association is greatly diminished and the masses learn to use Satyagraha. Gandhiism would alter production for profit by altering the money valuation. Under Gandhi’s valuations the motive for production naturally becomes need and use. The factor of export of surplus production would, in India, be largely controlled by Gandhi’s doctrine of Swadeshi—each district and each country relying as far as possible on its own indigenous products. As far as cloth is concerned, the hand spinning wheel and hand loom will control that factor. Under that mode of cloth production there would not be much surplus for export. What little is exported would be a true surplus. Small-scale operation of industry would also act as a control.
It might be urged that Socialism is superior because it has a definite, concrete plan for the organization of society. But organization or structure is a resultant, exterior expression of inner purpose. In society, as in any growing organism, each stage or attainment grows organically out of the preceding stage with all its factors, and necessarily partakes of the character of the preceding stage and the means used in making the change. This is because people’s thinking and feeling and attitudes are continuous and can not suddenly and completely change their character. I do not mean by this that exterior social, political or economic changes must therefore always be slow. They are sometimes swift. But it is of enormous importance that right methods and means should be used in making a change, because they will largely determine the character of the result. They determine the character of the result far more than does any intellectual plan of organization evolved in advance. If a revolution is attained by violence, the old violence values and use of violence as a control will be found in the resulting government, and will eventually find their way into the hands of the group which is specially skilled in the use of violence. The same holds true of
