Five Fundamental Principles of PROUT: Difference between revisions

Under PROUT, efficiency in respect to production and distribution is enhanced by judicious allocation of [[#Amenities|amenities]]. Another way in which efficiency would be enhanced is by restricting hiring in respect to [[:wikipedia:Floating population|floating populations]].<ref>''The problem of a floating population and immigrant labor will not occur in the cooperative system, as cooperative members will have to be local people. Floating laborers should have no right to be cooperative members – migratory birds have no place in cooperatives – as they can disturb a whole economy. Howrah district, for example, produces sufficient crops in a season to feed the local people for seventeen months, but due to immigrant labor the produce is consumed in six and a half months. The elimination of the floating population will also protect the social life of the cooperative from the possibility of adverse social influences.'' Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1982). "Farmers Cooperatives" published in ''PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 20''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref>

The banking system is a crucial element of commercial economy. Without banks, the mobility of money would be hindered. However, banks and similar institutions have a tendency to be greedy. Hence, they may make unsafe or unwise loans. When that occurs, depositors are at risk of losing their savings. (Some recent examples of this problem are the [[:wikipedia:Savings and loan crisis|savings and loan crisis]] in the 1980s and 1990s, the [[:wikipedia:Subprime mortgage crisis|subprime mortgage crisis]] in the 2000s, and, most recently, the [[:wikipedia:Libor scandal|Libor scandal]] of 2012.) PROUT insists that the banking system be carefully regulated. The establishment of local banking [[#Cooperatives|cooperatives]] can also help to reduce risks.<ref>Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Questions and Answers on Economics – Excerpt C" published in ''Proutist Economics''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]]. ISBN 81–7252–003–4.</ref>  

The overall position of PROUT in respect to general economy is consistent with the objectives of  [[#Economic democracy|economic decentralization]] and regional [[#Self-sufficiency|self-sufficiency]].

* {{anchor|se}}''Small-scale enterprises'' may be run as a private business. Typically, privately run businesses would provide non-essential commodities or luxury items, that is, [[#Amenities|amenities]]. Small-scale enterprises would include [[:wikipedia:Putting-out system|cottage industries]]. Though such businesses may be privately run, PROUT would require that they maintain an adjustment with the [[#mlc|cooperative sector]] to ensure a [[#Balanced economy|balanced economy]].<ref name="Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan 1982"/>

PROUT would organize nations and ultimately the entire world on the basis of [[#Self-sufficiency|self-sufficient]] economic zones, based purely on socioeconomic and geographical considerations rather than political considerations (as is currently common).<ref>Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1961). "Talks on PROUT" published in ''PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 3 Part 15''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref> Within each socioeconomic zone, there would also be decentralized planning down to the ''block'' level, the block being the lowest level on which economic planning is feasible. In other words, economic planning would function on many levels – block, district, state, national, and global levels – but the block-level planning would be the primary level of planning. As block-level planning is essential for economic decentralization, it should be adopted in all blocks, and it should be constitutionally mandated.<ref>Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1981). "Inter-Block and Intra-Block Planning" published in ''A Few Problems Solved Part 8''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref>

In keeping with its organic view of [[#Society|society]], PROUT notes that [[:wikipedia:Civilization|civilizations]] come and go, [[#Social vitality|live and die]]. For example, the ancient Egyptian civilization that constructed pyramids is gone. Though the country is the same, the society is different.<ref>''From ancient times many groups of people came into existence. Some of them somehow managed to drag on, some became extinct and some continued to exist in a metamorphosed form. About one thousand five hundred years ago, Arabs were very developed in science. But they were defeated by the Islamic wave... The same is the case with Egypt. It was fully developed in the spheres of art, architecture and science. It is the Egyptians who made the pyramids which needed subtle geometrical knowledge. Moreover, they were also very advanced in the sphere of civilization. Despite this, they could not prevent their defeat. Today’s Egypt is the Egyptian form of Arab civilization.'' Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1966). "The Future of Civilization" published in ''A Few Problems Solved Part 6''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref>

With all [[:wikipedia:Decision making|decision making]], multiple options are available. The [[#fp4|fourth fundamental principle]] of PROUT calls for a ''well-balanced adjustment among the utilizations''. Sarkar amplifies the concept of a well-balanced adjustment by affirming the need to maintain correspondence and concord among all the factors: crude, subtle, and causal as well as physical, mental, and spiritual. For example, society is obliged to furnish the [[#Minimum requirements of life|minimum requirements of life]] to everyone. But if society were to carry out that obligation by building a house for every citizen and delivering food at each doorstep, then people would soon become lazy. So a more balanced approach would be for society to make provision so that everyone, in exchange for their labor according to capacity, will earn the money required to at least purchase their necessities. For similar reasons, to raise the [[#Minimum requirements according to era|minimum standard of living]], the best approach would be to enhance everyone's [[:wikipedia:Purchasing power|purchasing power]].<ref name="AM Sen">Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Sutra 5:15 of ''[[Ananda Sutram]]''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]]. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.</ref> In later years, Sarkar formalized and extended this decision-making paradigm (sometimes referred to as the '''law of parallelism''') by introducing the theory of [[#Prama|pramá]].

Spiritual power is the rarest and subtlest ability. So, from those with all three capacities (physical, mental, and spiritual) developed, society should take greater spiritual service, less intellectual service, and still less physical service. According to Sarkar, such persons can render the greatest service to society. Those with only physical and mental power ([[#ksatriyas|warriors]], [[#vipras|intellectuals]], and [[#vaeshyas|capitalists]]) render less service. Those with only physical power ([[#shudras|unskilled laborers]]), though not unimportant, can only work under the direction of those endowed with spiritual or mental power. Hence, social control should not be vested in those that are only brawny nor even those that are also brave, brainy, or worldly wise. Rather social control should only be vested in those who possess all of those features plus the spiritual quality to work selflessly for the welfare of all – in a word, [[#Sadvipras|sadvipras]].<ref name="AM Sen"/>

The [[#fp5|fifth fundamental principle]] of PROUT observes that change is a constant in this universe. Three factors of relativity (time, space, and form) are constantly changing in relation to themselves and in relation to the other two factors.<ref>Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1955). "The Base and the Relative Truth (Ádhára and Ápekśika Satya)" published in ''Subháśita Saḿgraha Part 1''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref> So, according to PROUT, change is inevitable. What PROUT prescribes is not change but rather [[#Progressive|progress]].