Page:Gregg - Gandhiism versus socialism.pdf/22

 an empty gesture but a real symbol, as are also the charkha and its regular daily use. This element of Gandhi’s program definitely cuts one of the controls by which the British have maintained their power. This is one of the reasons, I think, why Gandhi said, on emerging from prison in 1931, that if the nation would only wholeheartedly adopt khaddar and the charkha, it would bring Swaraj.

The failure to recognize the subtle power of social influence of this sort is one reason why so many labor leaders in many countries have become corrupted and weaned away from their fellow workers. This desire to associate with socially influential people, to feel a little superior, to seem to be a little more than respectable, has corrupted many leaders of the British Labor party, of the German Socialists, and of the American labor unions. Let no man think that without aid he is immune to such influence. His very idea that he is incorruptible is an indication of a pride that may sooner or later trip him up.

Gandhi’s use and promotion of the use of charkha, his wearing of khadi and his great simplicity of life have been powerful symbols of his unity with the Indian masses. His asceticism is not barren or negative. It is a true sign of human unity and of the dignity of the poor and humble. It is a powerful social and political symbol, and has done much to generate and maintain the trust of the masses in him.

Still another form of political control, used with perhaps greater skill by Great Britain than by any other country, is what may be called parliamentarism—the use of talk and discussion to delay action, to tire or split opposition, to exhaust the energy of resentment and discontent, to divert or confuse men’s minds. Consider for