Progressive Utilization Theory

From Sarkarverse
Jump to: navigation, search

Progressive Utilization Theory
Abbreviation PROUT
Short description Socioeconomic theory for the happiness and welfare of all
Motto To end exploitation we demand economic democracy, not political democracy
Country Universal
Location in Sarkarverse
SVmap NonliteraryWorks.png

Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) is the social theory given by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. PROUT is concerned with more than just property rights and economics. 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 exposes and overcomes the limitations of both capitalism and communism.[1]

Sarkar introduced PROUT in 1959. In 1962, he formally outlined PROUT. Throughout the rest of his life, he continually amplified the subject.



PROUT may best be defined by examining the three words from which the acronym is derived: progressive, utilization, and theory.


In PROUT, progress signifies advancement in respect to the all-round happiness and welfare of all.[2] In other words, progress is not purely material. Rather, it also has psychic and spiritual dimensions. Furthermore, progress is not partial. It does not exclude anyone. Accordingly, PROUT measures progress in terms of the increase in the minimum standard of living.[3]


The first fundamental principle of PROUT is based on the notion that property rights are only usufructuary. In other words, living beings have the right to utilize everything, but they cannot actually own anything. The first fundamental principle (pertaining to law) sets out the manner in which utilization is permitted. The remaining four fundamental principles prescribe the ideal form of that utilization in respect to economics, development, administration, and change.[4]


PROUT recognizes two types of theory: (1) theory derived from practice (pragmatism) and (2) theory divorced from practice. PROUT asserts that only the former type of theory can surely be materialized (although that materialization requires time, effort, and opportunity). With respect to the latter type of theory, it may or may not have the potential to be materialized.[5] PROUT asserts itself as pragmatic theory. That claim is based on a thorough analysis of the history and features of human society[6] as well as psychology, sociology, cosmology, economics, and so on.[7] The position of PROUT in respect to many of these areas is amplified below.

Chronology and influences

This section presents some main events in the history of PROUT. It also describes some possible influences in respect to the development of PROUT.


Date Event
1959 Sarkar introduced the names, Progressive Utilization Theory and PROUT, and gave a glimpse of the five fundamental principles in Idea and Ideology.[7]
1961 Sarkar fully outlined PROUT along with the formal version of the five fundamental principles in Ananda Sutram.[8]
1962 Sarkar established the Proutist Federation of India (PFI) to propagate PROUT. Included in the PFI were five federations (farmers, intellectuals, labor, students, and youth).
1964 The PFI was renamed from Proutist Federation of India to Proutist Forum of India.
1966 A group of proutists in India established the Proutist Bloc of India (PBI) as a political party to contest elections.
1967 Sarkar amplified his social cycle theory in Human Society Part 2.[9]
1969 A group of proutists in India established the first localized social movement and political party, Amra Bangali, for seeking the establishment of PROUT. Since then many similar local movements have been established around the world.
1971–1978 Sarkar was imprisoned until acquittal. A common belief among his supporters is that the main cause of his arrest was the propounding of PROUT. While imprisoned, Sarkar's mission, including his vision for socioeconomic change embodied in PROUT, spread worldwide.
1978 Sarkar established Proutist Universal (PU) for the propagation of PROUT around the world. Included in PU are five federations: Universal Proutist Farmers Federation (UPFF), Universal Proutist Intellectuals Federation (UPIF), Universal Proutist Labor Federation (UPLF), Universal Proutist Students Federation (UPSF), and Universal Proutist Youth Federation (UPYF). Associated with PU, is Girls' PROUT (GP), also known as Women's PROUT (WP).
1978–1990 Sarkar continually amplified PROUT throughout the rest of his life.
1982 Sarkar introduced neohumanism, a philosophical theory distinct from but related to PROUT.[10]
1987 Sarkar introduced the theory of pramá.[11]
1987 onwards Translation and compilation of all of Sarkar's PROUT-related discourses began and continues through the present day.[12]


PROUT has similarities with many earlier philosophical and social theories.


The main outline for PROUT[13] appears at the end of a book of Samskrta sutras that are mostly devoted to subjects related to or derived from tantra. This includes the yogic tradition. As such, much of the new terminology employed by PROUT is expressed in Samskrta. And all of PROUT may be viewed as having a spiritual, but not religious, foundation.


PROUT follows in a long line of socialist thought. Sarkar himself often refers to PROUT as progressive socialism.[14] The high-minded concern for the collective welfare embodied in socialism is also readily apparent in the writings of Sarkar as well as the principles and policies of PROUT.


Sarkar often likens his concept of property rights to the Dáyabhága system of law conceptualized by Jiimutabahana Bhattacharya.[15] In this system, children have usufructuary rights in respect to their father's property, but they only inherit the property after the father's death. Consistent with the tantric tradition, Sarkar deems the entire universe to be the creation of a living, cosmic progenitor. Extending Dáyabhága with that universal outlook, Sarkar asserts that all living beings are members of a joint family in which everyone has usufructuary but not proprietary rights. Accordingly, PROUT is a theory of progressive utilization and not progressive ownership.


Sarkar categorically repudiates the Hindu caste system of varnashrama.[16] Nevertheless, the terminology used by Sarkar in his theory of social cycle has a close resemblance to the terminology of varnashrama. Though the interpretation and implementation of that terminology is quite different, the likenesses cannot be denied.

Five fundamental principles

Ananda Sutram is the commanding authority on all of Sarkar's philosophy. There, in 1962, Sarkar formally outlined PROUT in sixteen numbered Samskrta aphorisms (see Chapter 5 of Ananda Sutram[17]). 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:[18]

  1. There should be no accumulation of wealth without the permission of society.
  2. There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of the crude, subtle, and causal resources.
  3. There should be maximum utilization of the physical, mental, and spiritual potentialities of the individual and collective beings.
  4. There should be a well-balanced adjustment among the crude, subtle, and causal utilizations.
  5. 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.[7][nb 1]

Other key concepts

This section describes some additional key concepts or constructs of PROUT. The concepts are listed in alphabetical order for easier reference.


In respect to administration, PROUT addresses two closely interrelated matters:

Decision making

With all decision making, multiple options are available. The 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 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 standard of living, the best approach would be to enhance everyone's purchasing power.[19] In later years, Sarkar formalized and extended this decision-making paradigm (sometimes referred to as the law of parallelism) by introducing the theory of pramá.


As a corollary to the law of parallelism, Sarkar asserted that two factors must be carefully weighed when taking decisions. Those two factors are subtlety and rarity. By applying those two factors to the question of what work society should take from an individual, PROUT arrives at the ideal candidates for the duty of top-level decision-making, government.

Every human being has physical, mental, and spiritual potential. That potential should be developed to the fullest extent in everyone. However, at any given time, all three capabilities may not yet be developed in some persons. For those with only a developed physical capacity, it is clear that society should utilize them primarily for their physical power. For those with both physical and mental capacity developed, society should utilize them more for their intellectual power and less for their physical power. The reason that Sarkar gives is that intellectual power is rarer and subtler than physical power. Sarkar argues that with such an approach, society derives more benefit from the service of those persons, and those persons in turn derive more satisfaction from their work. Insisting that a great scientist must also perform labor as a farmer is irrational, because that scientist could conceivably benefit society far more with just one hour's work in a laboratory than one thousand hours' work in the fields. If the concern is to ensure the scientist's physical health through exercise, that exercise may also be had in the form of any suitable and appealing sport or physical recreation.

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 (warriors, intellectuals, and capitalists) render less service. Those with only physical power (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.[19]


In PROUT, the concept of amenities extends beyond the scope of real property. Living beings have innumerable physical and psychic longings. Any non-essential item that helps to quench such a longing is termed an amenity (in Samskrta, atiriktam) in PROUT.

PROUT recognizes that there will and must always be a gap in wealth. There will always be some who are more wealthy than others. Even without considering other factors, this is consequent upon the limited nature of material wealth. For example, given the state of current technology, it would be impossible to provide everyone in the world with a private jet. As such, PROUT takes a proactive approach to amenities so that the wealth gap may work toward the collective welfare and so that the wealth gap may be regularly minimized.

In short, the approach of PROUT is to first ensure that the minimum requirements according to era are provided for all and thereafter to distribute the surplus wealth in the form of amenities to the meritorious according to the degree of their merit.[20] In practice, this becomes a three-stage process:[21]

  1. Minimum requirements are guaranteed to all.
  2. Maximum amenities are guaranteed to those who are exemplary, those whose service to society is greater than average, with the proviso that this must not violate the collective interest.
  3. Maximum amenities are guaranteed to everyone, including those who are not exemplary (common persons of common caliber).

PROUT predicts that this never-ending process will continually raise the minimum standard of living, the level of wealth deemed to be the minimum requirements for all.

It should also be mentioned here that the expanded view of PROUT in respect to society includes non-human creatures. So the day may come when the provision of minimum requirements and maximum amenities (per PROUT) will extend to dogs, cats, monkeys, cows, and so on. It may be that in future, monkeys will achieve the evolutionary status of the human beings of today, and human beings will have evolved to a status much more sublime.[21]

Balanced economy

According to PROUT, in a healthy economy, there should be a well-balanced adjustment among the various sectors of the economy. Otherwise there can be no pramá (dynamic equilibrium and equipoise) in socioeconomic life. According to Sarkar, failure to implement balanced economies around the world is not only devastating economically. It also jeopardizes world peace and precipitates psychic degeneration, both individual and collective.[22]

Population and Occupation Breakdown in a Balanced Economy (percentages suitable for India today but might require some adjustment elsewhere or in future)
Percentage Occupation Comment
30–40% Agriculture Less than 30% indicates that agriculture is neglected. More than 40% indicates that agriculture is strained.
10–20% Agrico-industry This sector includes pre-harvesting and harvesting requirements (picks, axes, spades, tractors, and so on).
10–20% Agro-industry This sector includes post-harvesting production (flour mills, paper mills, canning factories, and so on).
20–30% Non-agricultural industry Less than 20% indicates under-industrialization. More than 30% indicates over-industrialization.
10% Commerce and Trade This sector includes small-scale, privately run businesses.
10% Intellectual and white-collar work This sector includes education, scientific research, entertainment, medical services, government bureaucracy, and so on.
The percentage of people engaged in non-agricultural industries (heavy industries, non-herbal pharmaceuticals, and so on) as well as miscellaneous services (police, military, and so on) should be derived by reducing the percentage of people engaged in the first three occupations (agriculture, agrico-industry, and agro-industry).

Under-industrialization limits the purchasing power of the local people. As such the standard of living is relatively low. According to PROUT, an under-industrialized socioeconomic zone is prone to become an economic satellite of an over-industrialized socioeconomic zone, which would be under pressure to acquire raw materials and agricultural produce from the poorer (under-industrialized) zone. The over-industrialized zone would also require the under-industrialized zone to function as a market for its finished goods. When that market is lost, the over-industrialized zone is likely to undergo economic recession or depression and growing unemployment.[23]


The 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.[24] So, according to PROUT, change is inevitable. What PROUT prescribes is not change but rather progress.


Only the cooperative system can ensure the healthy, integrated progress of humanity, and establish complete and everlasting unity among the human race.[25]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Cooperatives are the main component of the industrial structure that PROUT recommends for the general economy. Under PROUT, cooperatives would be encouraged for all medium- to large-scale industries (including agriculture and service) except key industries.

PROUT envisions many benefits from cooperatives. By combining resources, members of cooperatives accrue substantial financial benefits: greater efficiency of production, reduced cost of production, and higher financial security. In addition, cooperative living fosters harmony in society. As Sarkar states:

Society is the collective movement of a group of individuals who have made a unanimous decision to move towards a common goal. If human beings move closely together in all aspects of life, except for those few aspects which are very personal, the better it will be for the welfare of society.[25]

PROUT makes a clear distinction between PROUT cooperatives and communes. According to PROUT, communes are based on subordinated cooperation and denial of the right to accumulate any personal property. In other words, communes devolve into mere production and distribution mechanisms under a strictly regimented system of control. For lack of incentive and wholehearted acceptance, they have a tendency to drive down production rather than increase production. In contrast, PROUT cooperatives are based on coordinated cooperation, cooperation among "free human beings, each with equal rights and mutual respect for each other, and each working for the welfare of the other".[25]

PROUT encourages cooperatives of all sorts, for example: farmer cooperatives, producer cooperatives (especially for essential commodities), consumer cooperatives (again, especially for essential commodities), service cooperatives, banking cooperatives, and housing cooperatives.[26]

According to PROUT, the success of cooperatives will be proportionate to the extent that the following three factors are present:[27]

  • Morality
  • Strong administration
  • Wholehearted acceptance of the cooperative system


If a system of corrective measures is introduced, criminals, whether they were deeply involved in the crime or not, will have no reason to complain against anyone. Although there may be flaws in the judgement, it will not harm them in any way. A person who is definitely guilty will benefit from a system of corrective measures, and even a person who is not guilty will benefit from such a system.[28]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

With respect to criminology, Sarkar distinguishes five categories of criminals:[28]

Criminals due to nature

Such criminals are born with a mental derangement that may have physical roots (for instance, glandular or chromosomal). To some extent, their mental development is stunted. In consequence, they may have a more highly developed set of instincts than most human beings. These criminals may be subdivided into two groups:[28]

  • This group of born criminals is typically quiet and mentally underdeveloped. They may take a long time to learn how to walk, and they have a tendency to drool. They cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and they take pleasure in lying and hurting others. They usually become petty thieves as opposed to armed robbers, because they lack the courage to perform antisocial activities openly. They may act on their own initiative or at the prodding of others.
  • This group of born criminals revel in cruelty, provoked or unprovoked. They have a natural inclination to maim and murder. They consider compassion and conscience to be frailty. They generally do not engage in petty theft, as they consider such activities below their dignity. Though they may be lack wisdom about some worldly affairs, they are not fools. These criminals have a tendency to join criminal gangs.

According to Sarkar, while trying born criminals, the magnitude of the crime should not be the only concern. As these criminals are mentally ill, there should also be humanistic concern for their cure. In this respect, Sarkar points out that born criminals cannot be successfully treated by psychologists alone. Assistance will also be required from physicians and sociologists.[28]

Criminals due to habit

Three factors are important in respect to criminals due to habit:[28]

  • Moral integrity
  • Mental strength
  • Social control

In situations where any of these three factors is weak, there is greater likelihood of criminality due to habit. Habitual criminals have no congenital disorder associated with their criminality. So, their treatment does not require assistance from physicians. Furthermore, habitual criminals have the ability to discriminate between right and wrong. Hence, their treatment consists of education in respect to morality, provision of methodology for acquiring moral strength, and a strictly regulated social environment. In other words, psychological treatment, strict prison discipline, and a pure social environment are essential to their rehabilitation.

According to Sarkar, habitual criminals become leaders within the criminal community. Sarkar also alleges that many habitual criminals become politicians, as that occupation affords them scope to further their selfish ends and cheat the public on a regular basis.[28]

With respect to habitual criminals, Sarkar asserts that judges should place primary importance on the provisions of the criminal code rather than any humanitarian sensibilities. According to Sarkar, this would be of greater benefit to society and also to such criminals. Sarkar points out that such criminals sometimes try to influence judges (through bribes or threats). Hence, Sarkar argues that judges require much more power than they have today if they are to successfully rein in such type of criminality.[28]

Criminals due to environment

Criminals due to environment are those who take up crime as a result of either of two factors:[28]

  • Pressure of external circumstances
  • Degrading company voluntarily or compulsorily kept

External circumstance might be environmental pressure from parents or an unfair work environment. Degrading company could be colleagues or peers, real or virtual. (In other words, according to Sarkar, even popular but degrading cinema might lead to such type of criminality.) Sarkar points out that most people think that they are immune to the influence of others, but the facts speak otherwise.

With respect to criminals by environment, Sarkar asserts that judges should give priority to humanitarian sensibilities rather than the criminal code. In these cases, the criminal generally does not have any inborn defect. Therefore, as long as the criminal has not become habituated in crime, rehabilitation is relatively easy. The main factor is to remove the criminal from the unhealthy environment and replace the unhealthy environment with a healthy environment. However, if such criminals have become habituated, then care must be taken in the prisons regarding their accommodation, because then there is a great possibility that their bad habit might spread to other prisoners.[28]

Criminals due to poverty

Sarkar maintains that most crimes in the world are committed due to poverty.[28] Though poverty is an environmental circumstance, it merits a category of its own because here one's very existence is at stake. Within each living being is a survival instinct. Hence, when confronted with a choice between starvation and stealing, many if not most people would instinctively steal. (Of course, some impoverished people do refrain from stealing out of a high sense of morality. And still more impoverished people refrain from stealing due to their vitality being sapped by hunger.)

This group of criminals poses a very knotty problem. Many of the persons who resort to such crimes of desperation have a strong sense of morality. They simply find no other recourse to meet the needs of themselves or their families. Sending such type of criminal to a prison only risks hardening them in the ways of crime. Furthermore, the question of guilt is complicated by the fact that society has failed in its obligation to provide such criminals with their minimum requirements of life. So, on one hand, there is a strong humanitarian concern. On the other hand, such type of crime is technically (though perhaps not gravely) immoral. It is theft, and the motive is selfish. Furthermore, those who repeatedly ignore their conscience by committing crimes due to poverty eventually become habitual criminals. Even if the opportunity to earn an honest living were presented to them, they might spurn it in favor of crime.

In such cases, judges become mere figureheads, having legal but not moral authority. In such cases, physicians, psychologists, and sociologists have nothing to contribute in respect to rehabilitation. Society requires rehabilitation far more than the poverty-stricken criminal. According to Sarkar, the only solution to this type of criminality is the creation of a sound socioeconomic structure. Until such a socioeconomic structure is established, Sarkar argues that the only honest solution is to exhort such would-be criminals by poverty to the path of revolution. In a revolution, wealth is redistributed for the welfare of all. The revolutionaries who fight for such a redistribution take risks on themselves for the welfare of society, not merely for their own selfish gain.[28]

Sarkar notes one exception in this category of criminality. Not everyone who commits crime due to poverty is poor due to an unjust socioeconomic structure. Sometimes, wealthy people indulge in vices (drugs, gambling, luxurious lifestyle, and so on). In such cases, their addiction may reduce them to poverty. Then, after falling into debt, such persons often engage in various types of crime. This variety of criminals due to poverty are themselves at fault. Though privation is the immediate cause of their crime, it is not society that is to blame for that privation but rather their own bad habits. Hence, for such variety of criminals due to poverty, corrective measures must be taken for their rehabilitation. In such cases, the key is to cure their addiction.[28]

Criminals due to momentary weakness

Sarkar's last category of criminals is those who commit crime due to momentary weakness. The urge is temporary. It comes and goes under specific circumstances. A good example would be kleptomania.

Sometimes the urge to commit a crime gets expressed immediately. Other times the urge builds over months or even years. Though one might imagine that the former case (an immediate crime) is less culpable than the latter case (a crime that is a long time in the making), Sarkar asserts that the root cause of both crimes is the same. The cause is mental weakness. The only way to rehabilitate such criminals is to help them attain greater mental strength.[28]

Sarkar notes that people who lack mental strength may become deluded into believing that they committed crimes that they did not. By speaking loosely or by making false confessions, they may easily get wrongly convicted. Sarkar points out that if there is even a slight defect in the investigative process, the efficiency of the police, or the acumen of the judge, an innocent person is likely to be punished. Keeping in mind the unavoidable possibility of innocents being sent to prison, Sarkar asserts that it is imperative for such institutions to be corrective in nature rather than penal.[28]


Political democracy has become a great hoax for the people of the world. It promises the advent of an era of peace, prosperity, and equality; but in reality it creates criminals, encourages exploitation, and throws common people into an abyss of sorrow and suffering. The days of political democracy are numbered. PROUT demands economic democracy, not political democracy.[29]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

PROUT distinguishes two types of democracy: political democracy and economic democracy. Some social activists – for example, Noam Chomsky – deem economic democracy to be an important ingredient of political democracy.[30] In contrast, Sarkar (the propounder of PROUT) deems the two forms of democracy to be mutually exclusive.[29]

Economic democracy

In the view of PROUT, the social contract largely pertains to the desire of human beings for security. Though not entirely, to a large extent that translates as economic security. The essence of economic democracy is economic decentralization as the way of providing economic security to all. In practical terms, economic democracy would vest economic power (control over the means of production and distribution of goods and services) in the local people.

The nature of capitalism is to concentrate wealth. In other words, capitalism centralizes economic power. PROUT analyzes this as the result of profit motivation. In contrast to capitalism, economic democracy entails production for consumption rather than production for profit. As this is a fundamental contradiction, PROUT asserts that economic democracy is impossible under capitalism.[29]

PROUT posits four requirements for economic democracy:

Political democracy

Political democracy is generally hailed as government of the people, by the people, for the people.[31] Even though it was not in practice when those words were spoken by Abraham Lincoln,[nb 2] in its currently idealized (or liberal) form, political democracy is based on a high degree of political decentralization, also known as universal suffrage. In other words, every adult (one who has attained a legally prescribed age) is accorded the right to vote. However, in most societies, many adults are uninterested to vote or lack the political awareness to make an informed choice. According to PROUT, such a condition enables capitalists to manipulate elections and control social policy.[32] For political democracy to be successful, PROUT specifies three requirements:

  • Mass education (including virtually 100% literacy)
  • Morality (at least 51% of the voting population must rigidly adhere to morality)
  • Social, economic, and political awareness of the voting population

Even should those three requirements for successful democracy be fulfilled, PROUT asserts that the true welfare of the people still will not be possible.[33] According to PROUT, social welfare (progressive socialism) cannot be established under a democratic framework.[34] It requires the enlightened dictatorship of sadvipras.[35] In short, PROUT advocates economic democracy (economic decentralization and political centralization) and not political democracy (political decentralization and economic centralization).


In keeping with its organic view of society, PROUT notes that civilizations come and go, live and die. For example, the ancient Egyptian civilization that constructed pyramids is gone. Though the country is the same, the society is different.[36]

According to PROUT, there are six factors on which the development of any society depends:[37]

  • Spiritual ideology
  • Spiritual practice
  • Socioeconomic theory
  • Social outlook
  • Scriptures
  • Preceptor

In addition to this, PROUT considers the welfare of the individual and the welfare of society to be an inalienable concomitance. In other words, individual welfare depends on the welfare of society, and social welfare depends on the welfare of the individuals. Hence, the third fundamental principle of PROUT calls for the all-round development of both individual and collective potential (physical, mental, and spiritual).


The 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's invisible hand[38] and Karl Marx's according to contribution or according to need[39]). To implement such an economy, PROUT analyzes economics in respect to four dimensions: people's economy, psycho-economy, commercial economy, and general economy. Regarding these four dimensions of economics, Sarkar states:

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.[40]

People's economy

People's economy covers all aspects related to the production and distribution of the minimum requirements (not just the minimum requirements of life but rather the minimum requirements according to era. According to PROUT, the first requirement of any economy is to guarantee these minimum requirements to all and to ensure that the standard of minimum requirements goes on increasing. In addition, people's economy comprises the following areas:[40]

  • Employment for all
  • Eradication of mass poverty
  • Development of rural economy
  • Phase-wise socialization of land into the hands of those who work physically or intellectually for production
  • Practical training programs to impart skills that help people find employment in their immediate urban or rural locality
  • Work placement
  • Transportation, trans-shipment, loading, and unloading of materials
  • Generation of cheap power and the supply of water
  • Economic decentralization
  • Encouragement of cooperative spirit (dynamism)
  • Block-level planning


PROUT notes a great distinction between material property and intellectual property. Unlike material property, intellectual property has a highly elastic quality. That is to say, possession of intellectual property does not inherently prevent anyone else from possessing the same property. In contrast, physical wealth has no such elasticity. Possession of material property automatically tends to restrict the access of everyone else to that property. If one person has a particular MP3 file on her/his computer, others could also have that same MP3 file on their computer; however, if one person has a loaf of bread in her/his kitchen, others could not have that same loaf of bread in their kitchen. Hence, PROUT seeks to divert human longings more toward psychic and spiritual wealth and less toward physical wealth. In the view of PROUT, this would help to ensure that no one's basic necessities are curtailed, and it would better satisfy everyone's thirst for freedom and progress.

Psycho-economy has two branches:

Commercial economy

The value of money increases with its mobility... The maxim, "Keep money rolling", is as true as the proverb, "Keep the wagons moving".[41]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Commercial economy is the application of scientific and efficient methods of production and distribution that do not incur loss but rather ensure that output exceeds input.[40] Under capitalism, this dimension of economics has been developed somewhat, but the primary goal in respect to production is profit rather than consumption (as in PROUT). So, for example, under capitalism, outsourcing of labor to a cheaper locality and the diversion of raw materials from an underdeveloped country are both acceptable, if not desirable, commercial economy. Under PROUT, neither would be acceptable.

Under PROUT, efficiency in respect to production and distribution is enhanced by judicious allocation of amenities. Another way in which efficiency would be enhanced is by restricting hiring in respect to floating populations.[42]

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.[nb 3] PROUT insists that the banking system be carefully regulated. The establishment of local banking cooperatives can also help to reduce risks.[43]

With respect to monetary policy, a PROUT-based economy would prohibit the issuance of currency that does not have a proportionate amount of reserved bullion (typically, gold). This would eliminate the possibility of crippling inflation and facilitate a genuine and recognizable increase in purchasing power.[41]

In principle, PROUT supports free trade as a means of enhancing distribution and reducing price manipulation.[44]

In principle, PROUT rejects speculative markets as exploitative.[44]

General economy

General economy consists of two parts:[40]

The overall position of PROUT in respect to general economy is consistent with the objectives of economic decentralization and regional self-sufficiency.

Industrial structure

PROUT extends the general concept of industry to include all aspects of the agricultural and service sectors as well, arguing that they too should be run in an efficient industrial fashion. Regarding the industrial structure, PROUT advocates a three-tiered approach:[45]

  • Key industries are those industries that are essential for the running of other industries (for example, mining of raw materials, supply of the electric power industry, the dairy industry, and the postal system). As these industries are critical for the entire economy, they should be run on a break-even basis.[46] According to PROUT, such industries must be closely regulated by the State for the welfare of the entire society. In other words, they must never be privatized, as this would jeopardize the entire economy. To offset some of the inefficiency of government control and to promote decentralization, PROUT would assign the managerial role for key industries to local government. Typically, key industries tend to be very large-scale. However, in some special cases, a key industry or a portion of it might be conveniently run as a medium-to-large-scale cooperative or even a small-scale enterprise. If so, PROUT would still insist that those operations be carefully regulated by local government.[47]
  • Medium- and large-scale industries that are not key industries should be run as cooperatives.[40] Regarding agriculture (the land and the harvest), as opposed to agrico-industry (industries that supply pre-harvesting and harvesting requirements) and agro-industry (post-harvesting industries dependent on agricultural production), PROUT asserts that cooperatives are the best way to rationalize the agricultural sector. Cooperatives give scope for efficient utilization of land and, at the same time, ensure economic security to all farmers. Taking into account the powerful sentiment of farmers for their land, PROUT would initiate farmers' cooperatives with a four-phase approach. The transitional period will give everyone the opportunity to adjust with the new system on seeing the individual and collective benefits that accrue.[48]
  • 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. Small-scale enterprises would include cottage industries. Though such businesses may be privately run, PROUT would require that they maintain an adjustment with the cooperative sector to ensure a balanced economy.[46]

Economic planning

PROUT would organize nations and ultimately the entire world on the basis of self-sufficient economic zones, based purely on socioeconomic and geographical considerations rather than political considerations (as is currently common).[49] 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.[50]

Under PROUT, economic planning would take into account four main concerns:

Most block-level planning would be intra-block (concerned with a single block). However, occasionally, inter-block planning will also be required. Inter-block planning would apply only in selected economic areas where the coordination and cooperation of two or more blocks (usually contiguous) should prove mutually beneficial.


Educated are those who have learned much, remembered much, and made use of their knowledge in practical life. These virtues I call "education".[51]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Sarkar had much to say on the subject of education. He also founded the Ananda Marga system of education, currently employed around the world by over a thousand schools, from kindergarten through university. However, with respect to PROUT, the concern is primarily that the best possible education should be available to all. Hence, PROUT has a number of policies relating to education.[52] For example:

  • The salary of teachers on all levels, especially the lower levels, should be increased in order to attract and retain the highest standard of personnel.
  • Government must fund public education but should have no role in determining the curriculum. All matters directly pertaining to education should be controlled by the educationists themselves. (For that purpose, boards may be elected.)
  • Teachers must maintain an exemplary moral standard, because students are not just influenced by their words but also by their actions. Teachers who fail to maintain such a standard should be dismissed.


PROUT does not consider literacy to be a prerequisite for recognizing anyone as educated. An illiterate farmer might know more about the quality of soil than a university graduate. However, Sarkar asserts that literacy assists the learning process and facilitates remembering what has been learned. Therefore, PROUT promotes programs to achieve 100% literacy. PROUT would also require literacy as a precondition for acquiring the franchise to vote in a political democracy.[53]


In order to develop a healthy outlook, the most important thing children need is robust idealism. To impart this, parents require only two virtues: self-restraint and good judgement.[54]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

PROUT takes into account the vital role of parents and guardians in respect to education. Children receive their first lessons about the world from their parents or guardians. As such, the habits and views of parents and guardians often leave an indelible imprint on the impressionable minds of their children. So, with respect to moral education, PROUT assigns primary responsibility to the parents and guardians. Should they prove unfit to carry out that duty, then teachers and other well-wishers of society will have to come forward to shoulder the responsibility.[55]

Artists and writers

Education is not confined only to the informal process inside the home and the formal process inside schools. Artists and writers – those who produce, present, or perform works before the general public – also play a major role in molding the minds of not just children but also adults. When their work is uplifting, society benefits greatly. Such persons often do not have a mind for worldly matters (for example, organizing a show or keeping the books). Hence, PROUT would free them from worldly worries so that they may focus their attention in their area of expertise.[56] However, nowadays, such persons are well-assimilated into society. Their day-to-day lives are often scrutinized and publicized. Hence, they should maintain a very high moral standard. Otherwise, their influence tends to be harmful to society. PROUT would restrict the right to perform of any artist, regardless of expertise, who fails to maintain at least a basic level of personal purity.[57]

Politicians and other celebrities

As with artists and writers, the example set by politicians and other celebrities inevitably impacts society. Hence, they too have a large role to play in respect to education. Accordingly, the policy of PROUT in respect to politicians and other celebrities is similar to that relating to artists and writers. PROUT considers basic morality to be a prerequisite for maintaining a prestigious position in the public eye.[58]

Consciousness raising

According to PROUT, educating human beings about their rights – social, economic, mental, and spiritual – expands knowledge; and the full application of those rights refines science.[59] Hence, in respect to education, PROUT avidly encourages consciousness raising and rejects any discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or ethnicity.

Free trade

Free trade is an economic system in which there is no imposition of import or export duties.

PROUT supports free trade for all socioeconomic zones where self-sufficiency has been attained.[60] This would facilitate increased prosperity by driving down prices for consumers and by offsetting any local problems resulting from temporary overproduction or underproduction. It would also tend to limit the scope for artificial shortages created by opportunists.[61] In any socioeconomic zone where self-sufficiency has not yet been attained, some temporary protectionist measures might be required to ensure the well-being of the local population.

In short, PROUT endorses free trade throughout the world as far as benevolently possible.[62]


PROUT deems the study of history to be overly concerned with specific dates, events, prominent people, and vested interests. PROUT would prefer that history focus primarily on the way in which humanity has progressed and is still progressing through collective struggle to overcome obstacles.[63] As Sarkar states:

The annals of human history should show which communities brought about which amount of progress and prosperity in which area of social life and in which part of the world – only such significant events are worthy of being recorded. History should also maintain special records of the trials and tribulations which confronted human beings, how those trials and tribulations were overcome, how human beings tackled the numerous obstacles to effect greater social development, and so on.[64]

Ideal society

According to PROUT, an ideal society is one that has a sufficient quantity of sadvipras to rotate the social cycle as and when needed, and to curb abuse of power and injustice in any era. PROUT labels such a state as sadvipra samaja (Samskrta for "sadvipra society"). In such a state, PROUT envisions society as a blissful, universal family.

Income tax

In a proutistic economy, there would be no need for or benefit from an income tax. Any taxation that might be required would be levied at the starting point of production or local distribution.[27]


I am personally of the opinion that since flaws will always unavoidably remain, no matter how good the judicial system, it is not the intent of nature for one human being to penalize another.[28]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

According to Sarkar, the underlying spirit of justice is the mental effort to ascertain truth. Whatever human beings collectively deem to be the truth in this relative world or in society is justice. In the attempt to administer justice, human intellect comes to grips with the struggle between progressive and regressive forces, between good and evil, and seeks the righteous course of action. According to PROUT, justice begins with the judicial process and is completed with the implementation of appropriate corrective measures.[28]

Some people are of the opinion that no human being has a right to sit in judgement on another human being, and that point of view no doubt has some merit. But PROUT also considers it a fundamental human right of everyone to correct the shortcomings of others with whom they come in contact. Indeed, in the view of PROUT, the health of society depends on the recognition of this right. Logically, corrective measures may only take place after a judicial process. Therefore, the judicial process is a practical necessity. In other words, failure to engage in a judicial process would also be injustice. Not only that, it would leave society at the mercy of any oppressive government that may happen to come into power.

Judicial system

Sarkar asserts that the main difference between administrative system and judicial system is that the judicial system does not require the same strict discipline as the administrative system.[28] On the contrary, the judicial system should give a higher priority to rationality, tolerance, and benevolence. As such, often it is seen that judges will temper the legislation of an administration on the base of humane reasoning. The verdicts of a judge should prove more acceptable to the citizens of a state than the general pronouncements of any administration. If that does not happen, then the judge is failing in her/his duty.

PROUT would enhance the power of judges by giving them the right to employ the service of detectives and by entrusting judges with the final authority in all trials, including jury trials. If the judge and the jury come to a different conclusion in a case, then the decision of the judge would take precedence. However, if during the course of a trial, the jury suspects that the judge is not impartial, the jury would have the right to refer the entire proceedings to a higher judicial authority. That would have to occur before the judge delivers her/his verdict. If the higher judicial authority shares the opinion of the jury, the judge should be discharged.

Naturally, in this system, judges would have to be of a very high caliber. Not only must they know the law, but they must also have a great power of discernment. Most important of all, they must maintain an exemplary moral standard.

Correctional system

Does not capital punishment amount to cutting off the head to get rid of a headache?[28]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Even with the best of judges and the best of juries, it cannot be guaranteed that the verdict in every case will be correct. Hence, to offset possible injustice, the correctional system must be very humane.

According to PROUT, prisons should not be for the purpose of punishment but rather for the purpose of rehabilitation. Doctors quarantine patients with infectious diseases to protect the healthy while trying to effect a cure. So also the correctional system necessarily isolates criminals to protect the rest of society. But the main purpose of the correctional system should be to rehabilitate the prisoners.

PROUT rejects the principle of lex talionis (the law of retaliation, an eye for an eye). In the view of PROUT, a human society that behaves in such fashion stoops to the same level as that of the criminals. According to PROUT, a civilized society must endeavor to cure criminals of their ailments. The manner of the cure would therefore depend not only on the severity of the crime but also (and, in some cases, even more) on the nature of the criminal.[28]


Law maintains social integrity. Without it, society, to the extent that it survives, is reduced to tyranny.[65] Without law, not just our social existence but also our social identity is in jeopardy.[66] And fundamental to law is the notion of property rights. This applies regardless of whether a society is capitalist[67] or communist.[68]

In PROUT, the first fundamental principle is the primary guideline in respect to law and the practical foundation on which the other four principles are constructed. However, the manner in which the first fundamental principle is implemented – the nuances in respect to social justice – are determined by the theoretical impact of the higher four principles.


In respect to civil liberties, PROUT operates on the principle of live and let live. PROUT seeks a happy blending of individual freedom and collective interest. In other words, everyone should have full freedom to develop their lives physically, mentally, and spiritually as long as their actions do not hamper the efforts of others or the collectivity in any respect.[69]

In practice, what this means is that, depending on circumstances, there might be considerable restriction of liberties on the physical plane. But on the mental plane and spiritual plane, there would be far greater freedom. The extent of limitation would be based on a broad understanding of virtue and vice. In the view of PROUT, that which helps society and accelerates the collective progress is virtue; and that which goes against the collective interest is vice.[15]

Minimum requirements

PROUT conceives of two types of minimum requirements: minimum requirements of life and minimum requirements according to era. PROUT would furnish both sets of minimum requirements by ensuring (1) their easy availability in sufficient quantity and (2) adequate and ever-increasing purchasing power of all people. This all comes under the jurisdiction of people's economy in the quadridimensional system of economics put forth by PROUT.[40]

Minimum requirements of life

According to PROUT, there are five minimum requirements of life for human beings: food, clothing, accommodation, basic education, and medical care. Provision of these minimum requirements of life are not just deemed to be desirable but rather a moral obligation of human society. Though no two beings are exactly the same, all human beings have an equal right to live in a healthy body and with a sound mind. For that, the very least that they require are these five items.[70]

Minimum requirements according to era

Human longings are unlimited. What is considered to be an amenity today may be viewed as a minimum requirement tomorrow. For example, consider cellphones. This is a relatively new technology. The first patent to be taken out on a handheld cellphone was in October 1973.[71] As of 2014, barely 40 years later, there were almost 7 billion mobile phone subscriptions, equivalent to 95.5% of the global population.[72] In other words, cellphones have even penetrated the 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. Rather, human society is obliged to provide everyone with whatever may constitute the minimum requirements according to era.[73]


Yama (Restraint)
Ahim'sa' (Benignity) Thinking, speaking, and acting without inflicting pain or harm on another
Satya (Benevolence) Thinking and speaking with goodwill
Not taking or keeping what belongs to others
Brahmacarya (Ideation) Constant mental association with the Supreme
Aparigraha (Frugality) Non-indulgence in superfluous amenities
Niyama (Regulation)
Shaoca (Cleanliness) Physical and mental purity, both internal and external
Santos'a (Contentment) Maintaining a state of mental ease
Acceptance of sufferings to reach the spiritual goal
Sva'dhya'ya (Contemplation) Clear understanding of any spiritual subject
Iishvara Pran'idha'na (Dedication) Adopting the Cosmic Controller as the only ideal of life and moving with ever-accelerating speed toward that Desideratum
Intent is primary, but both intent and action should conform if possible.

The importance of morality in respect to PROUT is paramount. As Sarkar states:

Remember, humanity's very existence is based on morality; when morality leads human beings to the fullest expression of their finer human qualities, then alone is its practical value fully realized. The concerted effort to bridge the gap between the first expressions of moralism and establishment in universal humanism is called "social progress". And the collective body of those who are engaged in the concerted effort to conquer this gap, I call "society".[74]

PROUT distinguishes between moralism and morality along philosophical lines. As PROUT uses the term, moralism corresponds to a natural inclination of human beings to differentiate between right and wrong – an intuitional ethics. Such moralism, whether secular or religious, tends to be somewhat contradictory and impractical. Secular ethics is often hard to pin down due to varying interpretations and a tendency of many or most of the interpretations toward relativism. On the other hand, religious ethics is often buried in dogma and hence no easier to pin down than secular ethics.

In contrast, PROUT deems morality to be a set of ten fixed principles with an innate spiritual quality. Those principles are the yogic code of yama and niyama. These principles are elucidated by Sarkar in A Guide to Human Conduct.[75][nb 4] In that book, he presents the purpose of yogic morality as two-fold:

  • It gives practitioners the inspiration and strength to become ideal human beings.
  • It makes good citizens.


Violence is commonly defined as any intentional threat or use of physical force that is likely to injure others.[76] Nonviolence is considered to be the abstention from violence as part of one's process of moral conduct or social protest.

PROUT insists that the notion of nonviolence as a moral or social imperative is not just wrong but hypocritical.[77] PROUT holds that those who would establish sentient peace can never achieve that end through nonviolence.[78]

To be clear, PROUT does not consider violence to be a solution to any social problem. Rather, violence tends to beget more violence, and in that respect violence is itself a social problem. However, violence (either physical or intellectual) is often required to create temporary circumstantial pressure that enables the implementation of solutions to social injustices or socioeconomic problems. According to Sarkar, all of the solutions – proutistic, neohumanistic, or otherwise – should be inspired by and consonant with universal love.[79]


According to PROUT, in social life, absolute peace is not possible due to the constantly evolving nature of the universe, which involves a continual clash between sentient and static forces. Hence, the PROUT concept of peace is relative in nature. In other words, it is not self-sustaining.

PROUT recognizes two types of social peace: sentient peace and static peace. With sentient peace, society enjoys an ongoing condition of progress. In such a state, people generally feel that their standard of living and quality of life are both improving. With static peace, the opposite is the case. In such a state, people generally feel a sense of ongoing stagnation or degradation in respect to their standard of living and quality of life. In the view of PROUT, static peace is undesirable.[nb 5] Only sentient peace is worthy to be maintained. Hence, Sarkar encourages those who want sentient peace to acquire the requisite strength to implement it.[81]


Pramá is a concept introduced by Sarkar in 1987. It means "dynamic equilibrium and equipoise". Pramá offers an advanced system of decision making in which a well-balanced adjustment among all of the utilizations may be determined (consonant with the fourth fundamental principle of PROUT). To apply pramá, one must identify triangles of forces associated with the situation under analysis.[82]

Property rights

The nature of property rights is fundamental to legal systems. It is also a major distinguishing factor between capitalism and communism. Where capitalism upholds a right to private property,[83] communism would abolish such a right.[nb 6] 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 Dáyabhága system of inheritance in Bengal.[86] PROUT extends this system by viewing the entire universe as the property of a cosmic Creator. Accordingly, the created beings (children of a living cosmic parent) cannot own anything – they can only utilize things, individually and collectively.[nb 7] PROUT asserts that the extent of any usufruct should be determined by 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".[88]


According to PROUT, there are two styles of revolution.

Many forms of social change commonly pass for revolution. In the sphere of politics, two types of change that are often described as revolution are:

  • Palatial change (sometimes called a palace coup or coup d'état)
  • Pyramidal change (sometimes called a people's revolution or a bureaucratic reshuffle)

In both of these two types of change, the condition of the common people remains largely the same. In the former case, palatial change, the shift is only at the top level of government. In the latter case, the shift is mainly in respect to middle-level management. In the former case, power is often captured through an extralegal process. In the latter case, power is often captured through a democratic process. As neither of these types of change tend to bring much improvement in the standard of living of the common people (the masses), PROUT does not view them as progressive or even revolutionary.

According to PROUT, only an event that brings comprehensive change to society merits the appellation of revolution. In PROUT literature, such a revolution is sometimes referred to as nuclear revolution.[89]

The formal definition of revolution in PROUT is found in Sutra 5:4 of Ananda Sutram. Tiivrashaktisampátena gativardhanam viplavah. [Accelerating the movement of the social cycle by the application of tremendous force is called "revolution".] A reverse event – an event that reverts society to a preceding social era – is referred to as counter-revolution. If the change takes place with less force or over a longer span of time, then PROUT calls that evolution. Its reverse event is called counter-evolution.

According to PROUT, there are only two types of revolution from a practical perspective: physical revolution and intellectual revolution (or democratic revolution). Although Sarkar sets out the three stages of intellectual revolution, he dismisses this type of revolution as possible in theory only.[15] Elsewhere Sarkar also sets out the seven stages of physical revolution, but that book – or that portion of the book – is currently out of print.[90]


Unskilled LaborersProducers (Capitalists)WarriorsIntellectualsSadviprasClick here to enlarge the image. Click a circle to read more on the topic
PROUT would have sadvipras managing the social cycle. (Click a circle to read more on the topic.)

PROUT defines sadvipras as those spiritual revolutionaries who, while strictly adhering to the principles of morality, work relentlessly and systematically to achieve progressive changes for human elevation.[91] Sadvipras are not a social class – neither economically nor socially. They come from all walks of life and all backgrounds. Sadvipras are not appointed. Rather, they are recognized by their "exemplary conduct, selfless service, dutifulness, and moral integrity".[92]

Sadvipras serve two main roles in relation to the social cycle:[93]

  • When an era decays to a state of rapacious exploitation by the dominant sociopsychic class, the sadvipras apply requisite force to rotate the social cycle to a subsequent era, typically the next era.
  • When a particular administration in any era becomes corrupt, the sadvipras apply requisite force to replace the persons in power.[nb 8] So, for example, if a particular administration in an early capitalist era becomes exploitative, the sadvipras might contest elections to replace that administration.[95]

In the literature of PROUT, especially when critiquing the drawbacks of political democracy, there is often mention of dictatorship of sadvipras. However, PROUT has a qualified concept of such dictatorship. As individual dictatorship is extremely risky, PROUT rejects it on principle.[96] Instead, the dictatorship of sadvipras would take the form of a benevolent oligarchy. In an ideal society, there would be a sufficient number of sadvipras to manage collective affairs through various boards, both governmental and non-governmental, operating hierarchically in all key areas (arts, education, justice, economics, and so on). The trias politica principle would apply by having separate boards for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. There would also be a supreme board of sadvipras, having the dual role of prescribing top-level policy and supervising the activities of all lower-level boards.[92] In this system, board membership would be selecto-electional. In the synthetic portion (boards that ratify policy), membership would be electional. In the analytic portion (boards that execute official policy), membership would be selectional.[97]

Science and technology

Science should always be cultivated with a sentient motive. The collective welfare of living beings will remain a distant dream unless science and worldly power are fully controlled by sentient people.[98]
Shrii Shrii Anandamurti

The stand of PROUT on science and technology is highly supportive. Sarkar asserts that progress is not consistent with the use of outdated technology. He insists that society must overcome all obstacles, big or small, that arise from adopting progressive ideas and modern technology.[99] So, for example, in respect to industry and agriculture, PROUT endorses utilization of the latest technology. Under PROUT, such type of rationalization would not increase unemployment. Rather, full employment would be sustained by reducing working hours commensurate with the increased output resulting from the introduction of more efficient methods and means of production.[27]

The stand of PROUT in relation to science and technology is comprehensive. According to PROUT, no dogma or superstition should stand in the way of humanity's individual and collective, physical, mental, and spiritual advancement.[100]


If you want someone to be respected, you will have to provide her or him with these three things simultaneously: recognition, economic self-sufficiency, education.[101]
Shrii Shrii Anandamurti

Neohumanism asserts that all exploitation is based on psychic exploitation. The exploited are made to feel dependent upon the exploiters. PROUT maintains a similar perspective, and therefore PROUT encourages self-reliance. Self-reliance is only secure when self-sufficiency has been achieved. Hence, the policy of PROUT is to materialize self-sufficiency in each socioeconomic zone and to foster at least self-reliance at the block level (the lowest level of developmental planning) within socioeconomic zones.[27]

PROUT advocates the launching of social movements throughout the world for the purpose of establishing self-sufficient socioeconomic zones. According to Sarkar, the maxim of those movements should be: Know the area, prepare the plan, and serve the people. In other words, each socioeconomic zone should craft and implement its own developmental programs, based on factors like natural resources, topography, river systems, cultural conditions, communications, and industrial potential.[102]

According to PROUT, if a significant part of the production of a socioeconomic zone is misutilized or if the capital of a socioeconomic zone is exported, the zone cannot prosper. Therefore, there should be maximum utilization of all resources and no drainage of capital.[103]

Social cycle

PROUT concept of a rotating social cycle with alternating domination of sociopsychic classes

The PROUT concept of social motivity is cyclic. According to PROUT, society is always dominated by a sociopsychic class, and that sociopsychic class eventually gets replaced by another sociopsychic class. In a normal rotation of the social cycle, society moves from a proletariat era (dominated by mass psychology) to a warrior era to an intellectual era to a capitalist era. At the end of the capitalist era there is a proletariat revolution (led by a lumpen proletariat consisting of persons with warrior or intellectual psychology forced to work as ordinary laborers). After this revolution, the second rotation of the social cycle begins with a brief period of chaotic anarchy that is soon brought under control when the warriors who led the revolution take power, and the second warrior era begins. In this scheme, there is also scope for backward movement through counter-evolution and counter-revolution, but those phases are generally short-lived.[104]

This theory of four classes has a superficial similarity to the Hindu caste system of varnashrama. The Samskrta terminology that Sarkar uses to describe the rotation of the social cycle is almost the same. However, instead of treating the four varnas (literally colors) as castes (derived from religious dogma found in the Rigveda), Sarkar treats the varnas as sociopsychic classes.

  • Shudras (unskilled laborers, the masses) have a bread-and-butter psychology. They tend to work only at the behest of others. Their mental color is blackish.
  • Ksatriyas (warriors) like to fight in the physical sphere. They are adventurers, tending to prefer occupations like the military, the police, sports, and so on. Their mental color is red.
  • Vipras (intellectuals) like to struggle in the mental sphere. They become scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and so on. Their mental color is milky white.
  • Vaeshyas (capitalists) like to produce goods and services. They become businessmen, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, agriculturalists, and so on. Their mental color is yellowish.[nb 9]

Again, the four varnas (classes) that PROUT deems to alternately dominate the social cycle are not merely physical occupations. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to assume that just because a soldier happens to be the political leader of a nation, that nation is necessarily undergoing a warrior era. These varnas represent a sociopsychic state, a condition of the collective mentality. Perhaps the easiest way to determine the current varna is to infer it from contemporary cultural expressions like the style of parades, music, art, sculpture, and architecture. For example, in an era dominated by warrior mentality, public celebrations are likely to feature a military parade, sometimes displaying newly developed weaponry. In an era dominated by intellectual mentality, public celebrations are likely to feature artistic expressions of a high caliber (for example, an uplifting dramatic presentation or a concert of classical music). In an era dominated by capitalist mentality, public celebrations are likely to feature more worldly enjoyments (for example, popular music, new technology, and fireworks). There are other tell-tale signs of the social mentality. For example, a society that is highly regimented is likely to be undergoing a warrior era.

Social justice

No one, through their thoughts, words or actions, should ever condone injustice... Although I have said this before, I will say it again: seventy-five per cent of the evils in society are the result of the injustices that people commit against each other.[107]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

In other social systems (notably capitalism and communism), vested interests have thwarted the establishment of a fully egalitarian society. PROUT would remedy that situation by giving no scope for the harmful influence of selfishness. According to PROUT, there should be no discrimination, no favoritism, in respect to rights except in so far as it is necessary to inspire some people to undertake activities that would directly benefit society or as a temporary reward for distinguished service.[108]

PROUT would educate all people regarding their rights in every sphere of life and simultaneously encourage everyone to fully exercise those rights. Per the third fundamental principle of PROUT, everyone should get maximum opportunity for development.

According to PROUT, every individual has a birthright (for humans, also known as a human right) to share in all of the world's resources. However, PROUT observes that no two entities of this universe are identical.[109] Hence, PROUT makes no attempt to cast everyone or everything in the same mold. So, for example, with respect to distributive justice, PROUT would implement an equitable distribution, not an equal distribution. After ensuring an equal provision of the minimum requirements to all, PROUT would promote an unrelenting effort to continually reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the underprivileged, through a judicious allocation of amenities. With this dynamic, PROUT expects to continually raise the standard of living for everyone.

PROUT does not neglect or spurn anyone. Even the most rapacious exploiters – even the 1% – are included within the universal family envisioned by PROUT. According to PROUT, human society must go forward unitedly along the path of welfare, helping everyone to be a good citizen and an ideal human being. Treating anyone as an outcast or harboring feelings of revenge would, in the vision of PROUT, only hamper the path of progress.

Social vitality

According to PROUT, the best indicator of the vitality of a society is the rate of increase in the minimum standard of living of the people.[3] Regarding the rate of increase, PROUT seeks not just a constant increase but rather an ever-accelerating increase.[110]


In the interest of living beings as a whole, capitalism must come to an end.[111]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Sarkar defines society as follows:

Samánam ejati iti samájah.

"Society is the collective movement of a group of individuals who have made a unanimous decision to move together towards a common goal."

When the members of a society come to a unanimous decision, "We'll move together, we'll live together in good times or bad," then their collective movement is known as 'samaj' or society. Some may have moved far ahead; some may have lagged behind. Some may be unable to walk due to pain in their legs. Some may have fallen on their faces. Those who do not even care to look after their companions trailing behind them are not worthy to be called members of society. The proper thing is for all members of the society to move in unison; and while moving together, each member should feel a responsibility for every other member of society. Those who are unable to move must be carried so that the rhythm of the collective movement remains unbroken.[112]

Generally speaking, PROUT views society in a similar way to neohumanism. In other words, PROUT uses the term society in an inclusive fashion, not just of human beings but of all living beings. When considering only the human race, PROUT commonly terms that as human society. As with neohumanism, the perspective of PROUT on society is of an integral being that is synergistic in that it is more than the sum of its parts. From the perspective of PROUT, every society has a collective body, mind, and spiritual bearing.[113][nb 10]

Socioeconomic zones

To materialize economic decentralization, PROUT advocates the formation of socioeconomic zones (or units) throughout the world. These zones would be determined on the basis of factors like common economic problems, common economic potentialities, common geographical features, ethnic similarities, and sentimental legacy (arising from sociocultural ties like language, history, and cultural expressions).[27]

Each socioeconomic zone would plan its own economy, which would also be decentralized. The lowest level on which economic planning would take place is termed as a block.

In the vision of PROUT, eventually the entire planet would become a single socioeconomic zone. PROUT encourages a natural expansion of socioeconomic zones on the basis of four factors:

  • Cultural blending
  • Administrative efficiency
  • Scientific advancement (especially in respect to transport and communications)
  • Economic parity


PROUT considers provision of the minimum requirements of life to be a basic right of all citizens and the paramount obligation of society. This end may best be achieved through guaranteed employment (as opposed to welfare handouts). Hence, consonant with the objectives of economic decentralization and self-sufficiency, PROUT seeks 100% employment for the local people (and not the somewhat lower standard of full employment).

PROUT defines local people as those who have merged their individual socioeconomic interests with the socioeconomic interests of the socioeconomic zone where they live. Here, there is no consideration of race, creed, sex, language, birthplace, and so on. The only concern is identification with the socioeconomic zone. Those who earn their livelihood in one socioeconomic zone but regularly spend their earnings in another socioeconomic zone would be deemed outsiders, non-local people; because such conduct is contrary to the interests of the socioeconomic zone in which they are employed. It undermines the economic development of the zone by draining capital from it. Accordingly, PROUT would give preference to local people over outsiders in respect to job opportunities.[115]

Surplus labor generally indicates underdevelopment in the region.[116] Therefore, to overcome unemployment, PROUT would adopt both a short- and a long-term approach:[117]

  1. In the short-term, PROUT would develop new or preexisting labor-intensive industries, especially those producing essential commodities.
  2. In the long term, PROUT would also develop capital-intensive industries to augment the productive capacity of the socioeconomic zone.

This developmental program would remain the top economic priority until 100% employment of local people is achieved. After achieving that objective, PROUT would avoid taking up fresh developmental programs until there is a renewed or additional demand for labor.[118]

Women's rights

Main article: Women's rights

The difference in natural and biological characteristics between men and women speaks only of coordinated cooperation, not of subordinated cooperation... Let women be the vanguard of a new revolution which humanity must achieve for a glorious tomorrow.[119]
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Sarkar observes that in every sphere of life, men have either restricted the rights of women or made the exercise of those rights subject to men's whims. According to Sarkar, this bias is not innate to human beings. Primitive humans did not behave like this nor is such conduct so blatant in the more primitive societies of the modern world. Rather, this is a condition that has evolved over history, beginning with a voluntary ceding of rights to men by women and a gradually increasing abuse of those rights by men. Today, with women repudiating this arrangement, Sarkar argues that it is not up to men to grant women's rights but rather to recognize women's rights.[120]

PROUT rejects all superstition and dogma in respect to women's rights. To terminate the physical and psychic exploitation of women, PROUT advocates:[119]

  • Free education for all women in all countries of the world
  • No discrimination in the social, educational, and religious spheres
  • Provision of economic and social security to all women

World government

With advances in technology, especially communications, there is a sense that the world is shrinking. Today, after witnessing two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, it is clear to many that all nations are interconnected. Hence, the spirit of internationalism emerged and took practical shape in the form of the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations. PROUT, however, does not support internationalism. PROUT insists on universalism. Consonant with that stand, PROUT seeks the formation of a world government.[121]

According to Sarkar, the main obstacle in the formation of a world government is not popular skepticism or divergent national interests. Rather, the main obstacle is the vested interest of national leaders, who fear a consequent loss of power. Nevertheless, to allay fears in the minds of the people, PROUT proposes a gradual implementation of the world government with a two-house system to continue for an indefinite period. The lower house would be elected on the basis of population, and the upper house would be elected country-wise. The lower house would propose legislation, and the upper house would have to ratify it.

  1. In the first phase of implementation, the world government would have only legislative power. In a corresponding fashion, the national governments would lose some of their legislative power, leaving them only the administrative power to implement the laws framed by the world government. This should restrict the ability of some despotic governments to inflict atrocities on linguistic, religious, or political minorities.
  2. In the second phase of implementation, the world government would assume administrative power. With the absorption of national armies into a global army or global police force, armed and prolonged national conflicts would no longer be feasible. Global peace and prosperity would be better assured.

Global language and script

Although PROUT deems all languages worthy of equal respect, still a global lingua franca is required for the sake of better communications. Currently, English is the global language, but in future that may change. In the view of PROUT, the language that is most widely spoken in the world should be accepted as the global language.

With respect to education, the global language should be taught in all primary and secondary schools as a compulsory second language (after the local language). As far as possible, higher education should be imparted exclusively in the global language.[122]

Though somewhat less important, a global script is also advocated by PROUT. According to Sarkar, Latin script is currently the most scientific, and therefore it should be adopted. That script may or may not be used in connection with local languages, depending on the will of the people; but everyone should be encouraged to learn the global script. To facilitate that, the global language should be taught using the global script.[123]


Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar established an organization known as Proutist Universal, specifically for the promotion of PROUT ideals. Among the activities of Proutist Universal are the publication of news and views (through various media) and the establishment of five federations:

Along with Proutist Universal, Sarkar established Girls' PROUT (GP) or Women Proutists (WP), an organization composed of women and run by women.

In various parts of the world, local social movements inspired by PROUT have evolved (for example, Amra Bangali). And around the world, proutists support new and preexisting movements that are consonant with the ideals of PROUT, for example, movements for economic democracy.


In a recent book,[124] Helen Crovetto asserts that there is a "dramatic" number of correlations between Ananda Marga and Mark Juergensmeyer's "description of religious groups inclined toward terrorism". After considerable analysis, Crovetto concludes that it is probably more appropriate to describe the followers of Sarkar as revolutionary rather than terrorist. As such, Crovetto classifies them as "revolutionary sociospiritual utopians".

See also



  1. ^ The wording of the principles that appears in Idea and Ideology is:
    1. No individual should be allowed to accumulate any physical wealth without the clear permission or approval of the collective body.
    2. There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of all mundane, supramundane and spiritual potentialities of the universe.
    3. There should be maximum utilization of physical, metaphysical and spiritual potentialities of unit and collective bodies of human society.
    4. There should be a proper adjustment amongst these physical, metaphysical, mundane, supramundane and spiritual utilizations.
    5. The method of utilization should vary in accordance with changes in time, space and person, and the utilization should be of progressive nature.
    As Ananda Sutram has never been published with an actual English translation of the five aphorisms corresponding to the fundamental principles of PROUT, the earlier version is often employed.
  2. ^ The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits state or federal restrictions on voting "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude", was enacted only in 1870. The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits state or federal restrictions on voting "on account of sex", was enacted only in 1920.
  3. ^ Some recent examples of this problem are the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s and 1990s, the subprime mortgage crisis in the 2000s, and, most recently, the Libor scandal of 2012.
  4. ^ In A Guide to Human Conduct, Sarkar asserts that the modern definition of ahiḿsá as nonviolence is a distortion. According to Sarkar, resisting an aggressor (in Samskrta, átatáyii) is not just a right but even an obligation. Had it not been so, Sarkar observes, Krśńa would not have insisted that the Pandavas take up arms against the Kaoravas. Also in A Guide to Human Conduct, Sarkar defines brahmacarya as "remaining attached to Brahma (the Supreme Entity)". This is in contrast to the common interpretation of the principle as preservation of semen or celibacy. Sarkar points out that neither the word Brahma nor the word carya (a mode of moving) has any relation to semen. Sarkar suggests that this distortion might have been introduced by monks who sought to create a complex in the minds of householders.
  5. ^ According to Sarkar, there are three causes of sin (here meaning that which hampers the progress of society). Those three causes are (1) shortage of physical or psychic sustenance (2) non-utilization of over-accumulated physical or psychic sustenance (3) stagnancy in the physical or psychic sphere.[80] Static peace fosters all three adverse conditions.
  6. ^ Adam Smith considered it a sacred obligation of justice to protect private property.[84] In contrast, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that all private property must be abolished.[85]
  7. ^ Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels describe such a system as primitive communism[87] in that it is common to early 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.
  8. ^ As Sarkar observes, the shudra era is always short-lived. Unskilled laborers have no aptitude for or interest in managing society. Hence, the only role of sadvipras in a shudra era is to rotate the social cycle to a subsequent era, typically the ksatriya era.[94]
  9. ^ At least one prominent writer on the subject of the PROUT concept of social cycle[105] has interpreted the term vaeshya to mean acquisitor. This interpretation may have been derived from the glossary created by the editors of Sarkar's Human Society Part 2. In that glossary, the editors define vaeshya as "a person of acquisitive mentality, a member of the capitalist social class". However, the actual meaning of the Samskrta word vaeshya is not so much acquisitor as producer. Monier-Williams translates the Samskrta word (vaizya (HK1)) as "a man who settles on the soil, a peasant, or 'working man', agriculturist, man of the third class or caste (whose business was trade as well as agriculture)". Most commonly, the Samskrta word vaeshya is translated as homesteader or settler. Sarkar adheres to this same definition of vaeshya or the spirit thereof by using the term to refer to capitalists, meaning thereby producers and not acquisitors.[106]
  10. ^ Strictly speaking, PROUT also views the individual human as a collective being. It too is a synergistic composite of numerous cells.[114]


  1. ^ Craig, Edward, ed. (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Sociology of Knowledge to Zoroastrianism. Routledge (Taylor & Francis). ISBN 0-415-16916-X.
  2. ^ Pragatishiila upayogatattvamidaḿ sarvajanahitárthaḿ sarvajanasukhárthaḿ pracáritam. [This is the Progressive Utilization Theory, propounded for the happiness and all-round welfare of all.] Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ananda Sutram (last unnumbered sutra). Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  3. ^ a b Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ananda Sutram (Sutra 5:11). Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  4. ^ Abhidevananda, Acarya Avt. (1978). PROUT Primer. Amazon Digital Services, Inc. ASIN B005G2CWSK.
  5. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Theory and Practice" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 6. Ananda Marga Publications.
  6. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959–1967). Human Society Parts 1 and 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  7. ^ a b c Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Idea and Ideology. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81-7252-205-3.
  8. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  9. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1967). Human Society Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81-7252-129-4.
  10. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1982). The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81-7252-168-5.
  11. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan. "Pramá – 1 / Dynamic Equilibrium and Equipoise" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 8. Ananda Marga Publications.
  12. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan. PROUT in a Nutshell (series). Ananda Marga Publications.
  13. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  14. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Dialectical Materialism and Democracy" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 2. Ananda Marga Publication.
  15. ^ a b c Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Discourses on PROUT. Ananda Marga Publications.
  16. ^ The varńáshrama social system [four-caste system] did not originate in India. This weed crept into India from the north-west; and, sucking all the vital juice out of the verdurous expanse of people's minds, it threatened not only to destroy their minds, but to annihilate them totally. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1981). "Ráŕh – 3" published in Ráŕh: The Cradle of Civilization. Ananda Marga Publications.
  17. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ánanda Sútram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ a b Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Sutra 5:15 of Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  20. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Sutra 5:10 of Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  21. ^ a b Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1989). "Minimum Requirements and Maximum Amenities" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 17. Ananda Marga Publications.
  22. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "Principles of Balanced Economy – Excerpt A" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 3 Part 12. Ananda Marga Publications.
  23. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "Principles of Balanced Economy – Excerpt A" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 3 Part 12. Ananda Marga Publications.
  24. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1955). "The Base and the Relative Truth (Ádhára and Ápekśika Satya)" published in Subháśita Saḿgraha Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  25. ^ a b c Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1988). "Cooperatives" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 3 Part 14. Ananda Marga Publications.
  26. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Questions and Answers [on Society] – 4" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 18. Ananda Marga Publications.
  27. ^ a b c d e Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1979). "Some Specialities of PROUT's Economic System" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  29. ^ a b c Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "Economic Democracy", published PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 21. Ananda Marga Publications.
  30. ^ See, for example, Democracy at Work and Economic Democracy Conference
  31. ^ Lincoln, Abraham (1863). Gettysburg Address.
  32. ^ The capitalists like democracy as a system of government because in the democratic system they can easily purchase the shudra-minded shudras who constitute the majority. It is easy to sail through the elections by delivering high-sounding speeches. No difficulties arise if election promises are not kept later on, because the shudra-minded shudras quickly forget them. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1967). Human Society Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  33. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Dialectical Materialism and Democracy" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  34. ^ There cannot be a socialistic government under a democratic framework. Those who speak highly of socialism from a democratic platform befool the public. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Chapter 3 of Discourses on PROUT. Ananda Marga Publications.
  35. ^ But even if these three requirements for the success of democracy are met, the real welfare of the society is not possible by dialectical materialism or by democracy. The only solution is an enlightened, benevolent dictatorship – that is a morally and spiritually conscious dictatorship.Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Dialectical Materialism and Democracy" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1966). "The Future of Civilization" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 6. Ananda Marga Publications.
  38. ^ Adam Smith (1759), Section IV.1.10 of The Theory of Moral Sentimentsand Adam Smith (1776), Section IV.2.9 of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Library of Economics and Liberty.
  39. ^ Marx, Karl (1875). "Part I". Critique of the Gotha Program. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
  40. ^ a b c d e f Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "The Parts of the Economy" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 7. Ananda Marga Publications.
  41. ^ a b Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "Keep Money Rolling – Excerpt B" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 3 Part 12. Ananda Marga Publications.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Questions and Answers on Economics – Excerpt C" published in Proutist Economics. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–003–4.
  44. ^ a b Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1984). "Socioeconomic Movements" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  45. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1984). "Socio-Economic Movements" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  46. ^ a b Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1982). "Decentralized Economy – 1" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 21. Ananda Marga Publications.
  47. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1988). "Decentralized Economy – 2" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 16. Ananda Marga Publications.
  48. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1982). "Farmers Cooperatives" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 20. Ananda Marga Publications.
  49. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1961). "Talks on PROUT" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 3 Part 15. Ananda Marga Publications.
  50. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1981). "Inter-Block and Intra-Block Planning" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 8. Ananda Marga Publications.
  51. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Social Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  52. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Education" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  53. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Dialectical Materialism and Democracy" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  54. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Education" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  55. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Moralism" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  56. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Education" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  57. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Various Occupations" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  58. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Various Occupations" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  59. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Social Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  60. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1982). "Decentralized Economy – 1" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 21. Ananda Marga Publications.
  61. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1984). "Economic Dynamics" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  62. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1984). "Socio-Economic Movements" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  63. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1980). "What Should History Be Like" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 4. Ananda Marga Publications.
  64. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1980). "Let History Be Rewritten" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 4. Ananda Marga Publications.
  65. ^ Where law ends, tyranny begins. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1770). "In reply to Lord Mansfield, in relation to the case of John Wilkes". The Speeches of Lord Chatham.
  66. ^ We live in and by the law. It makes us what we are: citizens and employees and doctors and spouses and people who own things. Ronald Dworkin (1986). Preface to Law's Empire. Harvard university Press. ISBN 978-0674518360.
  67. ^ One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. For decades social critics in the United States and throughout the Western world have complained that "property" rights too often take precedence over "human" rights, with the result that people are treated unequally and have unequal opportunities. Inequality exists in any society. But the purported conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage. Property rights are human rights. Armen Alchian (1993). "Property Rights" in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics", Liberty Fund.
  68. ^ The establishment of property rights is important not only because it affects the distributions of wealth and income, and control, but also because it affects economic behavior. Often it makes a difference whether there is an owner. New hotels in China, regardless of whether they are government-owned or privately owned, are all beautiful when they open. However, five years later, the government-owned ones typically look more than ten years old. And the privately owned ones often still look new. Lawrence Lau (2006). Role of property rights
  69. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "The Cosmic Brotherhood" published in Idea and Ideology. Ananda Marga Publications.
  70. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Problem of the Day. Ananda Marga Publications.
  71. ^ Martin Cooper, et al., "Radio Telephone System", US Patent number 3,906,166; Filing date: 17 October 1973; Issue date: September 1975; Assignee Motorola
  72. ^ Global mobile statistics 2014 Part A: Mobile subscribers; handset market share; mobile operators. mobiThinking. 16 May 2014.
  73. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ananda Sutram (Sutra 5:9). Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  74. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Moralism" in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  75. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1957). A Guide to Human Conduct. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 9788172521035.
  76. ^ Krug et al., "World report on violence and health", World Health Organization, 2002.
  77. ^ The champions of nonviolence (so-called ahiḿsá) have, therefore, to adopt hypocrisy and falsehood whenever they seek to use this so-called ahiḿsá for their purposes. If the people of one country conquer another country by brute force, the people of the defeated nation must use force to regain their freedom. Such a use of force may be crude or subtle; and, as a result, both the body and mind of the conquerors may be hurt. When there is any application of force, it cannot be called nonviolence. Is it not violence if you hurt a person not by your hands but by some other indirect means? Is the boycott movement against a particular nation not violence? Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1957–1981). A Guide to Human Conduct. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–103–0.
  78. ^ Regrettably, it has to be said that those who hold the view that nonviolence means non-application of force can neither establish sentient peace, nor defend their hard-earned freedom. Their declaration of nonviolence may be deceitful, or a diplomatic maneuver to conceal their weaknesses, but it will never be possible to establish sentient peace through this type of approach. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1958). Chapter 15 of Problem of the Day. Ananda Marga Publications.
  79. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Social Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  80. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1970). "The Three Causes of Sin" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 6. Ananda Marga Publications.
  81. ^ It is impossible for goats to establish sentient peace in the society of tigers. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1958). Chapter 15 of Problem of the Day. Ananda Marga Publications.
  82. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1987). Pramá. Ananda Marga Publications.
  83. ^ Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10
  84. ^ 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, II.II.12. Library of Economics and Liberty.
  85. ^ 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
  86. ^ 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.
  87. ^ Scott, John; Marshall, Gordon (2007). A Dictionary of Sociology. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860987-2.
  88. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Ananda Sutram, Sutra 5:12. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  89. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Nuclear Revolution", published PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 21. Ananda Marga Publications.
  90. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). A Discussion. Out of print.
  91. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "The Place of Sadvipras in the Samaja Cakra" in Idea and Ideology. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–001–8.
  92. ^ a b Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1969). "Sadvipra Boards" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 18. Ananda Marga Publications.
  93. ^ Cakrakendre sadvipráh cakraniyantrakáh. [Located in the nucleus of the social cycle, sadvipras control the social cycle.] Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Sutra 5:2 of Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  94. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1967). Human Society Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  95. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "The Place of Sadvipras in the Samaja Cakra" in Idea and Ideology. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–001–8.
  96. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Chapter 5 of Discourses on PROUT. Ananda Marga Publications.
  97. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Chapter 5 of Discourses on PROUT. Ananda Marga Publications.
  98. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1956). Chapter 29 "Science and Society" of Caryacarya Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  99. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Sutra 5:16 of Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  100. ^ Dogma seals the future of the human intellect. So the man, the spiritual aspirant, who wants to establish himself in the supreme stance, must fight against dogmas. In the realms of philosophy, economics, history, archaeology, sociology and all other branches of science and humanities, dogma is a dangerous factor. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1979). "Dogma – No More" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 4. Ananda Marga Publications.
  101. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1979). "Samatábháva" published in Ananda Vacanamrtam Part 30. Ananda Marga Publications.
  102. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1979). "Socioeconomic Groupifications" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  103. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1979). "Socioeconomic Groupifications" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  104. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Human Society Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  105. ^ Batra, Ravi (1978). The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: A New Study of History. London: McMillan. p. 2. ISBN 0-333-21645-8
  106. ^ Vaeshya means producer, manufacturer. That is, agriculturists (a farmer is an agriculturist), factory laborers, technicians – they are all vaeshyas. And shudra – the unskilled laborer, or one who does nothing, or wastes his or her time, or depends on others. They are all shudras. Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1971). "Twice Born" published in Ananda Vacanamrtam Part 30. Ananda Marga Publications.
  107. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Social Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  108. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Social Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  109. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Sutra 5:8 of Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  110. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1989). "Minimum Requirements and Maximum Amenities" published in PROUT in a Nutshell Volume 4 Part 17. Ananda Marga Publications.
  111. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1958). Chapter 2 of Problem of the Day. Ananda Marga Publications.
  112. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1978). "The Importance of Society" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 3
  113. ^ Society must ensure the maximum development of the collective body, collective mind and collective spirit. Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1962). Purport to Sutra 5:14 of Ananda Sutram. Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.
  114. ^ Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii (1987). "Physical Propulsion, Psychic Propensities and Spiritual Attainment", published in Subhasita Samgraha Part 18. Ananda Marga Publications.
  115. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1984). "Socio-Economic Movements" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  116. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Agrarian Revolution" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  117. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1984). "Socio-Economic Movements" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  118. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (date unknown). "Agrarian Revolution" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 2. Ananda Marga Publications.
  119. ^ a b Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1981). "Women's Rights" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 9. Ananda Marga Publications.
  120. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). "Social Justice" published in Human Society Part 1. Ananda Marga Publications.
  121. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Problem of The Day. Ananda Marga Publications.
  122. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1986). "Quadridimensional Economy" published in A Few Problems Solved Part 7. Ananda Marga Publications.
  123. ^ Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). Problem of The Day. Ananda Marga Publications.
  124. ^ Lewis, James R. Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 2011. ISBN 0199735611.


External links