mankind. These are but a few of the implications of Gandhi’s program, but they are very important. The depth and power of the people’s response is proof of the soundness of the program.
Comparison Between Gandhiism and Socialism
Socialism resembles Gandhiism in having as its motive the service of the common man and the producing of more social and economic justice and equality than has generally prevailed in the world. Both movements call for devoted hard work from every one. Neither is merely palliative. Socialism, like Gandhiism, is a fresh system of values. Furthermore, the most successful leaders of Socialism, such as Lenin, Trotzky and Stalin, have like Gandhi, led lives of austere simplicity, and thus, as well as by their work for the common good, have created trust among the common people.
Socialism has weakened the money system, just as Gandhiism is doing, by tending to create sources and modes of trust and credit outside the money system. Socialism, through its doctrine of equality, seeks to end the divisions of society and the social flatteries. In this respect also it resembles Gandhiism. In Russia the Soviet form of organization and the intense activity of every one have perhaps reduced the evils of parliamentarism to a minimum. But parliamentarism is not a device much used in a dictatorship, nor was it much used in old Tsarist Russia. Both Gandhiism and Socialism have released and given expression to the repressed hopes of many generations, of hundreds of millions of submerged people. Both movements have enabled the masses to feel their own power and have thus increased their self-confidence. Hence these two movements have vast appeal and momentum.
But Gandhiism is, in my judgment, more effective, more
