ure which Gandhiji is not prepared to barter for anything else on earth. If he gives to the State a certain measure of obedience it is never with regard to the fundamentals.” The Socialists, it seems, do not trust the nature of the individual man but insist on an exterior supreme authority; whereas Gandhi is hopeful that in reasonably short time the mass of men can attain a far greater degree of self-control and can largely develop their mutual good will—enough to live together without violence and without forceful coercion by the State.
Lastly, Gandhiism is, for India, superior to Socialism because it is an indigenous Indian growth, evolved by an Indian mind and heart, truly Swadeshi.[1] Its concepts, symbolism and methods are more closely adapted than Socialism to the circumstances and habitual modes of feeling, thinking and action of the great mass of Indian people. In the end, it is the Indian masses who must adopt and use any social system whatever in India.
Perhaps it will be said that Socialism, because it recognizes class control of society, is clearer-sighted than Gandhism which seems to lay so little stress on that point.
But, as I have said, society is ultimately controlled not by a class but by values. Gandhiism does not talk of the expropriation of the ruling class. Instead, it proceeds to demolish the values and symbols which are the source and inner strength of the ruling class. Because it so completely alters inner values, Gandhiism does not need to rely on exterior confiscation of goods, power and positions.
There are three factors which Lenin declared to be basic in this stage of capitalism . They are ownership of the means of production, production for profit and export of surplus production.
As we have seen, the evil of private control of the means of production is vastly diminished as soon as the scale of
- ↑ Of the country’s own self.
