Techno-Satyagraha

The Acorn Pub Date : 2021-01-22 DOI:10.5840/ACORN202112112
M. Allen
{"title":"Techno-Satyagraha","authors":"M. Allen","doi":"10.5840/ACORN202112112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gandhi scholars agree that he was a critic of capitalism, if not capital or capitalists. Nevertheless, they disagree about his relationship to socialism. Some emphasize Gandhi’s claim that the modern Western canon of socialism is incompatible with the philosophy of nonviolence. Others emphasize his occasional affirmation that he is a socialist, regarding socialism as a beautiful ideal of equality. Gandhi moves back and forth between conditional endorsements of capitalists and socialism’s beautiful ideal. In this article, I ask why Gandhi never specifies any clear economic preference for the philosophy of nonviolence. Is he confused and incapable of reaching practical judgments about what nonviolence demands in terms of economics? I answer this question in two ways. First, I argue that passing back and forth over the partial and fallible viewpoints of capitalists and socialists of various stripes is consistent with Gandhi’s method of experiments in truth. The passing-over method extends from experiments in devotion to constructive experiments in economics, laying the foundation for integrating distinctively human life goals or puruṣārthas. Second, and perhaps more surprisingly, I consider the background to Gandhi’s use of this method as applied to economics in Kauṭilya’s classical Arthaśāstra. Scholars often characterize Kauṭilya as both a socialist and a realist. While establishing the world’s first welfare state, his Arthaśāstra is also tied deeply into the material-spiritual concerns of the puruṣārthas, combining economics with duty, earthly pleasure, and transcendence. In this latter respect, however, Kauṭilya’s realism concedes too much to the contextual realities of his time concerning imperial conquest and caste. Gandhi emerges from this inquiry as another kind of realist in his constructive experiments with diverse economic perspectives, equally attuned to the contextual realities of his age. Gandhi succeeded—where Kauṭilya failed—to integrate economics with the spiritual goals of the puruṣārthas. I contend that Gandhi’s back and forth method in economics provides contemporary Gandhians with a way to address new contextual realities of the digital or “gig” economy through techno-satyagraha.","PeriodicalId":293445,"journal":{"name":"The Acorn","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Acorn","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ACORN202112112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gandhi scholars agree that he was a critic of capitalism, if not capital or capitalists. Nevertheless, they disagree about his relationship to socialism. Some emphasize Gandhi’s claim that the modern Western canon of socialism is incompatible with the philosophy of nonviolence. Others emphasize his occasional affirmation that he is a socialist, regarding socialism as a beautiful ideal of equality. Gandhi moves back and forth between conditional endorsements of capitalists and socialism’s beautiful ideal. In this article, I ask why Gandhi never specifies any clear economic preference for the philosophy of nonviolence. Is he confused and incapable of reaching practical judgments about what nonviolence demands in terms of economics? I answer this question in two ways. First, I argue that passing back and forth over the partial and fallible viewpoints of capitalists and socialists of various stripes is consistent with Gandhi’s method of experiments in truth. The passing-over method extends from experiments in devotion to constructive experiments in economics, laying the foundation for integrating distinctively human life goals or puruṣārthas. Second, and perhaps more surprisingly, I consider the background to Gandhi’s use of this method as applied to economics in Kauṭilya’s classical Arthaśāstra. Scholars often characterize Kauṭilya as both a socialist and a realist. While establishing the world’s first welfare state, his Arthaśāstra is also tied deeply into the material-spiritual concerns of the puruṣārthas, combining economics with duty, earthly pleasure, and transcendence. In this latter respect, however, Kauṭilya’s realism concedes too much to the contextual realities of his time concerning imperial conquest and caste. Gandhi emerges from this inquiry as another kind of realist in his constructive experiments with diverse economic perspectives, equally attuned to the contextual realities of his age. Gandhi succeeded—where Kauṭilya failed—to integrate economics with the spiritual goals of the puruṣārthas. I contend that Gandhi’s back and forth method in economics provides contemporary Gandhians with a way to address new contextual realities of the digital or “gig” economy through techno-satyagraha.
Techno-Satyagraha
研究甘地的学者一致认为,他是资本主义的批评者,如果不是资本或资本家的话。然而,他们不同意他与社会主义的关系。有些人强调甘地的主张,即现代西方社会主义准则与非暴力哲学是不相容的。其他人则强调他偶尔肯定自己是一个社会主义者,认为社会主义是一个美好的平等理想。甘地在有条件地支持资本主义和社会主义的美好理想之间摇摆不定。在这篇文章中,我问为什么甘地从来没有明确指出非暴力哲学的经济偏好。他是否感到困惑,无法对非暴力在经济上的要求做出实际判断?我用两种方式回答这个问题。首先,我认为,在资本家和社会主义者的各种派别的片面和错误的观点之间来回穿梭,与甘地的真理实验方法是一致的。传递方法从献身实验延伸到经济学的建设性实验,为整合独特的人类生活目标或puruṣārthas奠定基础。其次,也许更令人惊讶的是,我认为甘地使用这种方法的背景适用于Kauṭilya的经典Arthaśāstra经济学。学者们经常将Kauṭilya描述为社会主义者和现实主义者。在建立世界上第一个福利国家的同时,他的Arthaśāstra也与puruṣārthas的物质精神关怀紧密相连,将经济学与责任、世俗的快乐和超越结合起来。然而,在后一方面,Kauṭilya的现实主义对他那个时代关于帝国征服和种姓的背景现实承认得太多了。甘地以另一种现实主义者的身份从这种调查中显现出来,他以不同的经济观点进行了建设性的实验,同样适应了他那个时代的背景现实。甘地成功地将经济学与puruṣārthas的精神目标结合在一起,而Kauṭilya未能做到这一点。我认为,甘地在经济学上的来回方法为当代甘地主义者提供了一种方法,通过技术satyagraha来解决数字经济或“零工”经济的新背景现实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信