Gandhism and Communism Compared

Gandhism treats ahimsa as absolute. Non-violence is not a tactic to be reviewed when it stops working, which is where Gandhi differs from Mandela at chapter 440 as well as from the communists.

3. Class conflict or class harmony

Communism treats class conflict as the motor of history and requires the working class to act as a class against another.

Gandhism treats the two as capable of reconciliation, and aims to convert the owner rather than to defeat them. Trusteeship depends on that possibility.

4. Property

Communism: abolition of private ownership of the means of production.

Gandhism: trusteeship. The owner keeps the title and holds the property for the community, taking only what they need. Property is neither an absolute right nor to be expropriated.

This is where the comparison is most often examined and where Gandhism is weakest. Trusteeship depends on the owner's willingness, and a communist's objection is exactly Ambedkar's economic objection: a principle that asks those who hold to hold for others leaves them holding, and leaves the timing and extent of any concession entirely to them.

5. Industry and scale

Communism is industrial and large-scale, and treats the development of the productive forces as the condition of any advance.

Gandhism is agrarian and small-scale, distrusts machinery that displaces labour, and prefers the village, the handicraft and swadeshi. Chapter 870's Gram Swaraj is this in constitutional form.

6. The state

Communism: capture the state, use it in the transition, and it withers away.

Gandhism: distrust the state at every stage, because it is organised force and, in Gandhi's own image, represents violence in a concentrated and organised form. The direction of travel is decentralisation from the start rather than centralisation followed by dissolution.

7. Materialism and spirituality

Communism is materialist: consciousness is conditioned by material conditions, and religion is part of the superstructure.

Gandhism is founded on a religious conception of the person, on self-purification, and on the discipline of the individual as the beginning of social change.

8. Where change begins

Communism: in the structure. Change ownership and the people will change.

Gandhism: in the person. Change people and the structures will follow. The constructive programme, and the requirement that a satyagrahi discipline themselves first, are this proposition in practice.

The criticisms each makes of the other

Setting these out is the strongest way to organise the second half of an answer.

The communist criticism of Gandhism. That trusteeship is a device for leaving property where it is; that appeals to the conscience of the powerful have never redistributed anything; that Gandhi's economics condemns people to poverty by rejecting the productivity that industry supplies; and that a movement of moral appeal is easily accommodated by those it appeals to.

The Gandhian criticism of communism. That violence corrupts those who use it and reproduces itself in the society that results; that a doctrine which subordinates the individual to a historical process ends by sacrificing individuals; that centralised state ownership creates a new master rather than removing mastery, which is what happened; and that a materialist account of the person leaves out what makes change durable.

And notice that each criticism was substantially borne out. Trusteeship did not redistribute; and the states built on the communist programme did produce a new ruling apparatus. That is the fairest thing that can be said, and it is what an evaluation should say.

Ambedkar's position, which belongs here

An Indian answer is incomplete without it, because Ambedkar criticised both.

Against Gandhism: that moral appeal leaves the beneficiaries of hierarchy in control of the timing of concessions, that the village he idealised was for the excluded a place of oppression rather than of self-rule, and that enforceable constitutional rights are a surer protection than another person's conscience.

Against communism: that its exclusive focus on class does not reach caste, which in India is the more fundamental division and is not produced by ownership; and that its willingness to use violence and to dispense with constitutional protections endangers precisely the people who most need them.

His own answer: constitutional democracy with enforceable rights, State-directed economic measures, and social reform aimed at caste. Chapter 880 develops this.

A worked example

A landlord in a district holds two thousand acres. Five hundred families work the land as tenants and labourers.

The communist prescription. Organise the tenants as a class, establish that the relation is one of exploitation, and take the land, by legislation where possible and by direct action where not. The landlord's consent is not required and no compensation is owed in principle, since the holding was accumulated from the labour of those who worked it.

The Gandhian prescription. Approach the landlord. Establish the facts truthfully. Explain that he holds the land in trust and that his own good is contained in the good of all. Ask him to give what is not needed for his own reasonable requirements. If he refuses, use satyagraha: non-violent non-cooperation by the tenants, openly, with the penalty accepted. Vinoba Bhave's Bhoodan movement is exactly this, and its result is the fairest test available: a very large area was donated, and much less of it was actually redistributed, cultivable and cultivated.

The two results, honestly stated. Where communist State governments in India legislated land reform, substantial redistribution occurred. Where Bhoodan operated, donation greatly exceeded redistribution. That is evidence, and an answer that gives it is far stronger than one that argues from principle alone.

And the qualification the other way. Where land reform was attempted by legislation in most other Indian States, it was extensively evaded, which means the comparison is not simply between persuasion and law but between different degrees of political will behind the law.

Distinctions that carry marks

What this comparison is NOT

It is not a comparison of an economic doctrine with a moral one. Gandhism has an economic programme, in trusteeship, swadeshi, bread labour and village industry, and communism has a moral content, in its account of exploitation and alienation.

Gandhi was not indifferent to inequality. His objection to the communist method is not an objection to redistribution, and he organised industrial strikes.

Communism is not indifferent to the individual. Its account of alienation is a claim about what industrial work does to persons, which is closer to Gandhi than most comparisons admit.

Neither is refuted by the other's failure. Trusteeship's poor record does not establish the communist programme, and the failure of the communist states does not establish trusteeship.

Quick revision

1. Agreements: the existing distribution is indefensible; exploitation is real; the poorest are the point; the order will not reform itself; hostility to colonialism; and a shared final image, Gandhi's enlightened anarchy and Engels's withering state.
2. Eight differences: means and ends inseparable; ahimsa absolute; class harmony against class conflict; trusteeship against abolition; village against industry; distrust of the state throughout against capture then withering; spiritual against materialist; and change beginning in the person against the structure.
3. The communist criticism: trusteeship leaves property where it is, moral appeal has never redistributed anything, and rejecting industry condemns people to poverty.
4. The Gandhian criticism: violence corrupts and reproduces itself, the individual is sacrificed to a historical process, and centralised state ownership creates a new master.
5. Both criticisms were substantially borne out, which is the fair evaluation.
6. Ambedkar criticised both: Gandhism for leaving the powerful in control of the timing, communism for missing caste and for endangering constitutional protections; and answered with enforceable rights.
7. The Indian evidence: Bhoodan produced donation far in excess of redistribution; communist State governments achieved the most substantial land reform, by legislation.

Test yourself

1. On what do Gandhism and communism agree? That the existing distribution of wealth is indefensible and requires change rather than being a natural fact. That exploitation is real, Gandhi's objection to the owner who grows rich on the labour of the poor being directed at the same relation. That the poorest are the point, Antyodaya and the centrality of the proletariat being different formulations of one priority. That the existing order will not reform itself voluntarily. That colonial rule was an economic relation and not only a political one. And, remarkably, on the final image, Gandhi's enlightened anarchy and Engels's withering away of the state describing similar destinations.

2. What is the deepest difference between them? The relation of means to ends. Communism is consequentialist about method: the transformation is the end and the means are selected for effectiveness, so revolutionary violence is justified by what it achieves. Gandhism holds that means and ends are inseparable, with the same connection between them as between the seed and the tree, so that a society reached through violence will be a violent society. Every other difference follows: the absoluteness of non-violence, the preference for converting rather than defeating the owner, and trusteeship rather than expropriation.

3. What is trusteeship, and what is the objection to it? Gandhi's proposal that an owner retain the title to property while holding it for the community, taking only what is needed for reasonable requirements, so that property is neither an absolute right nor a thing to be expropriated. The objection, made by communists and by Ambedkar in the same terms, is that a principle asking those who hold to hold for others leaves them holding, and leaves the timing and extent of any concession entirely to them. The Bhoodan movement is the fairest test: a very large area was donated and much less was actually redistributed and cultivated.

4. What criticism does each make of the other, and how have the criticisms fared? The communist criticism is that trusteeship leaves property where it is, that appeals to the conscience of the powerful have never redistributed anything, that rejecting industrial productivity condemns people to poverty, and that a movement of moral appeal is easily accommodated. The Gandhian criticism is that violence corrupts those who use it and reproduces itself in the resulting society, that subordinating the individual to a historical process ends in sacrificing individuals, and that centralised state ownership creates a new master rather than removing mastery. Both criticisms were substantially borne out: trusteeship did not redistribute, and the communist states produced a new ruling apparatus.

5. Where does Ambedkar stand between them? Against both. Against Gandhism, because moral appeal leaves the beneficiaries of hierarchy in control of when and how much to concede, because the idealised village was for the excluded a place of oppression rather than self-rule, and because enforceable rights are a surer protection than another person's conscience. Against communism, because its exclusive attention to class does not reach caste, which in India is the more fundamental division and is not produced by ownership, and because its readiness to use violence and to dispense with constitutional protections endangers exactly the people who most need them. His answer was constitutional democracy with enforceable rights, State-directed economic measures, and social reform aimed at caste.