with their dollar. This is a concept seen in many places today, specifically in more developed countries. Is this principle universally applicable? Can everyone practice Swadeshi or is it exclusionary? Why or why not?
“A little voice within us tells us, ‘You are on the right track, move neither to your left nor right, but keep to the straight and narrow way.’ With such help we march forward slowly indeed, but surely and steadily. That is my position. It may be satisfactory enough for me, but it can in no way answer the requirements of a society such as yours.” Gandhi brings up several interesting points in this brief excerpt from Hind Swaraj, namely: the fact that each of us holds an inner-knowing/voice that leads us onwards through instinct and trust. The second is that one cannot hold the nation of India (or any developing nation) to the standards nor methods of a Core country. This second idea in particular is fascinating and makes a lot of sense. If we hold a Periphery country’s methods and thought processes in comparison to that of a Core country, of course academia and the statisticians will see deficite (likely because they are also looking from a Core country’s point of view) but also because the measurements by which the countries would be judged are not of the same value by the people within said countries. For instance, in the passage above, I interpret that as Gandhi saying that he is holding his country to the standard of what is reasonable and valued with them, which is simply “we are growing, and are better than the day before.” In turn, I took the second half of the excerpt as him saying that though they are marching slowly as a nation socially, the economics are not yet caught up in the level of progress, which is the main tenet by which the Core countries present are judging the other nations. So my question is: should development charts and reports be more than just economics reports? Obviously a lot of them are, also speaking on women’s rights percentages, birth mortality rates, and so on. I guess a better question would be: should we change the mindsets and definition of “development” in the eyes of Core nations and the people within to take into account the evolution of individuals, ideals, and mindsets of the Periphery nations as progress as well?
(Hind Swaraj pg. 157)
In “Gandhi on Machinery (1919-47)” his writing in 1934 stated, “ We can never industrialize India unless, of course, we reduce our population from 350 million to 35 million or hit upon markets wider than our own and dependent on us.”(165). He wanted India’s independence and to solve the question of unemployment and exploitation of the poor, and without succumbing to the western idea of consumerism. He later states that “ We cannot industrialize ourselves unless we make up our mind to enslave humanity.”(165). Today, India does an average of 300 billion dollars annually in exports and is the number 16 exporter in the world. India is the second-most populous country after China with about 1.2 billion people and only a small percentage of the Indian population has benefited from the country’s economic boom, as the majority of people in India are still living in abject poverty. My question is how would Gandhi feel about the state of India right now and how they have developed. I feel that he would be shocked to see how large the population has grown and how they too have fallen in the hands of western consumerism. However, I feel he would still be proud of the number of people that have been lifted out of poverty. I believe he would be against the material consumption and the western way of life that is prevalent in some sections of society. He thought that the western economic system, i.e. capitalism, was both unsustainable and devastating to the environment and the human spirit. Gandhi wanted India to have economic self-sufficiency without an emphasis on material pursuits or compromising human development. How do you think Gandhi would feel about the state of the world today and the development of India?
In response to your question, I would say that Gandhi would be somewhat unhappy of how India’s society has expanded to become an area of continuous production but to think bad about the continuous growth of people (their rights in particular), would that not also be going against his acknowledgement that “every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary to clothe and house himself”? Within the chapter Economic Development and Moral Development, many examples from previous historical reflections and even a particular passage from the bible state that “ With material gain has not necessarily meant moral gain and that the greater possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude.” So can we even say that the growth of India through economic development is even correlated to Gandhi’s idea of moral development? I would argue that it would not be connected because even though they are bringing people out of poverty through the means of industrialization and economic expansion, it is making them rely on materialistic growth and not that of moral or spiritual growth.
In ‘Economic Development and Moral Development’ Gandhi provides a few religious examples of how wealth leads to corruption and will not allow you access into the afterlife. He brings up the classic quote, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God! (pg 156).” A little later in the text Gandhi brings up several religious prophets such as Mahomed, Buddha, Jesus, and Nanak. He mentions how each of these great and wise men all chose to live without riches. Gandhi writes, “And they were all men who deliberately embraced poverty as their lot (pg. 157).” Every major religious prophet purposefully does not seek wealth, allowing the people to see their humility and to show that it is not a valuable asset to chase in earthly life. With considering both of these arguments provided by Gandhi, why is it that western culture has completely abandoned this sentiment? Western societies such as the United States are built on a foundation of Christian beliefs, but will constantly chase wealth over morality. Why did this happen? Where did the embrace of living with less and having humility get lost? Or are these arguments provided by Gandhi even valid? Should we embrace poverty? Or is there a way to pursue wealth and still be moral?
In the chapter “Gandhi’s Letter to Lord Ampthill” Gandhi contacts Lord Ampthill of London, England in order to convey his message on the state of India in terms of British rule. India, at this time, was suffering due to the exploitation of its people, resources, and land in the interest of foreign capital. Through India’s national awakening spiritual correspondence was lacking, hindering the understanding of self-sacrifice which is required for Gandhi’s mission of passive resistance against British rule. Hatred, impatience, and distrust of the British and British rule was increasing as time passed, especially with the extremist party favoring methods of violence and retaliation in order to drive out their oppressors. Gandhi dissented from the views of the extremist party who practiced violent methods of acquiring freedom from British occupation, as well as the moderates who desired adopting British ideologies in order to gain more power. The solution that Gandhi presented in his letter to Lord Ampthill was for England to reject modern civilization, which encompasses selfishness and materialism, reflecting narcissism and lacking purpose. However, Gandhi felt that this (his ideal solution) was asking too much of England, or expecting too much out of what they would actually be willing to do. Gandhi then suggested that the British do as the Indian’s do and not impose upon them the modern civilization. Gandhi states “the fault is not of men but of the system and the system is represented by the present civilisation which has produced its blasting effect as well on the people here as on India” (134). What might the world appear like, not only in Britain and India but on a global scale, if the modern system Gandhi described to Lord Ampthill was dismantled and rebuilt in an image without excessive materialism? How do you think Gandhi would interpret the current state of our world in regards to the imposition of modern civilization?
In Swadeshi, Gandhi casts a vision of the national government surrendering power to the local villages. The logic Gandhi uses is that since the soul and spirit of India lies within villages then those village republics should have the most agency. This means that “Swadeshi avoids economic dependence on external market forces that could make the village community vulnerable” (Swadeshi). Economic dependence would limit the villages agency. Gandhi continues the argument that the structure of village republics with provides villages agency upholds human dignity. Establishing human dignity is the foundation for the doctrine of trusteeship and the spiritualizing of interpersonal relationships by searching for wealth in man and not in the earth (Doctrine of Trusteeship). The recognition of human dignity and the seeking of wealth in man reinforce each other. Gandhi is saying when we find wealth in each other there is no need for excess. Rather, “the rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community” (Doctrine of Trusteeship, 5). Gandhi goes as far as to see accumulation of excess as theft. Since trusteeship is tradition in India Gandhi’s argument is advocating for returning to precolonial institutions. As a descendant of colonizers living on stolen land, can I advocate for same things as Gandhi? Can I advocate for returning to precolonial institutions, avoiding economic dependence and searching for wealth in women? Or is that not my place?
In the Theory of Trusteeship, Gandhi writes about what he would do if one day he had a lot of money. He would believe that all of the money he had did not belong to him and that all he needs is an honorable livelihood along with everyone else. He believes that his excess wealth belongs to the community. When talking about people that do have a lot of wealth, he says, “I want them to outgrow their greed and sense of possession, and to come down in spite of their wealth to the level of those who earn their bread by labour” (Harijan, 3-6-1939, p. 145). Gandhi goes on to say that he “desires to end capitalism” and that his Theory of Trusteeship is the only theory that is compatible with non-violence (Harijan,16-12-1939, p.376). What Gandhi is talking about here really reminds me of Jeff Bezos who makes $321 million dollars a day. This is more money than any single person could ever spend. He uses his money to buy real estate and fund his space exploration company but what he spends does not even make a dent in the amount of money he has. This money could be used to fund programs that would help people/save the world. Do you believe that extremely wealthy people owe it to society to help people with less money than them? What would you do if you had that much money?
Gandhi’s ideas regarding machinery provoked much controversy. He believed that the use of machinery led to the unemployment of many. Gandhi explained that he did not have the problem with the machinery itself but rather the implementation of it. “What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on “saving labour” till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation…Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions” (Hind Swaraj, 166). Gandhi argues that those who are affluent exploit machinery for their own gain at the expense of others. The economic benefits acquired from the use of machinery may not be in the best interest of society as a whole. “Machine-power can make a valuable contribution towards economic progress. But a few capitalists have employed machine-power regardless of the interests of the common man and that is why our condition has deteriorated today” (Hind Swaraj, 170). Do you agree with Gandhi’s sentiments that the exploitation of machinery/technology does more harm than good? If so, is this currently reflected in the United States? How would Gandhi react to our current capitalistic system?
In “Economic Development and Moral Development” Gandhi asks the question of whether moral progress increases in the same proportion as material progress, and if there is a point where these can both exist together or one can spark the other. He quotes “…thirty millions of India…to be living on one meal a day. They say that before we can think or talk of their moral welfare, we must satisfy their daily wants” and “Every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary to clothe and house himself” (154-155). Reading this made me think of all of the environmental problems that we, as a population, face today and how often-times poorer or “third-world” countries are blamed for many of the aspects of climate change when the wealthier countries are the major culprits and are looking for someone to place the blame on. They are quick to blame the poor for degrading the environment when they simply are just using more resources around them in order to survive and meet their basic needs, as they cannot afford to think first about the environment when they are just trying to stay alive. Do you think that if their basic needs were met and they had material progress, they could begin to focus more on preserving the environment that they live in and that this would therefore generate moral progress? If everyone’s basic needs were met and especially if no one was living in poverty, would there be anyone to exploit or use as a scapegoat for environmental problems? Would wealthy countries have to own up to their actions against the environment?
In “Economic and Moral Development” Gandhi acknowledges that “every human being has a right to live and therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary to clothe and house himself. But, for this very simple performance, we need no assistance from economists or their laws (157). Lawyers and economists are concerned with monetary advancement not the welfare of the society in which they exist or control. Their power to oppress people sets them up for a path of least resistance for monetary and political gain. It is not the textile mills, the white man, nor the invention of the engine that limit the Indian people but the deliberately corrupt laws and allocation of money that oppress and divide India and its people. The East India Company capitalized on the bounty of cotton production and spinning in India; requiring people to work in mills for minimal pay only to make the employees purchase the goods that they previously made for the same price that developed nations pay. The cyclical nature of this makes it so Indian people spend most of their salary on clothes that they could have made themselves; they then have little money left to feed their families. Their basic needs are no longer covered because the laws and economy exploit the needs for economic development. Countries have developed GDP to measure the success of nations but “the test of orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses” (157). Is the desire for wealth and authority learned or is it a predisposition that people have to conquer? If it is learned, why is it taught? More importantly, why is this futile desire obviously immoral but neglected by the mass of people in developed nations? How can we make our communities more collective and less greedy?
In “Economic and Moral Development” Gandhi observed in South Africa that “…the greater the possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude” on page 155. When Gandhi makes this observation, what he means is that as people or countries gain more economic wealth, their morals become increasingly immoral. By immoral people’s morals could essentially become more selfish and their morals overall can become more corrupted or negative. In fact Gandhi refers to the fall of Rome, stating that the reason that Rome collapsed was because there was a significant amount of wealth. In Gandhi’s perspective economic and moral development are directly related, but people or countries who typical excel in economic wealth do not have good morals or even hinder the growth of their own morals. Thereby bringing attention the concept of economic wealth restricting the moral growth of people. Gandhi (page 155 as well) makes the statement that everyone should have the right to the basic necessities or daily wants such as food, but how can these be obtained if everything cost money. On page 156 Gandhi quotes the bible where it says “We must have money or we cannot even be reasonably moral.” I think this quote recognizes the issue that in order for anyone to meet their daily needs, you have to have or make money.
This overall concept of economic and moral development, especially with economic wealth ties into a previous conversation we had in class about what does it mean to live the good life? For some people maybe living the good life means being able to meet their daily necessities or minimum requirements to survive. Whereas for others living the good life could incorporate more than just the basic necessities such as a well built house or a car. Even though living the good life looks different for each person the problem of never making or having enough money still stands. Having a lack of money or access to resources prohibits people from being able to obtain the basic necessities they need to survive. In westernized countries such as America this issue is very prominent, where we constantly focus on growing our economy, but in the process we are hurting the environment as well as increasing social inequities.
What ways or practices can be utilized to decrease the focus of economic development and increase the focus on moral development?
How can the systems America has in place be improved or changed in order to provide equitable opportunities and access for those people who cannot obtain their daily basic necessities?
When “people” are referred to in this question, this could also be other countries other than America and or other western/first world countries.
In “Gandhi’s Political Vision” he describes the ideal society of Independent India by needing the belief in God, as he states, “This society must be based on truth and nonviolence which, in my opinion, are not possible without a living belief in God, meaning a self-existent, all-knowing living Force which inheres in every other force known to the world and which depends on none and which will live when all other forces may conceivably perish or cease to act” (Gandhi, 189). What does he mean by this and how does this interpretation play into his definition of Swaraj?
While reading, I became confused about Gandhi’s position on individuality and community. He seems to believe that, in order for India to free themselves of the oppressive and destructive rule of the British, they must set aside their individuality and put themselves after the greater good when seeking Swadeshi, employing a selfless mindset. One must be “prepared to embrace death and renounce his body for the sake of human service” (Trusteeship : Not a Legal Fiction). Gandhi actively supported socialism and communism to a certain degree. Both of these forms of governance require that communities remain selfless/put aside their individual wealth to support one another and achieve equality. However, at the end of “Trusteeship : Not a Legal Fiction” Gandhi raises concerns about the rise in state governance under socialism because “although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress.” What arguments does Gandhi make for individuality to be the root of all progress? What extent of individuality is advantageous for moral advancement in a socialist/communist government? What is more important to Gandhi in the pursuit of Swadeshi or home rule: individuality or selflessness?
While reading, “Gandhi on Machinery: 1919-47”, I was able to expand my own views on machinery, as well as better understand those of Gandhi. More specifically, “There is thus room in the country for both the mill industry and the handloom weaving. So let mills increase as also spinning-wheels and handlooms. And I should think that these latter are no doubt machines. The handloom is a miniature weaving mill. The spinning-wheel is a miniature spinning-mill. I would wish to see such beautiful little mills in every home. But the country is fully in need of the hand-spinning and hand-weaving industry. Agriculturists in no country can live without some industry to supplement agriculture”. This further shows how important it is to have both aspects of the world. Our world is in need of both machinery and hand-crafted material. Throughout time, there has been many questions about whether or not machinery has corrupted our society, yet Gandhi depicts that his argument is not towards machinery because there is need for it in our world. Because of this, we must realize that that our world can be supported and benefitted by both. Nevertheless, my question is whether or not you think Gandhi’s opinion on machinery would change now due to the concerns of climate change? Or if, regardless of the environmental impacts it may have, machinery is still necessary?
I found the reading “Gandhi on Machinery (1919-47)” to be very interesting as it demonstrated the gradual changes in Gandhi’s perspective on the use of machinery in India. In 1919 Gandhi stated that “there is thus room in the country for both the mill industry and the handloom weaving,” contending that, “opposition to mills or machinery is not the point” (Gandhi 1919, 162). Over the course of the next thirty years his opinion on machinery appears to be the opposite of his initial statements in 1919. I wish that in addition to the chronological writings on the impact of machinery, there were footnotes labelling the specific experiences Gandhi encountered that forced him to change his opinion. One of the eeriest passages of the chapter is when Gandhi mentions, “it is possible to visualize a stage at which the machines invented by man may finally engulf civilization” (Gandhi 1931, 165). I am concerned that we are currently at this stage that Gandhi warns of.
Following the above statement, I wonder what Gandhi’s position on using technology for fighting climate change would be. It appears as though today many intergovernmental organizations support technocratic solutions to climate change that involve using machinery rather than changing the dominant model of capitalistic consumption and economic patterns. Do you think that the use of machinery will be able to free communities to become self-sufficient in the context of climate change? Or is Gandhi right in his thinking that machinery is “antagonistic to man’s labor” and the common man? Would the use of machinery to combat climate change further blind us from the fact that the underlying problem is the existing economic system that relies on environmental and societal damage to fulfill its goal of growth?
Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship seems to fairly closely resemble similar democratic socialist of our current political system. Where the workers are entitled to their fair share instead of capitalists gaining all the wealth and inevitably moving it out of the community where the wealth was developed. Much like Gandhi I feel the same way towards the movement “There is nothing in this theory which can be said to be beyond the grasp of intellect, though you may say it is difficult of practice.“ What would be some similarities in opposition and difficulty of practice that Gandhi has received as compared to someone like Bernie Sanders?
In part one of The Wheel of Fortune Ghandi says, “Non-co-operation is nothing but discipline in self-sacrifice. And I believe that a nation that is capable of limitless sacrifice is capable of rising to limitless heights.”(5). Ghandi thinks that sacrifice is very important in order for positive progress to occur. I think this frame of mind has not translated to any society truly, humans typically push the boundaries of life without attempting to make sacrifices. Ghandi felt that sacrifice had to occur to the fullest extent in order for real change to happen,he said, “Boycott of British goods to be effective must be taken up by the whole country at once or not at all”(3). This connects the idea of sacrifice and community, we must all work towards one common goal and accept the sacrifice in order to truly make a change. I think this idea of sacrifice perfectly applies to the idea of a sustainable society; we must work together and sacrifice the unsustainable activies that we do each day and work towards a communal goal of being more sustainable in order to better the world. How can we alter peoples mindsets towards sacrificing what they know for the better of others? Is it truly possible for society to adopt this mindset or is it delusional to anticipate sacrifice from individuals globally?
Gandhi is quite frank with his views on machinery. He views it as a capitalistic mechanism for the rich to gain even more power over the poor. I do not disagree with his views, and find that technology is advancing to unnecessary heights. On page 167, Gandhi states “it is possible to visualize a stage at which the machines invented by man may finally engulf civilization.”
Have we reached this stage? Have machines engulfed civilization? Particularly now, it seems that much of humankind would be lost without machinery. Without the technology that we possess, the pandemic would have entirely different implications. Additionally, much technology has reached a point of increased complication, making it difficult for most users to understand the mechanics. Whether the technology is a cell-phone or a car, increasing control of software and information has led to a lack of technological autonomy. Has civilization become engulfed by machines? If so, is it good or bad?
In The Wheel Of Fortune, Gandhi explains why foreign independence and globalization cannot coexist with Indian freedom and prosperity. He says that to improve the state of India they must dissolve all dependence on the British market place. The most important role in achieving Swaraj is the popularization of the spinning wheel. Gandhi says, “…true Swadeshi consists in introducing the spinning wheel in every household and every household spinning its own yarn.” (22). He says that the spinning wheel should be re-popularized not as a livelihood, but as a leisure activity that is seen as one’s duty to India. Gandhi stresses even further the need for spinning wheels in schools by saying, “If you are a schoolboy or schoolgirl, you should consider it a sin to receive literary training, before you have spun, carded or woven for the nation for at least four hours per day till the establishment of Swaraj.” (49). What societal conflicts could arise from the allegation that everyone must give up leisure and educational time for spinning? With the time period’s economic climate (and translating it into the economic climate of today), how do you think, if at all, these suggestions could became problematic?
I have given a lot of thought to the theory of trusteeship, and all the documents written on the topic, and about how this would look in our community. As much as people may use Gandhi’s idea to point out the richest classes faults in returning their wealth to the community, Gandhi is speaking to the individual. Gandhi says, “Man will ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part to try to be perfect. So that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal as long as we are alive, but towards which we must ceaselessly strive” (Trusteeship: Not a Legal Fiction). He also says, “When the people understand the implications of trusteeship and the atmosphere is ripe for it, the people themselves. . . will begin to introduce such statutes. Such a thing coming from below is easy to swallow. Coming from above it is liable to prove a dead weight” (Theory of Trusteeship). Both these quotes speak to the individual and to the individuals need for moral change. This change does not truly come from below, but from within themselves, as their own realization that they active trustees, or stewards, of the community’s well-being. Although many of us do not own large wealth or estates, can we not consider time as property? How much of that time do we give to the community? Gandhi never strictly defines “property” or “wealth” in his text about trusteeship. Do you think it’s possible that he does this on purpose, so his audience has to answer “The question … of convection” for themselves?
Gandhi obviously rejects the western way of living as well as consumerism, in Economic Development and Moral Development he goes on to talk about how as society become more affluent with material things their moral development goes down eventually leading the society to fall, “Now let us take a few illustrations. Rome suffered a moral fall when it attained high material affluence. So did Egypt and so perhaps most countries of which we have any historic record. The descendants, kinsmen of the royal and divine Krishna, too, fell when they were rolling in riches.“ (158). What this goes to show is how is how after a society advances to possessions being more important that the moral standing in the country it will soon fall, Gandhi provided us of many examples and I can think of many more. Is Gandhi’s idea of Swaraj a nation that does not fall into this obsession of material things? I like to think that Gandhi and Thoreau would have gotten along with their rejection of consumerism and the need for material things. Today all of western society has advanced dramatically in a way of material possessions and our moral development has gone way down, according to Gandhi when this society fails will it be the fall of capitalism due to all of the resources being exploited or will it be the climate catastrophe that capitalism is causing? What would Gandhi have to say about today’s late stage capitalism?
While laying out his case for boycott and non cooperation with the British, Gandhi spends a great deal of time mulling over the production of fabric in India. In a nutshell, he urges the nation to boycott fabrics produced outside India and for the people to hand spin their own fabrics (khadi) in order to promote Indian self reliance and independence. “The revival of hand spinning is the least penance we must do for the sin of our forefathers in having succumbed to the satanic influences of the foreign manufacturer” (13). Gandhi argues it is practical enough for Indians to produce their own fabrics, he even wove his own cloth himself. Fast forward to 2020 and the world has become even more globalised. Is Gandhi’s khadi movement even a possibility anymore, especially in the USA where domestic manufacturing has all but disappeared? Are there any political or social movements where national boycotts and localized production could be an effective means to an end?
In the chapter, ”Passive Resistance” Gandhi writes, “And what is true of families and communities is true of nations. There is no reason to believe that there is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is a record of interpretation of the course of nature. Soul-force, being natural, is not noted in history” (90, Gandhi). Gandhi here is speaking to passive resistance, more specifically, the true normality of peace and soul-force. Moreover, this peace as the true norm is not what is captured in history. History tells us that war is the standard and what is ordinary in society. This history that is falsely written is written by those in power that present false interpretation. How would Gandhi few the Black Lives Matter movement in terms of peace and violence? Would Gandhi view Black Lives Matter as maintaining peace or presist the problem of violence? What are some examples?
In the letters between Gandhi and Neru they are discussing the best ways to go about governing India, and trying to iron out their different approaches and understandings of Hind Swaraj. The tone of the writing begins with Gandhi acknowledging their obvious differences and detailing his own view of how India can obtain freedom and peace, he says this on page 3,894 (of my book) “I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world alsom then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces.” He also says later on the page, “We can realise truth and non-violence only in the simplicity of village life…” This is opposed by Neru in his response, on page 3,935 saying, “A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment.” and then later on the page saying, “Again it seems to me inevitable that modern means of transport as well as many other modern developments must continue and be developed.” These are obviously fundamental differences in the direction of India as a nation, but in his next letter in response to Neru, Gandhi details Neru’s overall stance and insinuates that for the most part they actually agree, although he leaves out the fact that Neru thinks scientific and technological development is essential for their nation. Based on the previous letters, would you say that they are on the same page? Or is this a misunderstanding by Gandhi, and if so is it intentional? What would be the purpose of Gandhi omitting some of Neru’s points in his second letter in order to feign agreement?
In the series of readings on trusteeship the ideas of private ownership and wealth are discussed as being incompatible with a non-violent society. “I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.” (cited from the “Theory of Trusteeship” website as Harijan, 3-6-1939, p. 145) Here the principle of trusteeship is described. What is interesting to me about this idea is when it is discussed how a government would go about enforcing this new type of ownership, it is discussed on the “Trusteeship: Not a Legal Fiction” webpage and cited from: The Modern Review, October, 1935, p. 412, “Q. Why then not have State-ownership in place of private property and thus minimize violence?
A. It is better than private ownership. But that, too, is Objectionable on the ground of violence. It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the evils of violence itself and fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship.” This is a dense statement so my main question is, do you agree with the idea that the state can “never be weaned” from violence in enforcement? If yes or no, what does this mean for modern issues that will require the efficiency and cohesion of state lead government?
In the supplementary writing titled “Gandhi on Machinery,” Gandhi says that “machinery is a grand yet awful invention. It is possible to visualize a stage at which the machines invented by man may finally engulf civilization” (167). I found this really interesting because I find myself engulfed in technology, especially now that we’ve transitioned to a completely online lifestyle. Is it possible in this current time to not be engulfed by technology? Have we already reached the point that Gandhi feared of machinery/technology controlling humans? As we work to save the planet, is it wrong to depend on new technology in the climate movement?
In the Gandhi-Nehru Dialogue they go back and forth on the idea of a village as an ideal structuring and unit for society. Gandhi says, “I am conviced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces (p. 144).” Nehru in his response says, “A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment (p. 146).” Despite this, Gandhi says that after a talk they had he thinks “there is not much difference in our outlook (p. 149).” Is Gandhi or Nehru right or wrong? How do these concepts around “village” relate to conversations around the good life, equity, means of production, autonomy, and community?
In his foreword to “Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place,” Gandhi states, “Civil Disobedience, mass or individual, is an aid to constructive effort and is a full substitute for armed revolt. Training is necessary as well for civil disobedience as for armed revolt. Only the ways are different.” (iii) Later in ‘Students’ he says that, “Appreciation of non-violence means patient research and still more patient and difficult practice.” (21) He seems to be advocating for a military level of discipline and organization for best practice and maximum effectiveness of civil disobedience. How is that seen, and how is that not seen, performed in the United States today with regard to the current racial civil unrest? Also, and importantly, how is the perceived lack of order and discipline from the side performing civil disobedience used as a weapon against it? William Barr and the Trump administration have projected an image of “Law and Order” to counter protests and demonstrations, a forseeable tactic. How would Gandhi rebut their claim that they are the voice of discipline and order?
“As for the present owners of wealth, they would have to make their choice between class war and voluntarily converting themselves into trustees of their wealth. They would be allowed to retain the stewardship of their possessions and to use their talent to increase the wealth, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the nation and, therefore, without exploitation (63-64).”
I feel like this is one of the central issues that the world at large is facing, should the rich risk class war so they can stay rich or should they distribute their wealth for the good of the working class people? In America, I really feel like this can be seen in politics and industry, namely the fact that politicians and CEOs benefit from tax breaks and bailout that the working class aren’t entitled to. I believe that the pandemic has underscored this disparity in wealth distribution specifically in small business loans. Not only is America experiencing extreme social disruption, the capitalist economy is favoring the rich over the poor more than ever leading to increased poverty, especially amongst minorities. Why is it that the idea of being a trustee of wealth is such a foreign and seemingly frightening concept?
The main question that runs over this chapter is “Does not moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?” When I think about economic progress I tend to think about western culture; development, huge mass production of goods, large coffers of wealth for a few people, ultimately capitalism at its peak. When I think of moral development, I see spirituality, looking out for one another, community, and everything that opposes the west in a way. In a world where there is moral progress and development there is not need to worry where your next meal will come from or how you will pay for your rent because the government, and or your neighbor will be there to help you no questions asked if needed. Much like the quote Ghandi sited form the Bible, “Take no thought for the morrow”. In a world with adequate moral development achieving the necessities like food, shelter, and even contentment should be one of the easiest things a person can do. My question is, in a world with suitable moral progress is there space for economic progress? When you think about economic progress—within the western culture at least—it is built off the exploitation of the poor. If a nation was progressive morally, everything in which they would do would be clean and non-controversial. There would be space for economic development I guess just not in the way that it is viewed in the west. Every penny made would be earned ethically. Can people achieve the same type of economic progressive when they must take into account the cost morally for said progress?
In Gandhi’s speech “Economic Development and Moral Development”, Gandhi frames wealth as the antithesis to morality. On page 159, he states “I observed almost invariably that the greater the possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude”. While this point may have been on point and more thought-provoking to a group of economists who aimed to promote material development, I think that Gandhi’s analysis of this issue is problematic. He points to South Africa, Rome, and Egypt for his examples. Curiously, each of these nations included a defining factor of severe exploitation and/or slavery. With this in mind, it seems more appropriate to state that material wealth in this culture is obtained through a process that demands immorality. That is to say, that wealth is not the cause of immorality, rather immorality is the prerequisite to wealth. This distinction feels important as framing to this question: Does Gandhi’s glorification and call for material poverty in some ways condone the material and economic theft of colonialism and capitalism? Perhaps his stance is more nuanced that I picked up.
In the supplementary writings, Gandhi gives us some of his personal views on machinery. He states “Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions.”(157) and it is a “grand yet awful invention”(165). He argues that if there are no limitations on machinery, it is possible we might lose control and machines could engulf our civilization. While reading this it reminded me of artificial intelligence and some of the dangers associated with it. Do you believe there should be limitations for machinery? If so, what should they be?
In the supplementary writings, Gandhi gives us some of his personal views on machinery. He states “Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions.”(157) and it is a “grand yet awful invention”(165). He argues that if there are no limitations on machinery, it is possible we might lose control and machines could engulf our civilization. While reading this it reminded me of artificial intelligence and some of the dangers associated with it. Do you believe there should be limitations for machinery? If so, what should they be?
In chapter 16, Brute Force, of ‘Hind Swaraj’ and other Writings Gandhi states a great line to me “The force of arms is powerless when matched against force of love or the soul.” and “the force implied in this may be described as love-force, soul-force or, more popularly but less accurately, passive resistance.” I think these two lines are very important and emphasize one of the themes of passive resistance and the importance of Gandhi’s efforts. His idea of “truth-force”, or Satyagraha, reverses the old idea of force against forces while replacing it with loving and compassionate refusal to go along with injustice. To Gandhi and his followers, this simple power of that stance cannot help but inspire respect even from the enemies.
in Gandhi’s critique on Machinery, he touches base on his ideas and opinions on machinery in relation to India. He feels as though machinery, or technology helps those in power positions gain more from the poor of India by cheap labor and more. He has a problem with the poor being forced to work just so they can survive and believes that machinery and technology along with those power positions are what play a major role in this occurrence. He goes on to say, “What I object is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labour, not for a fraction of mankind, but for all. I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of few, but in the hands of all.” I chose this quote because I believe he is explaining what I was saying. I believe that Gandhi is saying that by encouraging the use of machinery and technology that is supposed to “save labour” that leaves the opportunity for those poor who need to work, left without jobs. This in turn continues to put money in the pockets of the rich and less in the pockets of the poor. Gandhi believes that the poor should not be replaced as such. He feels as though wealth should not be in the hands of a select few; it should be dispersed throughout all so that everyone has an equal chance. My question for this week would be what kind of economic and societal system do you think Gandhi would suggest that would work best in order to accomplish this? I believe that he is referring to a more independent and democratic society but, is there another way? if so what do you think would work best?
In chapter 19, Gandhi is very critical of machinery. He argues that machinery has “begun to desolate Europe. Ruination now knocking at the English gates. Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization; it represents a great sin.” Gandhi is mainly critical of the way in which machinery is used to exploit workers, and the ways in which people have developed a “machinery-craze.” He believes the use of machinery must be gradually reduced, and in essence driven out of India. I think some of Gandhi’s views on machinery are a little over-cynical and misled. Technological advancement and machinery objectively have made peoples’ lives easier, and better over time. To completely undo with machinery I think is foolish, and I think it would have hindered many more people than it would have helped. I think Gandhi’s main problem is really not with machinery itself, but the economic structure in which it happens to be utilized in. What do you think of Gandhi’s assessment of machinery? What parts of his critique do you agree with if any?