type. Socialism in general relies on large, strongly centralized organizations. Gandhi’s whole program tends to pro mote a sound balance between industry and agriculture, and steady employment for all.
Communists profess to aim at ultimate small, autonomous groups (the communes), but the means the Communists are taking—the creation of a vast, highly centralized State owning and controlling everything—cannot lead to small-scale organization. The means chosen qualifies and determines the end that will be reached. A huge Socialist State cannot bring decentralized, small, autonomous village life except by causing another revolution.
Gandhiism is more effective than Socialism because Gandhi’s program involves specific, practical economic organization and work along with and even before political organization and work. The full development of the khaddar program implies a giving up—that is to say, a boycott of mill-made cloth. This means a partial escape from the meshes of capitalistic industry and trade, a control by each family over one of its own economic necessities. In the Socialist program, on the other hand, essential economic reforms mostly have to wait until after the attainment of political power, and so up to that time the chief efforts of Socialists are political. What economic changes they have achieved in Great Britain and Germany are palliatives only. Inasmuch as Marxians insist and others are admitting that a large part of political power grows out of and depends upon economic power, this feature of Gandhi’s program is important.
An Indian friend[1] has recently pointed out another difference between the two programs, which to many would seem a merit in Gandhiism. “Gandhiism never gives to the State the paramount power accorded to it by Socialism. The freedom of the human conscience is a priceless treas-
- ↑ Nirmal Kumar Bose.
