Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to it could happen here once again,
Speaker 1: posted by myself Andrew from the YouTube channel andrewism as
Speaker 1: we talked about whatever and whatever in question is the
Speaker 1: second most populous country in the world, and one potential
Speaker 1: vision for its future drawn from its anti clunial past.
Speaker 1: Are speaking, of course about India, a sub concern from
Speaker 1: which I draw a good portion of my heritage, and
Speaker 1: when I boasts over nine thousand years of recorded history
Speaker 1: and roughly fifty years of knowing human settlement, India is
Speaker 1: an incredibly diverised country ethnically, linguistically, religiously and otherwise. But
Speaker 1: unfortunately it has suffered much of the same fate that
Speaker 1: the rest the world has fallen free to the rapacious
Speaker 1: appetite of British clunialism. Well, historically, the Indian local economy
Speaker 1: was dependent upon the most productive and sustainable agriculture and horticulture,
Speaker 1: and of course pottery and food and Jamaican jewelry was
Speaker 1: very well known for jewelry, and in fact Indian jewelry
Speaker 1: makers ended up starting some very successful jewelry businesses when
Speaker 1: they were freed from indentionship in Trinidad Um. They also
Speaker 1: got involved in leather work and a lot of other
Speaker 1: economic activities in India. Um, but the basis of India
Speaker 1: has traditionally, historically, you know, for thousands of years been textiles,
Speaker 1: different types of tex styles. Each village had its spinners
Speaker 1: and carters and dyers and weavers who were of course
Speaker 1: at the hearts of that village's economy. But an interesting
Speaker 1: outcome of British cleanism in India has been the flooding
Speaker 1: of India with the machine made, inexpensive, mass produced textiles
Speaker 1: from Lancashire during you know, in brit terms Industrial Revolution.
Speaker 1: The local textile artists were very quickly put out to
Speaker 1: business and village economies suffered very terribly. So I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, well, I think we're familiar with this sort
Speaker 1: of general story. Smaller cottage industries became overrun by you know,
Speaker 1: mass production. And of course I don't mean to sound
Speaker 1: like I'm entirely demonizing mass production, just describing what has happened.
Speaker 1: Of course, mass production has had its many benefits in
Speaker 1: providing access to resources and two products many different people.
Speaker 1: But of course it's also had its many drawbacks, including
Speaker 1: you know, the share environmental impact as well as the
Speaker 1: impact on people, um. You know, as Mark spoke about,
Speaker 1: of um, their alienation from the process of production, as
Speaker 1: the industrial system basically separated each step in the process
Speaker 1: of production two different workers, and so no one had
Speaker 1: a hand in the production of a product and start
Speaker 1: to finish. And of course that that had significant social
Speaker 1: and I would also assume mental impact on the people
Speaker 1: with you know, that whole era of British economic imperialism
Speaker 1: happening India. The changes that took place within a generation
Speaker 1: was so rapid, you know, your headwards spin, that evolution
Speaker 1: of you know, the India home economy. It was really
Speaker 1: a site to behold. And another element of British economic
Speaker 1: imperialist on British imperialism more broadly was the introduction of
Speaker 1: British education under colonial rule in the eighteenth century. UM.
Speaker 1: When Lord McCaulay introduced the Indian Education Act in the
Speaker 1: British Parliament, UM, he said, and I quote, a single
Speaker 1: shelf of a good European library was with the whole
Speaker 1: native literature of India. Neither as a language of the law,
Speaker 1: nor as a language of religion, has a sand script
Speaker 1: any particular claim to our engagement. We must do our
Speaker 1: best to former class of persons Indian in blood and color,
Speaker 1: but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.
Speaker 1: So the typical racism, typical white pants, burt and typical
Speaker 1: you know. Um, of course this phrase was used in
Speaker 1: a North American Indigenous American context, but I believe the
Speaker 1: phrase is taking the Indian out of the man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: kill the Indians, save the man, right. Um, So it's
Speaker 1: kind of interesting. It's a different type of Indian talking
Speaker 1: about there, but that sort of idea still applies. And
Speaker 1: really that sort of sentiment is something that has existed
Speaker 1: throughout the history of communism, something that you know, is
Speaker 1: seen in all of Britain's former colonies. Because Monster's Aim
Speaker 1: was put into Parliament and pushed forward, it was pursued
Speaker 1: with the mine to the British Raj. All the traditional
Speaker 1: schools that took place in different village communities were gradually
Speaker 1: replaced by colonial schools and universities. Of course, take advantage
Speaker 1: of the cast and class system that was in place
Speaker 1: in India prior to their arrival. The British would have
Speaker 1: selected wealth year Indians to be sensed the public schools
Speaker 1: such as Eton and Harew and universities like Oxford and Cambridge,
Speaker 1: and those Indians that you know, they learned English poetry,
Speaker 1: English law, English customs, to the neglect of their own culture.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like why read the classics of the
Speaker 1: Vedas when you have Shakespeare and the London Times. And
Speaker 1: so having been raised in that environment, having grown up,
Speaker 1: having basically their minds colonized from the crib, they began
Speaker 1: to see their own cultures as backward, uncivilized, old fashioned,
Speaker 1: regressive and again and something you see all over the world.
Speaker 1: You sort in the residential schools, you see it in
Speaker 1: the schools in the Caribbean, and you see it in
Speaker 1: schools in Africa. Basically everywhere they colonized went Um. They
Speaker 1: would take a generation, they were take generations of young people,
Speaker 1: and they would develop that self hatred um not the
Speaker 1: stained for their own culture by you know, positioning um,
Speaker 1: their education, British education, as you know, superior. In fact,
Speaker 1: during the process of decolonization could and quote um of
Speaker 1: you know, formal political independence. So many of the former
Speaker 1: colonies of Britain, particularly in the Caribbeans, that's way most
Speaker 1: familiar Um. A lot of the people who became you know,
Speaker 1: the fullest prime ministers of the country, the one that
Speaker 1: would establish the trajectory of the country for years of
Speaker 1: decades to come. UM thinking of people like Bustamante and Jamaica,
Speaker 1: Eric Williams, Dr Ric Williams, in Trance people, UM, among others.
Speaker 1: Basically all of the fullest prime ministers basically every single
Speaker 1: Caribbean country. They had all been educated UM in English schools,
Speaker 1: in English universities, in well in the prestige schools of
Speaker 1: their countries. Didn't end up being flown out to writain
Speaker 1: itself and they basically became the rulers, became the leaders.
Speaker 1: Um were handed power over by the British to basically
Speaker 1: rule in their stead. Of course, with all the talk
Speaker 1: of finally independence, UM people got caught up in that
Speaker 1: energy of political independence and freedom from the control of
Speaker 1: the British after all the decades and centuries of struggle.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately it proved I believe to be a rules
Speaker 1: as very little changed for the average person in the
Speaker 1: years post political independence. Yeah, this is something that Phnan
Speaker 1: talks about UM in in the sort of Francophone context
Speaker 1: of like even even in countries you have like Atward,
Speaker 1: you know that the colonizers are thrown up actual revolutions.
Speaker 1: You get this class of like like lawyers and intellectuals
Speaker 1: who are like have been educated like in imperialist powers
Speaker 1: or in sort of their schools, who wind up as
Speaker 1: like the first generation of of post independence leaders. And
Speaker 1: those people, like you know what, whether they want to
Speaker 1: or not, end up sort of like reflecting the sort
Speaker 1: of values and political positions of like of the form
Speaker 1: of colonial powers. And there's this whole sort of dynamic
Speaker 1: that like, I feel like, I feel like this is
Speaker 1: the part of Penon that people don't read very much.
Speaker 1: But that's about how these leaders sort of like lose
Speaker 1: touch with it with the sort of like anti colonial masses,
Speaker 1: and how they sort of like wind up reincorporating their
Speaker 1: country back into sort of colonialism. Yeah. Yeah, that's really
Speaker 1: how you see that new clonal dynamic developing UM. And
Speaker 1: it's really it's hard to tell retrospectively whether these leaders
Speaker 1: thought they were actually you know, anti colonial, or if
Speaker 1: they knew that they were you know, carrying on a
Speaker 1: particular legacy. But I find that because is only UM
Speaker 1: only recently celebrated just last year sixty years of independence.
Speaker 1: There of course people who were alive prior to independence,
Speaker 1: and so you find a lot of the older generation
Speaker 1: how they how some of them speak, particularly the more
Speaker 1: educated ones, how they carry themselves, or they dress, the
Speaker 1: attitudes their spouses very much like to get any kind
Speaker 1: of respect in their time, you had to behave to me,
Speaker 1: had to present yourself to me, and to present yourself
Speaker 1: in a as approximate to Britishness as possible, the whole
Speaker 1: you know, conversation of respectability, politics and stuff. So I
Speaker 1: have understanding of what they had to go through and
Speaker 1: where they're coming from when they hold onto these perspectives
Speaker 1: still because that's what they grew up in. But there
Speaker 1: really is a shame that they've been holding back progress
Speaker 1: for so long now because they still hold onto these
Speaker 1: deeply conservative, deeply religious, deeply reactionary ideas that were just
Speaker 1: you know, they just inplicated within the education system and
Speaker 1: in the cultural pygeist of their time. I was just
Speaker 1: when May was talking about Fan, I was thinking as
Speaker 1: well about like, have you read a book called Beyond
Speaker 1: the Boundary by seller James Andrew. I haven't because it's
Speaker 1: about cricket and I'm not too integrated cricket. But I've been. Um.
Speaker 1: I know it's an iconic and that's I think he
Speaker 1: explains a lot of it very well. I think people
Speaker 1: could read it even if they don't. Like I'm not
Speaker 1: a big cricket person, but it's certainly one of the
Speaker 1: best sports books I've read, maybe one of the best books.
Speaker 1: And he doesn't he put a lot of bangers in
Speaker 1: his time. Yeah, he did have some bangs, highly recommended. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you don't want to read about cricket. He also
Speaker 1: talks about this in The Crewmen and the Ghana Revolution. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's not about cricket. It's more of an autobiography,
Speaker 1: like seen through the lens of his his cricket, I think.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's cool because I know he spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time he grew up of course born readers
Speaker 1: and stuff. I'm truing that, so be interested to see
Speaker 1: um sort of if he talks about his political development,
Speaker 1: how battery was in his time in Ta, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think he does. It's been a while since I've read it,
Speaker 1: but I think he talks about like how he sort
Speaker 1: of saw himself constituted a colonial subject, like through his
Speaker 1: experiences interacting with British people on one of the places
Speaker 1: where the terrains where he did encountered them, I guess
Speaker 1: was playing cricket because great, yes, of course, and you know,
Speaker 1: thankfully we've come to decimate them at their own game
Speaker 1: as usual. It's true. Yeah, yeah, And even like English
Speaker 1: cricket at a certain point, like getting really into cricket,
Speaker 1: which I know it's a diversion, but like they had
Speaker 1: rules where you could only have a certain number of
Speaker 1: international players playing for each English county. It's extremely like
Speaker 1: if you look at how the Empire constituted White Us
Speaker 1: through sport, and like who was allowed to play rugby,
Speaker 1: which is a touching sport, and who was allowed to
Speaker 1: play cricket, which which isn't normally a touching sport like
Speaker 1: it did. It's racist as fun. Yeah, I mean, of
Speaker 1: course it's hilarious in sports history. Sorry for the cricket diversion. Sorry,
Speaker 1: please continue. It's entirely fine. I see, it's all Greek
Speaker 1: to me because I don't know what any of those
Speaker 1: points or numbers or anything means um to many different
Speaker 1: types of cricket. I mean, I've had trying to explain
Speaker 1: to me be for it's just the fine thing. Um,
Speaker 1: I know, people who play it though, so you know,
Speaker 1: good for them at all. But back to India, right,
Speaker 1: If there's one particular person in India's history that really
Speaker 1: represented to this type of Western educated, colonized subject trying
Speaker 1: to be something bigger than that kind of mentality, it
Speaker 1: was Jawaharlal Never who became the first Prime minister after independence.
Speaker 1: Nu of course sought to promote the industrialization of India,
Speaker 1: not be a capitalist route, but by more of a
Speaker 1: centralized plane and route, which is why if you look
Speaker 1: at the India India's constitution, you will see that it's
Speaker 1: refers to itself as a socialist country. Yeah. Actually, really,
Speaker 1: if I'm remembering right, neighbor was like he was like
Speaker 1: a Fabian socialist or something. Yeah, yeah, be his inspiration.
Speaker 1: His inspiration came from the intellectuals of the London School
Speaker 1: of Economics and the Phobian society. So yeah, he's quite
Speaker 1: the character. You see the sort of direction that he
Speaker 1: ends up putting the country. And I mean even today,
Speaker 1: India in many ways continues to be ruled in the
Speaker 1: English way without English rulers. Um, just like in the
Speaker 1: Caribbean continues to be ruled in the English way. Without
Speaker 1: English rulers in Africa, you know, the various countries have
Speaker 1: been ruling their various colonize and powers way rather than
Speaker 1: in their own way without the colonizes rulers. The other
Speaker 1: colonizing rulers. UM. The industrialists, the intellectuals, the entrepreneurs, all
Speaker 1: of them are working with the government to see the
Speaker 1: salvation of India taking place in a subordination to the world.
Speaker 1: Back can the I M F from the G A
Speaker 1: T T. You know, they see India as part of
Speaker 1: this global economy, meant to submit into sue to moultinary
Speaker 1: no corporations. UM. But of course the people of India
Speaker 1: UH not to please in the people of India suffering
Speaker 1: under the brunt of that um. After seeing the failures
Speaker 1: of of course the Congress Party under Nehru and his
Speaker 1: daughter Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Um, the
Speaker 1: poor continues to be poor than ever the middle classes
Speaker 1: and tuning towards uh just say certain directions. UM. And
Speaker 1: of course, as we've seen in the past few years,
Speaker 1: the farmers have been agitating against various pressures. They've been
Speaker 1: placed under things kind of stuff and it was pretty
Speaker 1: much how Mahatma Gandhi predicted that it would because, unlike
Speaker 1: Nehru and unlike other western that he here to think
Speaker 1: of his time, UM, Gandhi thought differently about what India's
Speaker 1: potential could be, what it looked like. And that's part
Speaker 1: of the reason they killed him. And I must preface
Speaker 1: this discussion of Gandhi's vision of a free India by noting,
Speaker 1: of course that Gandhi himself was a very flawed person. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, racist, sexist, Um, pretty sure he assaulted somebody,
Speaker 1: He did some very um fucked up stuff to his knees. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: I just well, we leave it at that. But I
Speaker 1: mean that's not something you can put aside, so something
Speaker 1: to be cognizant of. But one of the aspects of
Speaker 1: UM his time on this planet UM had been his
Speaker 1: development of a sort of a vision of a free India,
Speaker 1: not as a nation state, but as a confederation of
Speaker 1: self governance, self reliance, self employed people living in village
Speaker 1: communities deriving their right livelihood from the products of their homesteads.
Speaker 1: It would have been a sort of bottom up system
Speaker 1: where the power to decide what could be important into
Speaker 1: or expert from the village where economic and political power
Speaker 1: all I mean in the hands of village assemblies, where
Speaker 1: people in these village assemblies, in these communities would continue
Speaker 1: to live in relative how many with their surroundings with
Speaker 1: They would continue to weave their homespun clothes, eat their
Speaker 1: home and grown food, use their home made goods, care
Speaker 1: for their animals, their forests and their lands, take care
Speaker 1: of the fertility of the soil, enjoy the home grown
Speaker 1: stories and epics of India, and continue to build their
Speaker 1: temples and appreciate their various regional distinctive cultures. This were
Speaker 1: is meant to be the system, the practice the idea
Speaker 1: of the philosophy of Swedeshi, which is a conjunction of
Speaker 1: two Sanskrit words Swa which meeting self or own and
Speaker 1: desh meaning country, Swadeshi as an adjective meaning of one's
Speaker 1: own country. According to the principle of Swadeshi, the idea
Speaker 1: is that whatever has made or produced in a village
Speaker 1: must be used first and foremost by the members of
Speaker 1: that village. So I mean there could be traded and
Speaker 1: collaboration between villages and communities, but Gandhi thought it should
Speaker 1: be minimal, like sort of an ice and on the
Speaker 1: cake um goods and services to him was something that
Speaker 1: should have been generated within the community. The things that
Speaker 1: needed to be used by the community should be created
Speaker 1: in that community. Another influential, perhaps the most influential aspect
Speaker 1: of Swadeshi and Swadeshi philosophy, took place in the early
Speaker 1: twenty tieth century as a direct fallout the decision of
Speaker 1: the British India governments to partition Bengal. The use of
Speaker 1: Swedeshi goods or the goods that are produced and made
Speaker 1: in India buy and he here for Indians and the
Speaker 1: boycott of foreign made goods were among the two main
Speaker 1: objectives of the Swadeshi movement, and so the boycott resolution
Speaker 1: ended up being passed in the City Hall in August
Speaker 1: seven nine four UM boycott in the use of Manchester
Speaker 1: cloth and sold from Liverpool in the district to barrisl
Speaker 1: The masses adopted the message of boycotts of formad goods
Speaker 1: and the value of the British cloth sool. They have
Speaker 1: fell very rapidly. Various songs and cultural works ended up
Speaker 1: being produced in the time UM to sort of bolster
Speaker 1: the movement. At one point, one English cloths were burned
Speaker 1: as part of the boycott, and the symbol of caddies spinners,
Speaker 1: the sort of tool that was used to weave cloth
Speaker 1: to we've fibers to create theon, became a major force
Speaker 1: in the movement and the representation of the movement. I
Speaker 1: think I get what you're saying, like, we can all
Speaker 1: benefit from a little specialization and the like improvements that
Speaker 1: that brings, while still sort of acknowledging that autonomy is desirable. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there needs to be some some balance between
Speaker 1: you know, autonomy and seft reliance and that kind of thing,
Speaker 1: and also collaboration. I think he goes a bit too
Speaker 1: much in that autonomy direction, But in the context of
Speaker 1: when these ideas being developed, it's sort of understandable because, um,
Speaker 1: in this time, you know, the self reliance of the
Speaker 1: people as being vastly eroded, people being forced into you know, cities,
Speaker 1: they've lost their livelihoods, um, and they were there was
Speaker 1: a sort of developing reliance and the global economy. Whereas
Speaker 1: as she proposes a you know, India avoids economic dependence
Speaker 1: on external market forces that create these vulnerabilities and communities
Speaker 1: that end up um, you know, really harming the members
Speaker 1: of that community, so that she's meant to avoid the
Speaker 1: unhealthy and wasteful environmental destructive transportation of goods um between communities,
Speaker 1: avoiding the excessive emissions that would cause UM, and promoting,
Speaker 1: of course, the development of a strong economic base to
Speaker 1: satisfy the needs of the community, to satisfy the uh
Speaker 1: local production consumption, so that she is kind of about
Speaker 1: both creating a self reliant India and also creating self
Speaker 1: reliant villages within India, so that each village is a
Speaker 1: microcosum of the greater in a web of sort of
Speaker 1: a distributed, decentralized web of loosely interconnected communities. In a
Speaker 1: time where the British were promoting the centralized, industrialized and
Speaker 1: mechanized mode of production, Gandhy was turning to the principle
Speaker 1: of decentralized, home, crowd and handcrafted modes of production h
Speaker 1: rather than mass production production by the masses. I think
Speaker 1: there was also a spiritual component of the idea of Sweeshi,
Speaker 1: because at the time Gandhy was not a fan of
Speaker 1: the idea that people were not using their hands to produce.
Speaker 1: The idea that you know, everyone should be involved in
Speaker 1: some kind of um trade or skill of some kind
Speaker 1: that utilizes their hands because of you know, the whole
Speaker 1: spiritual component of using the body that you have fully
Speaker 1: and another aspect of the spirituality. So that she was
Speaker 1: of course, the idea of this locally based community enhancing
Speaker 1: a community spirit, community relationships, and community well being, an
Speaker 1: economy that actively encourages mutual aid, that encourages the principle
Speaker 1: of care between families, neighbors, animals, lands, forestry, natural resources
Speaker 1: for present and future generations. It's, uh, there confrontation of
Speaker 1: the driving force between mass production which Gandhi so has
Speaker 1: this cult of the individual, where there must be to
Speaker 1: expandsion of the economy of global scale uh and expand
Speaker 1: the consumption production of the sake of economic growth out
Speaker 1: of a desire for the individual's personal whims, for the
Speaker 1: desire for you know, personal and corporate profit. Another reason,
Speaker 1: of course, that Gandhi rallied against this idea of mass
Speaker 1: production and promoting into the production for the masses by
Speaker 1: the masses. It's because mass production leads people leave in
Speaker 1: their villages, they land their crafts and their homesteads to
Speaker 1: go work in factories where they became cogs in a
Speaker 1: machine standing in a conveyor belt, living in enchanty towns,
Speaker 1: and dependence upon the movies see the bosses. And of course,
Speaker 1: as those bosses gained access to more efficient technologies because
Speaker 1: they were constant in pursuit of greater productivity in this
Speaker 1: creative profit, the masters of this economy, you know, they
Speaker 1: want more efficient machines working faster, and so they want
Speaker 1: less people. We can those machines as so the result
Speaker 1: was that the people who had to move to these
Speaker 1: cities to working these factories we eventually thrown out when
Speaker 1: they were no longer considered useful and became and joined
Speaker 1: the millions of unemployed, you know, rootless, job less people
Speaker 1: in uh Indian society. Sweeter, she instead encourages the idea
Speaker 1: that the machine should be something that subordinates the worker,
Speaker 1: but instead something that is subordinated to the worker, that
Speaker 1: it doesn't become the master, but instead it is mastered
Speaker 1: and allows us to orchestrate our own pace of you know,
Speaker 1: human activity. It's not that Sweeter, Sweaters, she is necessarily
Speaker 1: against automation, against technological development, but it's more so that
Speaker 1: it aims to circumvent the harms that could be caused
Speaker 1: by such technology as being out of the control of
Speaker 1: the people themselves and in the control of the select
Speaker 1: private few. I think swear that she has a sort
Speaker 1: of an element of glorification of the past. Um. They
Speaker 1: weren't doing my research for this episode. I ended up
Speaker 1: looking into um of course, the writings of proponentsswether she
Speaker 1: um and people discussing Andy's thoughts on the subject. And
Speaker 1: I'll just quote one particular passage. So what as she
Speaker 1: is the way to comprehensive peace, peace with oneself, peace
Speaker 1: between peoples, and peace with nature. The global economy drives
Speaker 1: people toward high performance, high achievement, and high ambition from
Speaker 1: materialistic success. This results in stress, loss of mening, loss
Speaker 1: of in a peace, loss of space for personal and
Speaker 1: family relationships, and loss of spiritual life. Gandhi realized in
Speaker 1: the past life in India was not only prosperous but
Speaker 1: also conducive to philosophical and spiritual development, so that she,
Speaker 1: for Gandhi, was a spiritual imperative. I think it's understandable
Speaker 1: that a de colonial project would attempt to develop a
Speaker 1: pride in the history of the people who have gone
Speaker 1: through so much UM and you know their legacy and
Speaker 1: their traditions and their ideas. But I think it's a
Speaker 1: bit of a stretch to um glorify h India's past
Speaker 1: and and precluling your past in such a respect. I
Speaker 1: don't think any people's freakling your past should be excessively
Speaker 1: glory glorified or um like mythologiized. Mythologized, Yeah, romanticized, because
Speaker 1: I feel as though one that clouds our judgments UM
Speaker 1: and a critical eye for the aspects of past societies
Speaker 1: that do do it need to be challenged, do need
Speaker 1: to be changed? Um? I think that's part of my
Speaker 1: issue is with A. She is this idea that you know,
Speaker 1: if things just go back to uh, these sorts of
Speaker 1: villages and village community, is that everything else that would
Speaker 1: just be okay. But of course there were other issues
Speaker 1: that Inky was teeing with, even priortic colonization, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of sexism, in terms of the control of
Speaker 1: the cast system and the higher casts, UM, and the
Speaker 1: other aspects of Indian society that of course we made
Speaker 1: um more surveyor by British communism. Colorism, I think is
Speaker 1: one of those issues that of course existed practical colonization
Speaker 1: but was made worse by the British and their presence
Speaker 1: in the subcontinent. But I think striking that balance of
Speaker 1: uh cleaning, learning from respecting that um, that prequeling the past,
Speaker 1: but also in art equal in our projects, not excessively
Speaker 1: romanticizing the past in an effort to progress towards the future.
Speaker 1: These days, I believe sweet actually is most known for
Speaker 1: its focus on protect protectionism. It's the staining you foreign
Speaker 1: important investment. But it was of course a very wide
Speaker 1: spanning philosophy. It was a vision um and a philosophy
Speaker 1: of life that Gandhi held his entire life. That's i
Speaker 1: It's not something that I was familiar with prior to
Speaker 1: looking into it and my continued pursuit of decluding your
Speaker 1: perspectives and explorations of various post cludon projects and philosophies.
Speaker 1: But it's something that I've appreciated, despite my criticisms or
Speaker 1: some aspects of it. Asked about all I have FIOL today.
Speaker 1: You can find me on YouTube at andrewism on Twitter
Speaker 1: dot com, slash and It's Saying True, and you could
Speaker 1: support me on Patreon dot com, slash State, Drew Ill
Speaker 1: m M. It could happen here as a production of
Speaker 1: cool Zone Media or more podcasts from cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: Visit our website, cool zone media dot com, or check
Speaker 1: us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources
Speaker 1: for It could happen here, updated monthly at cool zone
Speaker 1: media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.