By his example

Introduction
There's no doubt in my mind that one of the most important people of the 20^th century was Mahatma Gandhi. I rate him at least as important as Stalin or Hitler, Roosevelt or Churchill in his effect on history. He was greater than any of those political leaders in his effect on the personal life of many people, including me. Gandhi was not a Saint; he was a man. But, he was a man of the stature of George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. He not only founded a nation, but a way of thinking, a way of life.

Introduction

There's no doubt in my mind that one of the most important people of the 20^th century was Mahatma Gandhi. I rate him at least as important as Stalin or Hitler, Roosevelt or Churchill in his effect on history. He was greater than any of those political leaders in his effect on the personal life of many people, including me.

Gandhi was not a Saint; he was a man. But, he was a man of the stature of George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. He not only founded a nation, but a way of thinking, a way of life.

We were privileged to share a little bit of the world with him during his life. Gandhi's example is particularly relevant to Americans at this time in our history.

We are unexpectedly faced with a situation similar to that of Gandhi's India: an alien presence rules our nation despotically. Most Americans, as in colonial India, are disarmed and powerless. We do not own the means of production, or very much at all except the clothes on our backs. True, we have the use of houses and cars, but most of them are leased at the pleasure of mortgage holders. Our actual lack of wealth or position is exposed when, jobless or lacking community support, we are quickly put on the street behind the wheels of an expropriated shopping cart.

There are some Americans who truly understand the situation, because they have had direct personal experience with it: those of "minority" heritage. Martin Luther King was inspired by Gandhi's work, and built on it to begin freeing the descendants of slaves. While Dr King did much, his work is not complete. We are still not free of the evils of racsim. Anyone who lives "outside" White America cannot fail to notice the pervasive effects of apartheid, which are everywhere, all the time. It is only white people who cannot see the oppression in America from which they benefit. (But, then, it is customary for the rulers and beneficiaries to feel the order of things is good and just in this, 'the best of all possible worlds.')

Gandhi was a practical politician. At one time or another, he advocated and tried various things to remove the British from India - including armed revolution. His eventual method of non-violent, passive resistance succeeded because it was one of the few options which could take hold in the circumstances. Gandhi's insight was that the British were in a morally inferior position. In their haughty treatment of colonials, the British were unable to see them as worthy adults. Masters must see serfs and slaves as incompetent, for otherwise masters would be dispensable. What Gandhi did was to convince Indians that they were 'in control,' not the British. He enabled people to do things forbidden by the Imperialists, which exposed both the philosophical and material roots of the colonial system.

Today, we can still learn much from Gandhi, but we should not take his winning tactics as the only, final answer to overthrowing oppression. The key to Gandhi's success was keen observation of the master's weakness. In India, the British were morally inferior, as proven by the cold-blooded massacres and brutality the Raj inflicted upon the colonials. The same lesson was demonstrated in America at Kent State and other places during the Vietnam war. That moral weakness was the real reason the United States lost the war in Vietnam.

I note here that the 1960s was a lesson in the weakness of the American ruling class. The Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement and the Anti-War Movement were founded on the injustices perpetrated on people by the government and its supporters. American Imperialism in Southeast Asia was reflected in the colonialism applied to a large minority of America's people. Apartheid is simply colonialism applied domestically by an Imperial power. It only works when some obvious mark can be made upon the subservient people, something that everyone can notice which separates ruled and rulers. Race is an easy delimiter in most cases. The proof of this requirement of an obvious mark is the light-skinned (genetically) black people who were often able to escape from oppression.

Conservatives today are trying to create marks that designate inferiors. Now those marks are a certain vocabularly, referring to liberals in sneering tones, (not) belonging to a certain religion, being homosexual, etc. These are more subtle marks than skin color, but in everyday life they are noticeable in just a few minutes of observation. One's habits quickly give away to which group one belongs: ruled or rulers. Group - class - identification is a key element in every scheme of oppression. (How could one oppress, if you cannot determine who to oppress?)

Today, the United States is still morally weak, but not the way the Great White Bandit would have you believe. We are weak as all Imperialists are weak: we assume we are better than those we conquer. At the bottom of Imperialism is the Law of the Jungle: 'might makes right.' That ethical principle (it is a possible ethical principle,even if we reject it) eventually, of necessity, infiltrates everything else, including the domestic relations of the Imperial power. Thus, the conservatives reigning in Washington are rigging election districts and every other means of access to power to overwhelm any objection, all resistance to their rule. Their weakness is demonstrated in the name-calling and other emotional slurs put upon the opposition, because their weakness is exposed when one thinks about it.

The United States' moral weakness has been cleverly disguised by assuming the role of victim. The Great White Bandit has made the September 11 attack the bedrock of his rule. In fact, Americans were attacked on September 11. Many of us watched the World Trade Tower horror on television as it slowly progressed to its inevitable conclusion. Because many Americans still feel they were victims, or could be victims, of such an attack they are susceptible to emotional blandishments to support policies and action without thinking. Now, three years after September 11, it is only Americans who still feel themselves to be victims, whereas most other people believe Americans are dangerous aggressors (as proved in Iraq). Since, however, the United States is the strongest military power, it only matters to the rulers what enough Americans believe; enough, that is, to keep the Imperialists in power. Thus, a minority of politically active Americans are able to control a huge force by leveraging the fears of many people. Panic overrules rational thought.

I think Gandhi would suggest attacking the rulers where they are weak. That is what Al Qaeda did in bringing down the World Trade Towers in the middle of New York's financial District. In his recent video, Usama Bin Laden explained his strategy, which includes attacking the American financial system because he believes Wall St is an Achilles heel. Bin Laden wants to overthrow the Saudi regime for religious reasons, but also to gain control of a key oil resource. The American authorities are intimately connected to oil interests for their wealth and income, so they must retain their control of oil (which is one of the reasons for the Conquest of Iraq). Since the Great White Bandit refuses to do anything about United States' dependence on foreign oil, Bin Laden's strategy is a perfectly rational strategy to undermine a Goliath.

The critical errors the Imperialists are making are these:

the assumption that the Saudi regime will not be overthrown,
the assumption that the U.S. military cannot be beat,
the assumption that the U.S. financial system cannot be undermined.

These are the arrogant certainties of Imperialist rule. The first assumption is based on the second: United States' military power. The third is based on the supposed strength of interlocking networks and the superiority of capitlaism. American authorities see themselves as possessing an incredibly powerful and effective military and financial machine, which no other force on Earth can destroy. They believe themselves invulnerable. (Note, however, the interesting contrary message constantly told the people: you are vulnerable, so you need your rulers to obtain protection.)

I take Gandhi's example to mean that those of us opposed to the Great White Bandit's Fascism are in control, not the authorities in Washington. However, it still remains to us to exercise that control; we have not yet done so. If anything, the Washington authorities have gotten away with their crimes because we have acquiesced in them. That passivity must stop, if anything is to be done about the grip conservatives have on the country.

I think there are four main issues on which militant activism are warranted at this time.

Peace: end the United States' Conquest of Iraq and its occupation of many countries all over the world; return the government to civilian control and downsize the military.
Choice: the right of people to choose their own government, religion and lifestyle, the right of women to control their own bodies.
Bread: the right of the people to the basic means of life, including food, clothing, medical care and education, and payment of sufficient wages for their work.
Justice: the right of the people to be judged fairly by the law and their peers, according to the enlightened principles in the United States' Constitution and the United Nation Declarations of Rights of Man.

What is needed now to is to coalesce around these few large ideas, or something similar to them. All of our other complaints are derivative from denial of those premises.

What is further required are specified days of protest, work stoppages, slowdowns, refusal of government service, and all the other things which show publically our disapproval of the Fascist regime. More importantly, we must make it very expensive and difficult for the regime to operate. These things will show that Americans will not quietly submit to despotism.

These acts of protest and defiance must go on and on - for as many months or years as necessary - until the criminal authorities are removed or neutralized.

By his example ...