Nor does serving one’s neighbors lack a Zweck. The Zweck, the goal, for Gandhi, is self-realization, as distinct from self-aggrandizement. “While the economists, ever since Adam Smith, preach that everybody doing what he wants will benefit rich and poor alike, the economics of Gandhi is based on a spiritual conviction that by serving the poor we do what we ourselves really need. Self-realization, as against self-aggrandizement, is the ultimate human need.” (15) 

Further, the rules governing a Gandhian economy can be formulated, not as sentiment, but as rational decision rules, as has been done by the Gandhian economist Amritananda Das as follows: 

“First, let us note that the behavior of individuals within a socio-economic collaborative micro-group is marked by avoidance of economic options by which an individual within the group can improve his economic situation at the expense of the group or without sharing the gains (at least partly) with the group. Second, the group tends to shelter and protect its weaker members from external difficulties and threats, by both sharing of goods and the sharing of work responsibilities. Third, any policy which enriches the group as a whole gets preference over policies which affect part of the group in one way and another part in the opposite direction. Fourth, leadership within the micro-group devolves on the individual(s) who show particular skill in promoting the group interest and who lead in self sacrifice in the interest of the group. Finally the group tends to display a strong community of tastes and a preference for group-oriented leisure and recreational activities. 

“Quite clearly, such behavior is incompatible with the model of acquisitive-individualist rationality. Yet, there is no reason for regarding such behavior as irrational.” (16) 

If we are convinced by Das that Gandhi’s social experiments were not irrational, and if we are further convinced that his proposals were not contrary to human nature, then we must search further for an explanation of why they did not catch on, spread, and transform society. My suggestion is that the explanation of Gandhi’s failure is the incompatibility of cotton spinning and other similar schemes with the dynamic of the dominant paradigm. If my explanation is true, then (without a paradigm shift) Vandana Shiva’s proposals for food security will fail for the same reasons that Gandhi’s projects failed.