Gandhism and Marxism

On many an occasion Gandhiji called himself a socialist. In 1939 he expressed his faith in socialism in these words: “I desire to end Capitalism almost if not quite as much as the most advanced socialists and even communists.” Regarding his ideal of a free and equal society, he remarked: “My ideal is equal distribution. But, so far as I can see, it is not to be realised. I, therefore, work for equitable distribution.” Gandhian socialism owes its inspiration to Gandhiji’s intense passion for social justice, and to his never-failing idealism. Gandhism has the imprint of a highly developed soul receiving light and strength from a world beyond mortal ken. That world insists on truth and non-violence. Karl Marx worked out socialism by applying the dialectical method. Dialectical materialism involves, and leads to, violence. It is a force divorced from the practice of truth: in any event, not wedded to it. Above all is the complete rejection by Gandhism of the class antagonism upheld by Marxism as permeating the whole social fabric. Gandhism substitutes the principles of class harmony and class co-operation for the Marxian postulates of class division and class war. It should not be understood that Gandhism ignores the most obvious factual reality of class distinctions in our society today. Rather, it is profoundly alive to the existing divisions in society, and to the urgency of abolishing both privilege and poverty. It is Gandhiji’s view that, if we recognise the fundamental equality of the capitalist and the worker, we should not aim at the destruction of the former. “It can easily be demonstrated,” he says, that the destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker, and no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no being so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil.” Consiousness of class distorts the individual personality. Class War regiments society. Proletarian rulers have to be ever vigilant against the return of the Bourgeois. All the organisationalpatterns based on violence are necessarily authoritarian. Democracy, on the other hand, is compatible only with a non-violent social order. If it is not by struggle, it may be asked, how else can class inequality be removed? Gandhiji’s knowledge of law, and, more, his study of the Bhagawat Geeta, enabled him to formulate the theory that all property is trust, and that its should be so treated by all owners of property. This concept of property is found sprinkled across the mythological and the Arthashasthra literature of ancient India. The Bhagawata exhorts mankind on that basis. “He who collects more than he needs is a thief.” “All land belongs to Gopal.” The theory of Dana supports the view that all property is trust. To the Marxist who views property as exploitation and accumulation of surplus labour value, the trust theory of Gandhiji and Vinobaji appears to be unscientific and opposed to human nature. Herein is disclosed the primary difference between the Gandhian and Marxian ways. To Marx, human nature, unless it is institutionally controlled and governmentally directed, is basically wicked. Marxism arose in an area of the world in which ideas of the Original Sin and of the Fall of Man are the warp and the woof of the tradition of civilization. To Gandhiji, born in the Land of Shankara and Ramanuja, Man is a spark of the Universal Spirit. Man is innately good. If man is not innately good, society is but a confusion of egoes. If man is not innately altruistic, if man is incapable of self-sacrifice, social organisation and social order are inconceivable. How this innate social goodness of man was to be touched and worked upon was the practical political problem set to himself by Gandhiji. He believed and relied upon the innate nobility of the human heart to respond to the call to love fellow human beings and to work for their physical, mental, moral and spiritual, uplift.