Pacifism poses a difficult dilemma. You correctly point out that, in addition to successfully pushing out the British from India, pacifism may deserve partial credit for dismantling the Soviet State. However, peaceful resistance to hard totalitarian rule means an extended vacation in the Gulag. Time will tell whether pacifism can defeat the soft totalitarian institution of “democracy”.
Pacifism poses a difficult dilemma. You correctly point out that, in addition to successfully pushing out the British from India, pacifism may deserve partial credit for dismantling the Soviet State. However, peaceful resistance to hard totalitarian rule means an extended vacation in the Gulag. Time will tell whether pacifism can defeat the soft totalitarian institution of “democracy”.
Doesn't it only work on an oppressor with a conscience, though? And isn't India still ruled by an evil government, albeit their own?
Yes and no.
One might argue that Gandhi's tactics wouldn't have worked very well under, say, Stalin. They'd have a point. And yet, similar tactics are what ultimately proved most effective against the Soviets. https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/father-popieluszko-the-polish-priest-who-brought-down-communism-in-poland/
Solidarity was a strike and not an armed uprising.
I read once that in socialism a strike is a civil war. Can't remember who said it, but if anyone knows, please let me know.
Good post, Jon. Linking it today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/