When Gandhi was wrong! Civil Rights & Non-Violence Movements-By Rafia Zakaria

” Whatever Gandhi’s motives, the appeal to Hitler was not new. The year before, American missionaries meeting with Gandhi pleaded with him to condemn Hitler and Mussolini, but he refused, insisting that no one, even these two fascists clearly uninterested in human dignity, was “beyond redemption.” Czechs and Jews were told to engage only in passive resistance, a sacrifice that would redeem them. Passive resistance failed to deliver either group, but Gandhi, for his part, never quite acknowledged this. (It was also not the only strategy they employed: consider the Warsaw Uprising of 1943, or the revolt at Auschwitz-Birkenau the following year.) Gandhi did write another, more vehement letter to Hitler, but this, too, was never delivered. “

“Where the Holocaust was concerned, Gandhi was wrong. But the strategic impetus of nonviolence is to prove the moral virtue of the suffering. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized this. His adoption of Gandhi’s non-violent agitation tactics was likely strategic, for it was well-known that Gandhi was himself a racist, advocating for racial “purity” and against the mixing of races. (He had also supported British suppression of the Zulu uprising in South Africa.)Yet, King saw beyond that: whether it was colonized Indians during the days of the British Empire, or black Americans during the civil rights era, the preservation of virtue through nonviolence was central. The agenda of the dominating powers in both cases was to subjugate and barely permit the oppressed to subsist. Indians in the British Empire, like black Americans during the civil rights era, were allowed to live, but without dignity or humanity, and always with the threat of state-sanctioned violence and incarceration.

During the Holocaust, the strategy was extermination. Hitler was not interested in permitting Jews some kind of minimal existence where they labored for the benefit of the German state; his plan was the active and intentional extermination of all of them from the face of the Earth. There was no question of the relative virtue of the oppressed vs. their oppressors; it was about their actual and pointed and complete extirpation. No amount of moral virtue could save them from the end that had been so meticulously planned for them.

Gandhi failed to see this. But he provided a workable plan for certain liberation movements—and this post-Floyd second chapter of America’s civil rights movement could be one of them. The situation of black Americans today is more similar to that of the colonized Indians. The vast web of subjugations small and large directed toward black Americans insures that their labors will be ignored, their character continually besmirched, their voices silenced in service of white supremacy. The American brand of subjugation is one of not only outright violence—from agents of the state as well as white nationalists—but also deprivation and neglect: excluding many millions of black people from access to health care, functioning educational systems, and countless other privileges that most white Americans enjoy.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh

Is AG William Barr, Carl Schmitt ( Hitler’s Lawyer) of Our Time?

(Great article by David Dyzenhaus. Authoritarianism does not survive on demagogy and populism alone; it needs to articulate dictatorial tropes in democratic and secular language. This requires a shrewd and skillful lawyer as Hitler found in Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) and Trump found in AG William Barr. f.Sheikh)

Donald Trump’s presidency has made the dominance of strongmen elsewhere only more vivid: in Russia, Thailand, Hungary, Brazil, Nicaragua, the Philippines and many other countries. Since around 2016, the question of where the strongman phenomenon comes from has been a constant issue for political theorists. What allows these men to rise? And why now? The answer is often wrapped up in some idea of ‘populism’. ‘The people’, so the thought goes, have gained control of ‘the elites’. This is a view of populism as essentially thuggish and anti-intellectual. The people are insurgent, and with great bluster and bravado the leader claims to speak for them.

But there is, in fact, a robustly intellectual foundation for strongman politics. Populism is not just a bull-in-a-china-shop way of doing politics. There is a theoretical tradition that seeks to justify strongman rule, an ideological school of demagoguery, one might call it, that is now more relevant than ever. Within that tradition, one thinker stands out: the conservative German constitutional lawyer and political theorist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). For a time, he was the principal legal adviser to the Nazi regime. And today his name is approaching a commonplace. Academics, policymakers and journalists appeal to him in order to shed light on populist trends in the US and elsewhere. A recent article in The New York Review of Books argues that the US attorney general William Barr is ‘The Carl Schmitt Of Our Time’. The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt (2017) came out in print the year after Trump’s election. After decades as a political rogue, forced to launch his attacks on liberalism from the sidelines, Schmitt’s name has returned to prominence.

He was the great systematiser of populist thought, which makes him useful for understanding how populist strategies might play out in politics, as well as in the legal/constitutional sphere. In The Concept of the Political (1932), he claimed that fundamental to ‘the political’ is the distinction between friend and enemy – who is in the political community, and who is out – and that what matters in politics is only whether some ideological proposal stands a chance to be successful, given the historical context.

In the Weimar period, during which a rickety republic governed interwar Germany from 1918 to 1933, Schmitt took it as a basic fact that democracy was the sole principle of legitimacy capable of garnering mass support. So, for this supreme anti-liberal, the challenge of the times was to reinterpret democracy into authoritarian terms. Any ideology based on an idea of the ‘substantive homogeneity’ of the nation would do – a secular substitute for the religious basis on which political legitimacy had been founded in the past. Schmitt yoked that idea to his claim that the sovereign is ‘he who decides on the state of exception’. Sovereignty is revealed in a situation of crisis, when the identity of the political community is at stake. In the circumstances of post-First World War constitutionalism, Schmitt located the bearer of sovereignty in the figure at the apex of the executive branch of government (in Weimar, the president of the Reich) because only he could rise above the fray of partisan politics and represent the political community.

Full article

COVID-19 Pandemic and the Global Humanity

COVID-19 Pandemic and the Global Humanity

Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

When a global paradigm of this nature and unpredictable scope hits the mankind, one cannot think to focus on national interest and political campaigns to get re-elected. We are witnessing the severity of this COVID-19 impact across the globe and how millions and millions reject the politically maneuvered ideological divisions, hatred and fear and opt for understanding, collaboration and human solidarity to fight the virus with ingenuity, compassion and global unity.

TFUSA Meeting Sunday, November 24th, 2019

Thinkers Forum USA

Cordially invites all participants to the monthly Meeting/Discussion

On Sunday, November 24, 2019

Time

12: 05 PM

To

2: 30 PM

Speaker

Fayyaz A Sheikh

Topic

Is Liberal Democracy necessary for Capitalism to flourish?

Moderator

Dr. Nasik Elahi

Location

Casa Del Mare

536 N. Highland Ave, Upper Nyack, N.Y. 10960

845 353 5353

Brunch served after lecture

Outline of topic for discussion.

Is Liberal Democracy necessary for Capitalism to flourish? (Brief thought by F. Sheikh).

James Wang argues in his article in Eurozone (https://www.eurozine.com/the-end-of-the-liberal-world-as-we-know-it/) that there is an alternative for capitalism to flourish without Liberal Democracy. He writes, “While the rest of the world concentrated on the fall of the Berlin Wall, another wall in China brought about a different type of change. The economic power the most populous country has accumulated is now challenging the western claim that only liberal democracy would provide ideal circumstances for capitalism.”

China’s economic policy confirms that capitalism and authoritarianism or one-party rule can not only exist together but also re-enforce each other. One party rule provides consistency, reliability and efficiency in streamlining the economic policies which provides assurances to capital markets to plan for the future. It eliminates the chaos and messiness of the liberal democracy. China’s success has given heart to former communist Eastern European countries which are keeping capitalism but abandoning liberal democracy and reverting back to authoritarianism. Even some Asian and Pacific countries are adopting the same model.

However, it is too early to make a conclusion and it needs more time to prove that this model is sustainable. When critical population mass in these countries is economically self-sufficient, will they settle for just economic success or ask for more personal liberties and civil rights? The author thinks China has already provided the answer to this. I think it is still too early to conclude and will need few more decades to have the answer. Up to now, USA has been accommodating to China and hoping for liberalization of Chin’s policies. But now, dissatisfied with China’s economic policies and surprising strength, USA has started to fight back and it creates uncertainty how the China will adjust, react, and that will impact not just upon the future relationship between capitalism and liberal democracy, but perhaps it will also provide the road map to follow in the future for all other countries.

I wrote above paragraphs few months ago as “Brief Thought” but did not posted it. Today I came across another Book Review article by Don Nexon  “Exit from Hegemony”. The author argues that every country is picking parts of liberalism as it suits it, and that could be a problem for liberal global order. Below is interesting chart of comparison between USA and China. 

http://www.exitfromhegemony.net/2019/11/03/there-isnt-one-way-of-doing-liberal-international-order-and-that-might-be-cause-for-alarm/

https://www.eurozine.com/the-end-of-the-liberal-world-as-we-know-it/