The 1% Empire: Occupy and Gandhi

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:57:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Of all the political events in Gandhi’s life, perhaps none is more famous than the Salt March of 1930. That theatrical act of defiance—in protest of the heavy tax on salt imposed by the British in India—catapulted Gandhi to new heights in his political career, as the image of this frail individual challenging a mighty empire captured the hearts and imaginations of millions of people around the world. [Emphasis supplied] - Ian Desai, Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2010

Gandhi would reject the division between the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Gandhi did not believe in enemies: he worked on the premise that solutions emerged only from cooperation. [. . .] Noncooperation is best understood as an invitation to cooperate. “We are the 100 percent” may not make for a dramatic slogan, but from Gandhi’s perspective, it is the only way to achieve true and lasting change in society. - Ian Desai, November 30, 2011 New York Times Op-Ed

I think Desai might better understand the situation if he thought of the 99%-1% argument as one of a 1% empire. The 1% of course are not the enemy, and I doubt anyone in the Occupy movement is thinking of them as enemies. The 1% is, though, an empire - a plutocratic empire that controls the workings of our institutions. The Occupy movement is engaged in a campaign of noncooperation with the 1% empire. Thus, Occupy shares Gandhi's view, as described by Desai:

[P]olitical freedom [. . .] to Gandhi implied the ability of a society’s system of self-governance to serve the interest of its citizens completely and without corruption.

That seems to me to express, in a nutshell, the ethos of the Occupy movement. It seems hard to imagine Gandhi would disagree with that tenet of the Occupy movement. More . . .

Empires, as Gandhi knew, rarely relinquish power of their own volition. Desai's description of Gandhi's struggle to force the British to "Quit India" illustrates this:

In his lifetime, Gandhi was arrested 14 times on two continents. By the time of his final incarceration, in August 1942, at the start of the Quit India movement to force the British out of the subcontinent once and for all, his enterprise and stature had grown to such an extent that the British had to take special care to keep him and his assistants confined without further agitating the public. Gandhi was imprisoned along with his wife, Mahadev Desai, and several other aides in the Aga Khan Palace in the city of Pune. The strain of organizing Quit India agitation had taken a toll on the entire group, as the demand for complete and immediate independence had brought a swift and heavy response from the British around India.

Gandhi seemed to fully realize that an empire does not go quietly. The "Quit India" agitation that culminated the decades of protest and noncooperation by Gandhi and his cohorts was directed at the British Empire, not at a vacuum.

The Occupy movement's agitation is focused on the 1% Empire. It seems to me Gandhi would approve of this approach.

Speaking for me only

< Off to Key West and Open Thread | Emma Sullivan Is Lucky She Is Not Ruth Marcus' Daughter >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The 1% Empire: Occupy and Gandhi | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Cooperation... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by kdog on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:21:48 AM EST

requires the willingness to cooperate...one of the main reasons the occupy movement came to be is the 1% are so unwilling to cooperate or compromise so that our economy serves and provides opportunity for all, rich and poor and middle.

And the government refusing to advocate for and represent the 99%, along with their 1% paymasters, and lead us to that compromise.

So what's the solution (none / 0) (#6)
by Slado on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:06:35 AM EST

More government planning or a true free market economy?

I'd say the later because in my view the government planning part never works.


My default position... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by kdog on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:22:12 AM EST

is a free market as well, but I fear there is no way around reasonable regulations and government investment/involvement. A better hybrid is what we need...easing regulations in some areas, tightening them in others. And of course, a heavy dose of equality under the law...if the big banks are gonna get interest-free loans from the fed so should you or me, or nobody does.

As it is now, it is more burdensome bueracracy & regulation-wise to open a hot dog cart than it is to crash the economy trading in toxic waste...thats arse-backwards.


Which regulations, kdog? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:20:30 AM EST

Or are you just responding to the non-stop clamor from the right wing about those evvulll regggulations?

You're right that it's out of balance, but let's remember that the perhaps (I say perhaps) the excessive regulation of hot dog carts is a municipal problem, and trading toxic waste is federal.


Then we agree (none / 0) (#22)
by Slado on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 02:42:27 PM EST

In my view the reason is as we allow government to grow we get unintended consequences like silly regulations etc...

As I said in my longer post one side of this is a given. Greedy capitalists. We know what they're going to do but too often goverment pretends that they won't act a certain way and that idea is based on fairness and hope. The inevitable consequence is someone games the system and the rest of us are worse off for it.

As Peter Schiif says..."Put alcohol in a room with a bunch of teenagers and why are you surprised when you come back the next day and mot of them are drunk".

Capitalists, businessmen have a singular easily predictable goal. To do whatever it takes to make money.

Heavy governmental involvement and central planning ignores these realities and the current mess is the result. See cash for clunkers, electric cars, housing bubble, inflated college tuition, green energy etc....

All good ideas on paper that failed when held up to economic reality.


: Peter Schiff?? (none / 0) (#30)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:21:16 AM EST

You're quoting Peter Schiff? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

There Are More Than 2 Options (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 12:25:02 PM EST

The incentive to vote against the citizen's interests has to be removed, until we reel in lobbying, which is to me, legalized bribery, the system will never work for anyone but the 1%ers.

Government funded campaigns have to be a cost we as citizen are willing to bear. These insane amounts of cash need to run a campaign are leaving a lot of open obligations.

Remove the money and eventually the people we elect will actually represent us, the 99%ers. Once we have politicians who aren't extensions of the 1%ers, everything else will fall into place, be it more regulation, or an actual free market, or any other option that will no longer come from the minds of lobbyists.


DIY True Free Market Fantasylands (none / 0) (#18)
by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 01:44:56 PM EST

Except for where some extent (decided upon by a people bestowed with sovereignty, ideally) government planning clearly does work, like everywhere outside of Somalia, the jungles of the Amazon Basin, and the inner sands of the Saharan desert.

If you want to live in the one place where the "true free market exists", populated solely by Homo economicus, you'll need to build a fort out of Macroeconomics 101 textbooks in your living room. Let us know how it goes.


No one is arguing for that but (none / 0) (#21)
by Slado on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 02:38:26 PM EST

at the same time the heavy involvement of business and government isn't working either.

There needs to be government, there needs to be business.

It's the ratio we're arguing about and right now I'd say the ratio is too far slanted towards government and the inevitable consequence is crony capitalism that leads to a 1% class.


: You did. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 02:47:54 PM EST

You argued for it. As the "solution", and as opposed to "government planning". Two comments up. Anyone can read it.
Anyway. Yes, it's the ratio we're arguing about. The ratio of wealth between the 1% and the rest of the United States. Whether that's a good thing economically, whether that's something we want as a society even if it IS a good think economically.
The degree of government involvement in the economy cannot be well represented by a ratio, of course, it's far too complicated and multi-variable for that. In any case, many governments with extensive "government planning" and social welfare systems have low corruption levels and high GDPs and flourishing business sectors -- so the link you're trying to make is hardly axiomatic.

The problem with the movement is it misses the (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Slado on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:04:55 AM EST

big picture.

Rich guys aren't the enemy. No society in the history of the world has not had rich guys.

The problem is the collusion between the government and rich guys which allows rich guys to stay rich unfairly and limits opportunity for poor people to get rich.

The 1% is a given. They are a constant in a mathematical equation. They will always do everything they can to become rich and stay rich.

For that matter most of the 99% are exactly the same way. Some choose a simpler life and that is their right but most of us are no different then the 1% in terms of our desire to become richer and more successful.

So the question is what is the best way to ensure that we all get a fair chance based on our abilities to move up. And I would argue that the current arrangement between big government and business limits those opportunities.

Quite frankly government sucks and making things more fair and the unintended consequence is 1% ruling class of big government and government sponsored business that inevitably leads to an angry 99%.

The problem is they think more government problems are the answer instead of the problem and on this point I think they're wrong and misguided.

Funny enough my understanding of the original movement was this was their exact point but since it seems on the surface to meld with progressive policies the movement is just a muddle group of angst and anger that is justified but misplaced.

The answer is pretty damn simple: (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by observed on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:24:34 AM EST

Progressive tax policies and sane campaign finance law.


Not quite that simple... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:27:07 AM EST

if the progressive tax structure just funds more weapons, war, drug war, prisons, and assorted misery...thats no good.


That's where the sane campaign finance comes in (none / 0) (#10)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:41:48 AM EST

It is the pols that decide how to spend the money. Let's not let them be so easily bought.


: It would certainly help reduce... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:49:19 AM EST

misery spending...point taken.
It would be a relief too if our authoritarian and tytannical spending was solely the result of the big payoff...but I fear there are more people, in office and in the voting booth, who get off on that sh*t than we realize.

Huh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by cal1942 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 11:20:58 AM EST

Quite frankly government sucks

The tone of your statement is that government shouldn't exist.

Only the dimmest of the dim believe in no or inadequate government.


: In a perfect world... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 11:27:19 AM EST

government wouldn't exist...anarchy should be the ultimate goal...no czar no president no king.
Maybe after another 10,000 years of evolution we'll be ready cal...I agree we're not even close yet.

: Goverment is a necessary evil (none / 0) (#23)
by Slado on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 02:47:34 PM EST

in my view.
We need a police force, an army, social welfare etc...
What we can't afford and evidence proves it in my view is an ever expanding government.
Such a government will begin to take over more then the necessities and slowly but surely start to run everything. The inevitable consequence is a ruling class of elites. Your 0.1%.
None of the ruling class that so many bemoan is in the place they are because of zero government preferences. All are gaming the system in one way or another and that is exactly what the 99% should be complaining about.
More government = more elitism and less opportunity for the rest of us.
I am saying that government ceases to be helpful past a certain size and in my view we went over that hill a long time ago.

You utterly misunderstand (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:24:05 AM EST

the Occupy movement. Too bad for you. They are not protesting "against" rich guys. THat's the Fox spin. They're protesting against exactly what you dscribe, a system that's rigged to benefit those rich guys over the rest of us.


Shanti, y'all! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 01:09:06 PM EST

The main difference is that Gandhi never sought to humiliate the opposition outright by his actions. They were supposed to be humiliated by their own response and by the shame they felt from their peers. Out of the non-violent resistance of the "99%" the "1%" is supposed to be more apt to cooperate, or leave, or negotiate -- as true equals. But demonization or vituperative comments about the "opposition" are not a part of the Gandhian approach as they undermine the chances for eventual reconciliation as peers. Which isn't to say that said demonization is bad, just that it's not Gandhian. And not Gandhian can be good -- just look at Ambedkar's approach and results.

[Now some OWS folks avoid demonization of the 1%, others don't, the communications are not that regularized. Another aspect of OWS that is different from Gandhi's approach is that it is leaderless, quite a huge difference but not one being discussed here.]

Aside from that, both you and Desai are right in your way. You're just clashing over what "non-cooperation" means. Non-cooperation doesn't mean you don't end up cooperating, it just means that you don't cooperate until your true power is seen. It's not a strategy, it's a tactic.

I really never bought that distinction (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 01:48:37 PM EST

provocative noncooperation is in fact an attempt to demonize - through provocation of course.

Gandhi knew what he was doing.


Hard to argue about inner intentions, but... (none / 0) (#20)
by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 02:16:36 PM EST

Maybe. I of course can't argue against your interpretation of what counts as "demonization" or what Satyagraha "really" represented as a tactic (or whether Gandhi "really" believed in what he said -- I feel the evidence shows he did).

But Gandhi himself was quite clear that, "the Satyagrahi's object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrong-doer". Furthermore, Gandhi had a term for what I'd term "demonization", duragraha, and in fact set up his theory of change in direct opposition to it! WALL OF TEXT:

The essence of Satyagraha is that it seeks to eliminate antagonisms without harming the antagonists themselves, as opposed to violent resistance, which is meant to cause harm to the antagonist. A Satyagrahi therefore does not seek to end or destroy the relationship with the antagonist, but instead seeks to transform or "purify" it to a higher level. A euphemism sometimes used for Satyagraha is that it is a "silent force" or a "soul force" (a term also used by Martin Luther King Jr. during his famous "I Have a Dream" speech). It arms the individual with moral power rather than physical power. Satyagraha is also termed a "universal force," as it essentially "makes no distinction between kinsmen and strangers, young and old, man and woman, friend and foe."
Gandhi contrasted satyagraha (holding on to truth) with "duragraha" (holding on by force), as in protest meant more to harass than enlighten opponents. He wrote: "There must be no impatience, no barbarity, no insolence, no undue pressure. If we want to cultivate a true spirit of democracy, we cannot afford to be intolerant. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."

An analysis of the actions taken in the decades prior to Indian independence shows campaigns that are more about self-sufficiency to build domestic counter-structures (and thus sap the British system of relevance and power until they'd leave voluntarily as friends) more than anything else.

So, I feel you are incorrect re: Gandhi's tactics as viewed by Gandhi. However, it should be noted that Gandhi's own views evolved over time and that perhaps he never truly believed in the philosophy (as stated) of satyagraha -- though, again, I feel he did.


"Bipartisan" (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:16:24 PM EST

Sure, sure.


: You made it with water and not buffalo milk (none / 0) (#26)
by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:44:02 PM EST

Eh -- that's pretty weak chai, Armandobhai.
I have read a ton of Gandhi's writings, and I can say with confidence that Gandhi was not a member of the post-partisan unity shtick inaugural class. He was very much an Indian nationalist, committed to self-sufficiency (swaraj), and wanted the British to leave as soon and as peaceably as possible. He wanted NO compromise with the British, and in fact wanted India (well, Bharat) to de-Anglicize itself. Unlike PPUSers, he wanted to radicalize the population out of the idea that compromise regarding sovereignty or Indian self-rule was possible or desirable, and snap them out of the idea that the status quo needed mere tweaking. Gandhi was very much an ideologue, not a technocrat; more dedicated to the holistic "Truth" and a true personal and societal revolution than to getting middle-ground policy aims achieved piece by piece through bipartisan "paternalistic libertarianism" or whatever Cass Sunstein is calling it now.
So, strategically, he was as far away from a post-partisan unity shtick as seems possible. Tactically, however, he recognized that if the British wanted to stay (either out of spite or because they still retained full economic and political power) they had the military might to stay. Tactically, he asserted that the best path for those without the desire to compromise is to assert one's own strength without resort to insolence. The problem with President Obama is that PPUS became a strategy, somewhere, and so when it failed as a tactic it wasn't discarded.
Perhaps, though, Gandhi was playing 11-dimensional chess, feigning at satyagraha but secretly using duragraha, and winning the match? I don't think so, I think his personal writing make it clear he was a true believer in satyagraha. But if so, 11-dimensional chess is possible, Barack, don't stop now!
In terms of OWS, if you read about duragraha as a Gandhian concept it's clear that it describes OWS as a movement more than satyagraha does; and it's also clear what Gandhi felt about duragraha -- a lesser tactic, usually counterproductive, and of absolute last resort. I'm not sure that there's much more to say on the specific topic of Gandhi and OWS. That said, Gandhi might be wrong and might be woefully naive about the whole thing, certainly many Indians today think he was.
Sorry for the long response to your short joke comment.

Not an Occupy person (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:15:24 AM EST

but I do not think I have distorted or misstated their views here.

Are you not in favor because you (none / 0) (#3)
by observed on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:32:56 AM EST

disagree with their methods, or their goals?
I would say that their methods are fine. The political systemm in this country is corrupt and useless. Without changes in campaign laws (none of which will occur) ,there is no chance of electing a representative government right now.


I mean I am not paritcipating (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:44:33 AM EST

in the Occupy protests.

I agree with their goals and am not one to nitpick with methods that have worked better than anything I have suggested or tried.


: This where I am ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 12:45:38 PM EST

as well.
They've done a good job in this early informational phase. It was quite impressive. But now the hard work begins.

"and I doubt" (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:58:44 AM EST

The 1% of course are not the enemy, and I doubt anyone in the Occupy movement is thinking of them as enemies.

I'm not so sure about that last part...

: OK, two guys do (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:25:39 AM EST

Happy now? And actually only 30 percent of the Tea Party people are stone racists.

It is my understanding. The British left (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 05:49:47 PM EST

Left India because they could'nt afford to stay after WW II.

: Part of it. (none / 0) (#28)
by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:13:31 PM EST

Partially it was cost. By the 1940's India wasn't all that profitable for England as a whole (as opposed to individuals) anyway, so it didn't take much for it to become a net drag and/or not worth it.
The Quit India campaign helped, too, around the margins; it was certainly the most well known of the latter-day actions even though many historians question its actual usefulness now.
Mostly, though, in my opinion (and according to the contemporary British sources themselves) it was discontent and striking and mutiny among the Indian armed forces (esp. the Royal Indian Navy) that was the nail in the coffin for the British in India. They couldn't count on their local enforcers anymore.
Interestingly, Gandhi and many others such as Jinnah and Patel opposed this action by the military. And we don't hear about it much now because it was very politically-loaded at the time and didn't gain the universal mythology treatment other incidents did.
Stuff:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060212/spectrum/main2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy_mutiny#Legacy_and_assessments_of_the_effects_of_the_M utiny
http://www.preservearticles.com/201106238431/royal-indian-navy-mutiny.html