Page:Gregg - Gandhiism versus socialism.pdf/31

 forms of social service. It supplies a method by which the women who cannot leave their homes (who form a large part of every nation), can yet help greatly toward the establishment of the new order. It provides a common bond between all groups. It tends to heal the deepest of all social divisions, between the rich and the poor. It is more than a mere gesture or symbol; it has definite, concrete and momentous economic value also. For the vast mass of people outside Russia the only way to work for Socialism is to talk or write, or to go to meetings and listen. Gandhiism provides more directly creative channels for action.

Again, the khaddar and charkha program surpasses Socialism for India because it provides immediate economic relief to the masses of poor among whom there is an appalling amount of unemployment every year, and paves the way for many other forms of economic relief, whereas the changes contemplated by Socialism would take longer to get into action. This is not to decry the great importance and value of reforms in land laws, taxation, industry, conditions of labor, education and government organization, all of which are inherent in Socialism and which are now a part of the Indian Congress program.

Socialism stresses the abolition of certain kinds of private property. No doubt, private property is a system of values which is very powerful and divisive in operation, and perhaps it ought to be added to our list of controls. But Gandhi himself seems to advocate strict regulation of industrial private property, and dedication to public use rather than its abolition. Apparently he relies upon mass Satyagraha to control those who try to misuse private property. Furthermore, much of the evil resulting from private property arises because there is no limit to the