One Common Agreement Between Gandhian And Marxism
Capitalists should become the trustees of the country`s wealth, and they should use their genius for common salvation. Capitalists, in agreement with society, should set a nominal profit. All classes should work together to increase production. Gandhiji was not for big industries. In the name of the working class, these forces were used by the Communist Party in the United States, China and the communist countries of Eastern Europe. The state established control over all aspects of the individual`s life, and democracy was killed. Gandhiji was a staunch defender of individual freedom. He wanted to win over all humanity by the force of love. Therefore, we cannot deny that there are certain similarities and differences between the two. The next question, of course, is: What effect would the change in their meaning have? And I thought that if we take away freedom and equality – dotted with inner tension, as they are – from the theoretical milieu of European modernity, and that we put at the centre the ideal of an inalienable life, you can bring back freedom and equality (from the back door, so to speak), but it is no longer so central. but only as necessary conditions for this more fundamental ideal, which is at the centre of concerns. The idea is that if it is done correctly, there would be a serious chance of eliminating the internal tension between freedom and equality that existed when they were the central ideas.
No philosopher or system of thought has shaped my thinking, although Marx`s thought has created, in a casual sense, a framework in which one can think of politics and society. I was very interested in politics and society when I was studying in Bombay [now Mumbai] and Oxford, and then in the late 1980s. In between, I studied almost exclusively first, then I wrote about questions of language and mind, and I was relatively apolitical while doing this scientific work, even though I kept myself informed and, I suppose, I judged myself on politics during this period of distant study. His new reading of the commonalities in Marx and Gandhi is also important. Bilgrami establishes similarities or similarities in the episterane worlds of Marx and Gandhi and in their critique of the phenomenon of alienation, which is an indispensable character of capitalism in all avatars. In general, Gandhi and Marx are considered to be two great personalities who are at two poles. But you have identified important similarities between them. This is based on your argument that the two shared a similar critique of modernity, as they regarded the alienation of nature as the fundamental characteristics of modernity. What are the similarities of thought in Gandhi and Marx and how do you explain it in the context of modernity? Mitochondrial DNA is a common cause of genetic diseases and pronuclear transfer technology can also help prevent the transmission of MTD DNA diseases. After observing this, I turned again to Marx and Gandhi, and I realized that they did not put any of these ideals at the center of their thinking. Marx explicitly regarded freedom and equality as bourgeois ideals.
And Gandhi, as you know, has shown total indifference to these liberal ideas and the codes and institutions that should anchor them. I think that these sources of tension between freedom and equality have been at the centre of their rejection of both ideals, even if they have not formulated it as I did.