• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
A NEW SOCIAL PARADIGM BASED ON SPIRITUAL VALUESMarket economics pretends to be a value-free objective science,describing timeless truths independent of ideology and cultural norms.Analysts are unable to consistently predict with accuracy what willhappen next in terms of currency rates, economic growth, unemployment,property values, etc. This is due in part to the extremely competitiveglobal economy that free market economics has created where the questfor profits is accepted as its ultimate value.Neoliberal economists preach the gospel that financial efficiency andsuccess can be achieved through free market trade in any country. Theyportray economics as an objective truth, a fundamental law like the lawof gravitation. They assert that denial of the right to maximize one'swealth, or any diminishing of property rights, would compromise theefficiency of the economy, and lessen the total output of which it iscapable.To understand how the Prout model can transform our society, we mustlook at one of its fundamental differences with capitalism: their different attitudes toward private property. Capitalism adopted theideas of the seventeenth century English philosopher John Locke whosaid that a human being had the right to use his or her labour to alter the gifts of Nature and other things and hence make them productive.Locke argued that by clearing an area of forest, cultivating the landand collecting the harvest, a person made it productive and hence had aright to own it and use it as he or she pleased. This unquestionedbelief in the supreme value of private property is fundamental tocapitalism.Such an individualistic attitude was embedded in the thinking of thosewho formed the United States. This attitude combined with a deeply-feltpassion for personal freedom, which was seen as one's right toaccumulate as much wealth as possible, and no government should havethe legal privilege to take a significant portion of it away throughtaxation.This view, which dominates the world today, is essentially egocentricand lacks a holistic ecology of mind approach, that is it lacks abridging between the three realms of existence (physical,mental/psychic and spiritual). It means that it is psychologydeficient in understanding human experiencing and social interaction.It is also quite opposite to many indigenous perspectives and values,such as the indigenous peoples of North and South America and of thetraditional societies of Africa, Asia and Australasia, who never thought like this. They did not believe that the land belonged to them;rather they believed they belonged to the land! Neverthelessusufructuary rights are necessary. These traditional cultures weremore cooperative by nature and usually treated most of the land as acommon resource. Most of them had disastrous encounters withland-grabbing and resource-stealing colonizers who possessed advancedweapons.Basic PrinciplesWhat is the proper approach. It can be put down into one principle,
 
which as stated by PR Sarkar is:The universe is the collective property of all. All people haveusufructuary rights but no one has the right to misuse this collectiveproperty. If a person acquires and accumulates excessive wealth, he or she directly curtails the happiness and convenience of others insociety. Such behaviour is flagrantly antisocial. Therefore, no oneshould be allowed to accumulate wealth without the permission of society. (Ananda Sutram 5:12, 1962)Sarkar goes on to elaborate in relation to worldly wealth andresources:The wealth and resources available in the crude, subtle and causalworlds should be developed for the welfare of all. All resources hiddenin the quinquelemental world -- solid, liquid, luminous, aerial andethereal -- should be fully utilized, and the endeavour to do this willensure the maximum development of the universe. People will have toearnestly explore land, sea and space to discover, extract and processthe raw materials needed for their requirements. There should berational distribution of the accumulated wealth of humanity. In other words, all people must be guaranteed the minimum requirements. Inaddition, the requirements of meritorious people, and in certain casesthose with special needs, will also have to be kept in mind. (AnandaSutram 5:13, 1962)In relation to the psychological bridging necessary betweenwealth/resources and collective aspirations, Sarkar states:Society must ensure the maximum development of the collective body,collective mind and collective spirit. One must not forget thatcollective welfare lies in individuals and individual welfare lies incollectivity. Without ensuring individual comforts through the proper provision of food, light, air, accommodation and medical treatment, thewelfare of the collective body can never be achieved. One will have topromote individual welfare motivated by the spirit of promotingcollective welfare. The development of the collective mind isimpossible without developing proper social awareness, encouraging thespirit of social service and awakening knowledge in every individual.So, inspired with the thought of the welfare of the collective mind,one has to promote the well-being of the individual mind. The absenceof spiritual morality and spirituality in individuals will break thebackbone of the collectivity. So for the sake of collective welfare onewill have to awaken spirituality in individuals. The mere presence of ahandful of strong and brave people, a small number of scholars or a fewspiritualists does not indicate the progress of the entire society. Thepotential for ongoing or infinite physical, mental and spiritualdevelopment is inherent in every human being. This potentiality has tobe harnessed and brought to fruition. (Ananda Sutram 5:14, 1962)Cosmic InheritanceP. R. Sarkar expanded upon the idea of belonging to the Cosmos andNature that was shared by people of traditional cultures. Putting it ina personal sense - and that the cosmos and universe is a 'living'entity - he said, "The Supreme Consciousness is my father and the
 
Supreme Creative Principle is my mother, the Universe is my native landand all of us are citizens of this cosmos". (Problems of the Day,1968) We should consider humanity as one human family, and the universeas our common patrimony. It is a gift from the forces of Consciousnessand Creation, which are in reality two inseparable aspects of the sameDivine Being.Prout is based on this spiritual perspective. The Creator is notseparate from the creation, but permeates and resonates in everyparticle of it. Nothing is mere physicality in the end. Einsteinsomewhat concluded that everything is energy - so even your humanstructure is nothing but a condensed form of energy or vibrations(crude frequencies). Even so-called inanimate objects are vital withlatent consciousness. Every living being has existential value, inaddition to utility value. Humans do not have the right todestructively exploit plants, animals, or the Earth, without regard for their well-being. The Creator - which can also be seen as our universalconnection to all - invites us to use these things, but not to abusethem.Because of this spiritual outlook, Prout does not recognize privateproperty as an absolute moral value. Sarkar wrote, "Thepotentialities of the world do not belong to any particular person,nation or state". (Problems of the Day, 1968) Also, the notion of property is one of law. In law, one does not strictly 'own' anything.Rather, one receives a title or estate so as to be legally entitled tosome thing (whether at common law or by statute law). As native titlescholars in Australia would know, for land, there can be various titlesor interests such as the relative title of the sovereign state, thenative title of its indigenous inhabitants and the freehold title or leasehold title of registered owners (or even mere licences to occupy).These may overlap. Collectively, like brothers and sisters in a humanfamily, we have a duty and a responsibility to utilize and fairlydistribute the world's resources for the welfare of all. The approachto be taken is determining the usufructuary rights amidst collectiveproperty. These for households may amount to a legally registeredtitle and the preference here is that of the developing communitytitles or similar (which can have the characteristic of freehold or leasehold but are surrounded also with community responsibilities).Generally, for other resource allocations some form of co-operativeshareholding ownerships should be developed.How would Prout consider the vast properties of land in Brazil, for example? The Bradesco Bank Group owns 900,000 hectares of land, theAntunes-Caemi financial group owns 2,250,000 hectares, and theforeign-owned Manasa/Cifec group owns over 4 million hectares, that is,40,000 square kilometres! Most of this property is cleared to createpasture for the beef industry, which requires very few employees. Atthe same time, millions of unemployed farm labourers have no land tocultivate in order to meet their basic needs.Sarkar wrote: "Uncultivated [farm]land is a liability for the humanrace". "In Prout's system of agriculture there is no place for intermediaries. Those who invest their capital by engaging others inproductive labour to earn a profit are capitalists. Capitalists, likeparasites, thrive on the blood of industrial and agricultural
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...