69
edits
Progressive Utilization Theory: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Progressive Utilization Theory (view source)
Revision as of 20:48, 15 October 2013
, 15 October 2013Fixed script errors
(A slightly improved version.) |
(Fixed script errors) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Sarkar introduced PROUT in 1959. In 1962, he formally outlined PROUT. Throughout the rest of his life, he continually amplified the subject. | Sarkar introduced PROUT in 1959. In 1962, he formally outlined PROUT. Throughout the rest of his life, he continually amplified the subject. | ||
PROUT is not concerned solely with [[property rights]] and economics. Rather, it encompasses the whole of individual and collective existence, not just for human beings but for all beings. Supporters of PROUT (proutists) claim that the theory overcomes the limitations of both capitalism and communism.<ref> | PROUT is not concerned solely with [[property rights]] and economics. Rather, it encompasses the whole of individual and collective existence, not just for human beings but for all beings. Supporters of PROUT (proutists) claim that the theory overcomes the limitations of both capitalism and communism.<ref>Craig, Edward, ed. (1998). ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Sociology of Knowledge to Zoroastrianism''. Routledge (Taylor & Francis). ISBN 0-415-16916-X.</ref> | ||
== Definition == | == Definition == | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
desc bottom-left | desc bottom-left | ||
</imagemap> | </imagemap> | ||
In 1962, Sarkar formally outlined PROUT in sixteen numbered [[Samskrta]] aphorisms (see Chapter 5 of ''[[Ananda Sutram]]''<ref> | In 1962, Sarkar formally outlined PROUT in sixteen numbered [[Samskrta]] aphorisms (see Chapter 5 of ''[[Ananda Sutram]]''<ref> Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). ''Ánanda Sútram''. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.</ref>). The last five numbered aphorisms (5:12–16) are commonly referred to as the ''five fundamental principles of PROUT''. These five principles are deemed to be ''fundamental'', because it would be difficult to get a clear understanding of PROUT without comprehending the underlying concepts of these principles, the interrelationship of the principles, and their respective areas of application. | ||
The five aphorisms from ''Ananda Sutram'' translate into English as follows:<ref>Bjonnes, Roar (2012). ''Principles for a Balanced Economy: An Introduction to the Progressive Utilization Theory''. Copenhagen, Denmark: PROUT Research Institute. ISBN 978-0-9857585-0-9.</ref> | The five aphorisms from ''Ananda Sutram'' translate into English as follows:<ref>Bjonnes, Roar (2012). ''Principles for a Balanced Economy: An Introduction to the Progressive Utilization Theory''. Copenhagen, Denmark: PROUT Research Institute. ISBN 978-0-9857585-0-9.</ref> | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
# {{anchor|fp5}}Utilizations vary in accordance with time, space, and form; the utilizations should be progressive. | # {{anchor|fp5}}Utilizations vary in accordance with time, space, and form; the utilizations should be progressive. | ||
An initial glimpse of these five principles first appeared in Sarkar's earlier work, ''Idea and Ideology''.<ref> | An initial glimpse of these five principles first appeared in Sarkar's earlier work, ''Idea and Ideology''.<ref> Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). ''Idea and Ideology''. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81-7252-205-3.</ref>{{#tag:ref| | ||
</ref>{{#tag:ref| | |||
The wording of the principles that appears in ''Idea and Ideology'' is:<br /> | The wording of the principles that appears in ''Idea and Ideology'' is:<br /> | ||
1. No individual should be allowed to accumulate any physical wealth without the clear permission or approval of the collective body.<br /> | 1. No individual should be allowed to accumulate any physical wealth without the clear permission or approval of the collective body.<br /> | ||
| Line 269: | Line 268: | ||
desc bottom-left | desc bottom-left | ||
</imagemap> | </imagemap> | ||
The [[#fp2|second fundamental principle]] of PROUT reduces economics to its two rudimental elements: production and distribution. To optimize production, PROUT prescribes maximum utilization of all resources, animate and inanimate. To optimize distribution, PROUT prescribes a rational approach (in contrast to [[Adam Smith|Adam Smith's]] ''[[invisible hand]]''<ref>Adam Smith (1759), Section IV.1.10 of ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments''and Adam Smith (1776), Section IV.2.9 of ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'' [http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/searchbooks.pl?searchtype=BookSearch&pgct=1&sortby=R&searchfield=F&grp=AllSmith&id=&query=invisible+hand&x=3&y=9&andor=and Library of Economics and Liberty].</ref> and [[Karl Marx|Karl Marx's]] ''[[To each according to his contribution|according to contribution]]'' or ''[[From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs|according to need]]''<ref> | The [[#fp2|second fundamental principle]] of PROUT reduces economics to its two rudimental elements: production and distribution. To optimize production, PROUT prescribes maximum utilization of all resources, animate and inanimate. To optimize distribution, PROUT prescribes a rational approach (in contrast to [[Adam Smith|Adam Smith's]] ''[[invisible hand]]''<ref>Adam Smith (1759), Section IV.1.10 of ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments''and Adam Smith (1776), Section IV.2.9 of ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'' [http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/searchbooks.pl?searchtype=BookSearch&pgct=1&sortby=R&searchfield=F&grp=AllSmith&id=&query=invisible+hand&x=3&y=9&andor=and Library of Economics and Liberty].</ref> and [[Karl Marx|Karl Marx's]] ''[[To each according to his contribution|according to contribution]]'' or ''[[From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs|according to need]]''<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Marx, Karl] (1875). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm "Part I"]. ''Critique of the Gotha Program''. Retrieved 2008-07-15.</ref>). To implement such an economy, PROUT analyzes economics in respect to four dimensions: ''[[#People's economy|people's economy]]'', ''[[#Psycho-economy|psycho-economy]]'', ''[[#Commercial economy|commercial economy]]'', and ''[[#General economy|general economy]]''. Regarding these four dimensions of economics, Sarkar states: | ||
{{Quote|''Most economists today understand only a little of the principles of general economy and something of commercial economy, but both of these parts are still in an undeveloped stage. People’s economy and psycho-economy are totally overlooked by modern economists, and as such could find no place in the present mode of economic thinking.''<ref name="ReferenceA">Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "The Parts of the Economy" published in ''A Few Problems Solved Part 7''. Ananda Marga Publications.</ref>}} | {{Quote|''Most economists today understand only a little of the principles of general economy and something of commercial economy, but both of these parts are still in an undeveloped stage. People’s economy and psycho-economy are totally overlooked by modern economists, and as such could find no place in the present mode of economic thinking.''<ref name="ReferenceA">Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "The Parts of the Economy" published in ''A Few Problems Solved Part 7''. Ananda Marga Publications.</ref>}} | ||
| Line 414: | Line 413: | ||
==== Minimum requirements according to era ==== | ==== Minimum requirements according to era ==== | ||
Human longings are unlimited. What is considered to be an [[#Amenities|amenity]] today may be viewed as a ''minimum requirement'' tomorrow. For example, consider cellphones. This is a relatively new technology. The [http://www.google.com/patents?id=nO8tAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false first patent] to be taken out on a handheld cellphone was in October 1973.<ref name=radiotelsys>[[Martin Cooper (inventor)|Martin Cooper]], et al., [http://www.google.com/patents?id=nO8tAAAAEBAJ&dq=martin+cooper "Radio Telephone System"], US Patent number 3,906,166; Filing date: 17 October 1973; Issue date: September 1975; Assignee [[Motorola]]</ref> Today, less than 40 years later, there are over 6 billion mobile phone subscriptions, reaching 87% of the global population.<ref | Human longings are unlimited. What is considered to be an [[#Amenities|amenity]] today may be viewed as a ''minimum requirement'' tomorrow. For example, consider cellphones. This is a relatively new technology. The [http://www.google.com/patents?id=nO8tAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false first patent] to be taken out on a handheld cellphone was in October 1973.<ref name=radiotelsys>[[Martin Cooper (inventor)|Martin Cooper]], et al., [http://www.google.com/patents?id=nO8tAAAAEBAJ&dq=martin+cooper "Radio Telephone System"], US Patent number 3,906,166; Filing date: 17 October 1973; Issue date: September 1975; Assignee [[Motorola]]</ref> Today, less than 40 years later, there are over 6 billion mobile phone subscriptions, reaching 87% of the global population.<ref> [http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#subscribers "Global mobile statistics 2012 Part A: Mobile subscribers; handset market share; mobile operators"]. ''Mobithinking''. 9 August 2012.</ref> In other words, cellphones have even penetrated the [[Bottom of the pyramid|bottom of the economic pyramid]], effectively making them what PROUT would deem to be a ''minimum requirement according to era''. In the view of PROUT, human society is not just obliged to provide everyone with the [[#Minimum requirements of life|minimum requirements of life]]. Rather, human society is obliged to provide everyone with whatever may constitute the minimum requirements according to era.<ref>Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). ''[[Ananda Sutram]]'' (Sutra 5:9). Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.</ref> | ||
=== Morality === | === Morality === | ||
| Line 446: | Line 445: | ||
The nature of [[property rights]] is fundamental to [[#Law|legal systems]]. It is also a major distinguishing factor between capitalism and communism. Where capitalism upholds a right to [[private property]],<ref>Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10</ref> communism would abolish such a right.{{#tag:ref|[[Adam Smith]] considered it a sacred obligation of justice to protect private property.<ref>''The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others.'' Smith, Adam (1759). ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS2.html#II.II.12 II.II.12]. [[Library of Economics and Liberty]].</ref> In contrast, [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] argued that all private property must be abolished.<ref>''In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.'' Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1848). ''The Communist Manifesto''</ref>|group="nb"}} PROUT takes a middle ground by accepting a practical [[psychological]] need of living beings to accumulate property (for a sense of security) but asserting that the extent of accumulation should be restricted by society. | The nature of [[property rights]] is fundamental to [[#Law|legal systems]]. It is also a major distinguishing factor between capitalism and communism. Where capitalism upholds a right to [[private property]],<ref>Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10</ref> communism would abolish such a right.{{#tag:ref|[[Adam Smith]] considered it a sacred obligation of justice to protect private property.<ref>''The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others.'' Smith, Adam (1759). ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS2.html#II.II.12 II.II.12]. [[Library of Economics and Liberty]].</ref> In contrast, [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] argued that all private property must be abolished.<ref>''In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.'' Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1848). ''The Communist Manifesto''</ref>|group="nb"}} PROUT takes a middle ground by accepting a practical [[psychological]] need of living beings to accumulate property (for a sense of security) but asserting that the extent of accumulation should be restricted by society. | ||
The position of PROUT on property rights is modeled on the [[Dāyabhāga]] system of inheritance in [[Bengal]].<ref>''None of the movable or immovable property of this universe belongs to any particular individual; everything is the common patrimony of all, and the Father of all is Brahma. All living beings can enjoy their rightful share of this property, like members of a joint family in the Dáyabhága system.'' Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). ''Problem of the Day''. Ananda Marga Publications.</ref> PROUT extends this system by viewing the entire universe as the [[property]] of a cosmic [[Creator deity|Creator]]. Accordingly, the created beings (''children'' of a living cosmic ''parent'') cannot own anything – they can only utilize things, individually and collectively.{{#tag:ref|[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] describe such a system as [[primitive communism]]<ref> | The position of PROUT on property rights is modeled on the [[Dāyabhāga]] system of inheritance in [[Bengal]].<ref>''None of the movable or immovable property of this universe belongs to any particular individual; everything is the common patrimony of all, and the Father of all is Brahma. All living beings can enjoy their rightful share of this property, like members of a joint family in the Dáyabhága system.'' Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). ''Problem of the Day''. Ananda Marga Publications.</ref> PROUT extends this system by viewing the entire universe as the [[property]] of a cosmic [[Creator deity|Creator]]. Accordingly, the created beings (''children'' of a living cosmic ''parent'') cannot own anything – they can only utilize things, individually and collectively.{{#tag:ref|[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] describe such a system as [[primitive communism]]<ref>Scott, John; Marshall, Gordon (2007). ''A Dictionary of Sociology''. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860987-2.</ref> in that it is common to early [[Hunter-gatherer society|hunter-gatherer societies]]. It may be argued that their analysis was incomplete or erroneous. They conceived of such a system operating only at a subsistence level (the basic requirements of life). PROUT, on the other hand, also takes into account the need for a regulated distribution of [[#Amenities|amenities]].|group="nb"}} PROUT asserts that the extent of any [[usufruct]] should be determined by [[#Society|society]], which acts ''[[in loco parentis]]''. Excessive accumulation of wealth tends to restrict the happiness and welfare of others. Hence, that is deemed to be "flagrantly antisocial".<ref>[[Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar|Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii]] (1962). ''Ananda Sutram'', Sutra 5:12. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.</ref> | ||
=== Revolution === | === Revolution === | ||