In Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, the Economic Development and Moral Development section focuses on the lecture title ‘Does Economic Progress Clash with Real Progress’. Gandhi raises the question “Does not moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?” (Source: CW 13: 310–17). He suggests that fast economic expansion often leads to a decline in moral standards, as seen in the Western obsession with luxury and the neglect of the soul. How does Gandhi’s way of thinking through this question challenge dominant narratives surrounding material progress and its importance? Phoebe Sorensen
Gandhi writes in length about his beliefs on people’s happiness and the real truth to finding personal and governmental freedom. He states that many times people need to realize that they can find peace in what they have, or even less of what they have. This can lead to living a happier life. Yet he still writes that it may be virtually impossible for the masses of people to find fulfillment when others around them seem to have more. The quote I found comes from his letter to Nehru. “I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces. Crores of people will never be able to live at peace with each other in towns and palaces. They will then have no recourse but to resort to both violence and untruth,” (Gandhi 150). My question is that when people are surrounded by others who have more, will they ever be happy? This goes hand in hand with the question of are people inherently selfish/evil or are they unselfish? In regards to governmental freedom, how can people from different backgrounds grow and resist together? Brynne Dieterle
Throughout Hind Swaraj, Gandhi challenges the assumption that “development” automatically means progress, arguing instead that true freedom and progress stems from self-rule, restraint, and local self-sufficiency. These ideas closely align with Thoreau’s messages throughout Walden, which Gandhi used as inspiration for his teachings. Gandhi insists that modern civilization is built on speed, consumption, and dependence, moving away from individual autonomy. He preaches the concepts of “patience” and “self work” in the belief that a consumption based society “will be self-destroyed.” Furthermore, Gandhi critiques railways, industrial machinery, and professional institutions for intensifying extraction and weakening moral responsibility and community. These are similar to the ideas presented by Thoreau who also rejects the common ideology that constant labor and material accumulation improve human life. Both authors connect sustainability to values rather than technology: Gandhi argues “It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves,” while Thoreau frames self-reliance and simplicity as pathways to freedom from consumer culture and economic dependency. These texts suggest that sustainability is not just about environmental protection but about resisting systems that train people to equate wellbeing with consumption, convenience, and endless growth. If Gandhi and Thoreau are right that real freedom comes from simplicity and self-discipline, what would “development” look like today if it were designed around limits rather than growth?
Out of all the pieces we were assigned to read this week, Gandhi’s thoughts on machinery interested me the most.
The dominance of Western culture has historically been predicated on industrialization. Labor efficiency is maximized to increase profits often through technological advancement and almost always at the expense of working class livelihoods. In “Gandhi on Machinery” Gandhi writes of India’s need for a “supplementary industry” (cloth spinning) to help support India’s pre-existing agricultural industry. He says that mechanization should only exist insofar as it helps people economically, not financial margins. Essentially, machines (and scientific developments) must help the working person make work less arduous, not replace them entirely. (Greed replaced with altruism) Why use machines when otherwise idle hands can get paid to perform the same labor? Gandhi says the answer is greed.
“What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on “saving labour” till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation.”
“It is an alteration in the condition of labour that I want. This mad rush for wealth must cease, and the labourer must be assured, not only of a living wage, but a daily task that is not a mere drudgery.” (CW 25: 251–2)
It seems to me that Gandhi was in favor of technological regulation to some degree, arguing that unnecessary modernization concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, effectively “enslaving” humanity at the will of the wealthy. This argument seems to share blatant parallels with today’s technological realities, especially in the case of AI whose commodification threatens expressive labors like art and writing.
I wonder if it’s really possible for a state to effectively regulate technological advancement without completely withdrawing from the international economy. If a state becomes self sufficient to avoid being controlled by industrialists, how might it deal with exchanges for necessary technological advancements commodified by other states (like those in medicine)? Is becoming a self-sufficient state an all-or-nothing endeavor?
A big struggle I often have with political ideologies and similar forms of philosophy is how the ideas and practices presented within them would actually look like written as law. Ghandi’s political philosophy, as it was outlined in Hind Swaraj, and its emphasis on nonviolence, seemed amazing, but I was curious to see what it would look like as law and how it might be enforced. My questions were somewhat answers in the Constructive Programme: its meaning and place (1941, rev. 1945) which was sent to the Indian National Congress and outlined “concrete steps” on how some of Ghandis philosophies could be implemented in a government setting. He hits on many key points throughout this writing, such as advocating for a higher standard of sanitation throughout India’s cities as well as a higher standard of education, economic equality, gender equality, and lots more. However, after doing some additional research, this letter to the Indian National Congress didn’t have too big of an impact. While it did help improve education and some anti-untouchability efforts, the Constructive Programme’s immediate political success was limited. This just made me wonder what this would look like in the western world. Could a figure like Ghandi possibly emerge in modern American society? If it was possible, and they wrote something like the Constructive Programme, would the U.S. government make any real changes? How would pop culture and social media affect this outcome?
The readings that stuck out to me the most this week were the chapters (2&7) from Trusteeship. Gandhi addresses the problem of economic inequality and the moral responsibilities of wealthy populations. In Chapter 2, he argues that extreme concentration of wealth is harmful to society, not only economically but morally. He says that wealth is not just something you possess, and that it carries social obligations. He introduces the concept of trusteeship, a middle path between capitalism and socialism, where private property is allowed, but must be used for the betterment of society. By framing wealth as a social responsibility, Gandhi calls for a society that is based on cooperation and moral duty instead of exploitation. I was very skeptical of his beliefs towards this because Gandhi grew up more comfortably than most Indians during that time period. He states that he is “not ashamed to own that many capitalists are friendly towards me” (p. 376) He wanted to reduce the harmful effects of capitalism as strongly as socialists or communists, but through non-violence and moral persuasion rather than force. Chapter 7 moves away from theory and towards actual practice, showing how trusteeship could be implemented in everyday life. Gandhi says that trusteeship must be voluntary and guided by conscience rather than coercion. Unlike charity, trusteeship is sustainable in principle, and focuses on systemic change rather than temporary. Gandhi believes that trusteeship is a long-lasting philosophy that is the only theory compatible with non-violence.
My questions: Does having background knowledge on Gandhi’s life take away some of the legitimacy of his message? Does the idea of trusteeship work better on a local, regional, national, or international scale? Would human greed get in the way?
In this week’s readings of Hind Swaraj, Ghandi writes “What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such.” and then argues that “The supreme consideration is man”. Ghandi’s suggests that his concern is not just the machines themselves but the civilization that produces and depends on them. If we imagine a society built on small scale, ethical, and community built/controlled tech, would Ghandi still see machinery as inherently harmful, or is his critique really about who controls production and for what purposes? How might his argument shift if there were industrial tools developed outside of colonial and capitalist systems?
The two chapters I found most interested were Brute Force and Passive Resistance. These chapters primarily discussed and debated the opposing ideas of violence or non-violence as a means of resistance and change. Many argue that violence is the key force to creating effective change against the oppressor, given that the oppressor is thought to only understand the language of violence. Ghandi opposes this rhetoric, and writes “by using similar means, we can only get the same thing that they got. You will admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake” (page 81). We continue to explore this idea that the intention and means of our actions in a situation will influence the results we receive. If we use violence, we can expect nothing but violent results. Passive resistance, otherwise known as soul-force, is discussed as an alternative to petitioning by means of violence. This is the idea that rather than directly combating an opposing force, one removes themselves from the force’s ideology all-together. Ghandi argues that when this is practiced at a large scale it is very effective. Given what we know about Ghandi and his background, I am curious to know if others believe this ideology is true and effective, or just comes from a position of privilege where getting to “choose not to participate” is an option. If this is an effective method, is it truly accessible enough to the oppressed to be effective on a large scale?
Within Hind Swaraj, Gandhi suggests that the optimal construction of society would be community-based where each member of that community fills a role that provides for the other members of that community. He expresses disdain for the masses of humanity that make up cities, and the exploitative means required to support such masses. A community-based society is much easier to make sustainable, as when systems are strictly local, they tend to waste significantly less resources, if any at all. Gandhi argues that a Communalist society would lack conflict, and much of that conflict is not a result of the people themselves, but of those who place themselves in positions of power. A strong community lacks conflict, as if those who make it up are actually invested in it then they will set aside the differences they may have among their peers for the greater good of the community. When a person does not have a hand in providing for those who surround them and those who surround them have no hand in providing for them, then conflict has a much easier time being created.
Is Gandhi’s vision of a communalist society unrealistic in the modern day? How could the current ways of society be turned around to prioritize communal living in order to minimize conflict?
Ghandi tends to question the idea that economic growth automatically leads to moral improvement. He argues that material development often increases inequality and the attachment to luxury rather than simply producing genuine ethical or even social progress. In his letter to Nehru, he further suggests that the simpler village-based living better supports freedom and harmony. At the same time, dense, wealth-centered societies tend to experience intensified conflict and dishonesty. He also does not reject technology itself but instead critizes a over independente on machinery and insists that human well-being needs to remain central. This leaves a tension within his argument between the rejection of technology and the rejection of the systems that shape its use. Overall, Gandhi separates material progress from moral progress and challenges the idea that economic expansion equals human advancement. How does this distinction change the way we are to define “progress” within modern society?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, the Economic Development and Moral Development section focuses on the lecture title ‘Does Economic Progress Clash with Real Progress’. Gandhi raises the question “Does not moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?” (Source: CW 13: 310–17). He suggests that fast economic expansion often leads to a decline in moral standards, as seen in the Western obsession with luxury and the neglect of the soul. How does Gandhi’s way of thinking through this question challenge dominant narratives surrounding material progress and its importance? Phoebe Sorensen
Gandhi writes in length about his beliefs on people’s happiness and the real truth to finding personal and governmental freedom. He states that many times people need to realize that they can find peace in what they have, or even less of what they have. This can lead to living a happier life. Yet he still writes that it may be virtually impossible for the masses of people to find fulfillment when others around them seem to have more. The quote I found comes from his letter to Nehru. “I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces. Crores of people will never be able to live at peace with each other in towns and palaces. They will then have no recourse but to resort to both violence and untruth,” (Gandhi 150). My question is that when people are surrounded by others who have more, will they ever be happy? This goes hand in hand with the question of are people inherently selfish/evil or are they unselfish? In regards to governmental freedom, how can people from different backgrounds grow and resist together? Brynne Dieterle
Throughout Hind Swaraj, Gandhi challenges the assumption that “development” automatically means progress, arguing instead that true freedom and progress stems from self-rule, restraint, and local self-sufficiency. These ideas closely align with Thoreau’s messages throughout Walden, which Gandhi used as inspiration for his teachings. Gandhi insists that modern civilization is built on speed, consumption, and dependence, moving away from individual autonomy. He preaches the concepts of “patience” and “self work” in the belief that a consumption based society “will be self-destroyed.” Furthermore, Gandhi critiques railways, industrial machinery, and professional institutions for intensifying extraction and weakening moral responsibility and community. These are similar to the ideas presented by Thoreau who also rejects the common ideology that constant labor and material accumulation improve human life. Both authors connect sustainability to values rather than technology: Gandhi argues “It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves,” while Thoreau frames self-reliance and simplicity as pathways to freedom from consumer culture and economic dependency. These texts suggest that sustainability is not just about environmental protection but about resisting systems that train people to equate wellbeing with consumption, convenience, and endless growth. If Gandhi and Thoreau are right that real freedom comes from simplicity and self-discipline, what would “development” look like today if it were designed around limits rather than growth?
Merrick Semple
Out of all the pieces we were assigned to read this week, Gandhi’s thoughts on machinery interested me the most.
The dominance of Western culture has historically been predicated on industrialization. Labor efficiency is maximized to increase profits often through technological advancement and almost always at the expense of working class livelihoods. In “Gandhi on Machinery” Gandhi writes of India’s need for a “supplementary industry” (cloth spinning) to help support India’s pre-existing agricultural industry. He says that mechanization should only exist insofar as it helps people economically, not financial margins. Essentially, machines (and scientific developments) must help the working person make work less arduous, not replace them entirely. (Greed replaced with altruism) Why use machines when otherwise idle hands can get paid to perform the same labor? Gandhi says the answer is greed.
“What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on “saving labour” till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation.”
“It is an alteration in the condition of labour that I want. This mad rush for wealth must cease, and the labourer must be assured, not only of a living wage, but a daily task that is not a mere drudgery.” (CW 25: 251–2)
It seems to me that Gandhi was in favor of technological regulation to some degree, arguing that unnecessary modernization concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, effectively “enslaving” humanity at the will of the wealthy. This argument seems to share blatant parallels with today’s technological realities, especially in the case of AI whose commodification threatens expressive labors like art and writing.
I wonder if it’s really possible for a state to effectively regulate technological advancement without completely withdrawing from the international economy. If a state becomes self sufficient to avoid being controlled by industrialists, how might it deal with exchanges for necessary technological advancements commodified by other states (like those in medicine)? Is becoming a self-sufficient state an all-or-nothing endeavor?
Allison Lehan
A big struggle I often have with political ideologies and similar forms of philosophy is how the ideas and practices presented within them would actually look like written as law. Ghandi’s political philosophy, as it was outlined in Hind Swaraj, and its emphasis on nonviolence, seemed amazing, but I was curious to see what it would look like as law and how it might be enforced. My questions were somewhat answers in the Constructive Programme: its meaning and place (1941, rev. 1945) which was sent to the Indian National Congress and outlined “concrete steps” on how some of Ghandis philosophies could be implemented in a government setting. He hits on many key points throughout this writing, such as advocating for a higher standard of sanitation throughout India’s cities as well as a higher standard of education, economic equality, gender equality, and lots more. However, after doing some additional research, this letter to the Indian National Congress didn’t have too big of an impact. While it did help improve education and some anti-untouchability efforts, the Constructive Programme’s immediate political success was limited. This just made me wonder what this would look like in the western world. Could a figure like Ghandi possibly emerge in modern American society? If it was possible, and they wrote something like the Constructive Programme, would the U.S. government make any real changes? How would pop culture and social media affect this outcome?
Heather Adamsky
The readings that stuck out to me the most this week were the chapters (2&7) from Trusteeship. Gandhi addresses the problem of economic inequality and the moral responsibilities of wealthy populations. In Chapter 2, he argues that extreme concentration of wealth is harmful to society, not only economically but morally. He says that wealth is not just something you possess, and that it carries social obligations. He introduces the concept of trusteeship, a middle path between capitalism and socialism, where private property is allowed, but must be used for the betterment of society. By framing wealth as a social responsibility, Gandhi calls for a society that is based on cooperation and moral duty instead of exploitation. I was very skeptical of his beliefs towards this because Gandhi grew up more comfortably than most Indians during that time period. He states that he is “not ashamed to own that many capitalists are friendly towards me” (p. 376) He wanted to reduce the harmful effects of capitalism as strongly as socialists or communists, but through non-violence and moral persuasion rather than force. Chapter 7 moves away from theory and towards actual practice, showing how trusteeship could be implemented in everyday life. Gandhi says that trusteeship must be voluntary and guided by conscience rather than coercion. Unlike charity, trusteeship is sustainable in principle, and focuses on systemic change rather than temporary. Gandhi believes that trusteeship is a long-lasting philosophy that is the only theory compatible with non-violence.
My questions: Does having background knowledge on Gandhi’s life take away some of the legitimacy of his message? Does the idea of trusteeship work better on a local, regional, national, or international scale? Would human greed get in the way?
Cameron Pleasants
In this week’s readings of Hind Swaraj, Ghandi writes “What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such.” and then argues that “The supreme consideration is man”. Ghandi’s suggests that his concern is not just the machines themselves but the civilization that produces and depends on them. If we imagine a society built on small scale, ethical, and community built/controlled tech, would Ghandi still see machinery as inherently harmful, or is his critique really about who controls production and for what purposes? How might his argument shift if there were industrial tools developed outside of colonial and capitalist systems?
Ianna Pfeifer
The two chapters I found most interested were Brute Force and Passive Resistance. These chapters primarily discussed and debated the opposing ideas of violence or non-violence as a means of resistance and change. Many argue that violence is the key force to creating effective change against the oppressor, given that the oppressor is thought to only understand the language of violence. Ghandi opposes this rhetoric, and writes “by using similar means, we can only get the same thing that they got. You will admit that we do not want that. Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake” (page 81). We continue to explore this idea that the intention and means of our actions in a situation will influence the results we receive. If we use violence, we can expect nothing but violent results. Passive resistance, otherwise known as soul-force, is discussed as an alternative to petitioning by means of violence. This is the idea that rather than directly combating an opposing force, one removes themselves from the force’s ideology all-together. Ghandi argues that when this is practiced at a large scale it is very effective. Given what we know about Ghandi and his background, I am curious to know if others believe this ideology is true and effective, or just comes from a position of privilege where getting to “choose not to participate” is an option. If this is an effective method, is it truly accessible enough to the oppressed to be effective on a large scale?
Odina Corbin
Within Hind Swaraj, Gandhi suggests that the optimal construction of society would be community-based where each member of that community fills a role that provides for the other members of that community. He expresses disdain for the masses of humanity that make up cities, and the exploitative means required to support such masses. A community-based society is much easier to make sustainable, as when systems are strictly local, they tend to waste significantly less resources, if any at all. Gandhi argues that a Communalist society would lack conflict, and much of that conflict is not a result of the people themselves, but of those who place themselves in positions of power. A strong community lacks conflict, as if those who make it up are actually invested in it then they will set aside the differences they may have among their peers for the greater good of the community. When a person does not have a hand in providing for those who surround them and those who surround them have no hand in providing for them, then conflict has a much easier time being created.
Is Gandhi’s vision of a communalist society unrealistic in the modern day? How could the current ways of society be turned around to prioritize communal living in order to minimize conflict?
Mack Hanna
Ghandi tends to question the idea that economic growth automatically leads to moral improvement. He argues that material development often increases inequality and the attachment to luxury rather than simply producing genuine ethical or even social progress. In his letter to Nehru, he further suggests that the simpler village-based living better supports freedom and harmony. At the same time, dense, wealth-centered societies tend to experience intensified conflict and dishonesty. He also does not reject technology itself but instead critizes a over independente on machinery and insists that human well-being needs to remain central. This leaves a tension within his argument between the rejection of technology and the rejection of the systems that shape its use. Overall, Gandhi separates material progress from moral progress and challenges the idea that economic expansion equals human advancement. How does this distinction change the way we are to define “progress” within modern society?
sarah martin