84,753
edits
Progressive Utilization Theory: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Progressive Utilization Theory (view source)
Revision as of 04:34, 23 February 2017
, 23 February 2017Fixed links
m (Removed category) |
m (Fixed links) |
||
| Line 463: | Line 463: | ||
The nature of [[:wikipedia:Property rights|property rights]] is fundamental to [[#Law|legal systems]]. It is also a major distinguishing factor between capitalism and communism. Where capitalism upholds a right to [[:wikipedia:Private property|private property]],<ref>Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10</ref> communism would abolish such a right.{{#tag:ref|[[:wikipedia:Adam Smith|Adam Smith]] considered it a sacred obligation of justice to protect private property.<ref>''The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others.'' Smith, Adam (1759). ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS2.html#II.II.12 II.II.12]. [[:wikipedia:Library of Economics and Liberty|Library of Economics and Liberty]].</ref> In contrast, [[:wikipedia:Karl Marx|Karl Marx]] and [[:wikipedia:Friedrich Engels|Friedrich Engels]] argued that all private property must be abolished.<ref>''In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.'' Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1848). ''The Communist Manifesto''</ref>|group="nb"}} PROUT takes a middle ground by accepting a practical [[:wikipedia:Psychology|psychological]] need of living beings to accumulate property (for a sense of security) but asserting that the extent of accumulation should be restricted by society. | The nature of [[:wikipedia:Property rights|property rights]] is fundamental to [[#Law|legal systems]]. It is also a major distinguishing factor between capitalism and communism. Where capitalism upholds a right to [[:wikipedia:Private property|private property]],<ref>Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism. One World Publications, 2004. p. 10</ref> communism would abolish such a right.{{#tag:ref|[[:wikipedia:Adam Smith|Adam Smith]] considered it a sacred obligation of justice to protect private property.<ref>''The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others.'' Smith, Adam (1759). ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS2.html#II.II.12 II.II.12]. [[:wikipedia:Library of Economics and Liberty|Library of Economics and Liberty]].</ref> In contrast, [[:wikipedia:Karl Marx|Karl Marx]] and [[:wikipedia:Friedrich Engels|Friedrich Engels]] argued that all private property must be abolished.<ref>''In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.'' Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1848). ''The Communist Manifesto''</ref>|group="nb"}} PROUT takes a middle ground by accepting a practical [[:wikipedia:Psychology|psychological]] need of living beings to accumulate property (for a sense of security) but asserting that the extent of accumulation should be restricted by society. | ||
The position of PROUT on property rights is modeled on the [[Dāyabhāga]] system of inheritance in [[Bengal]].<ref>''None of the movable or immovable property of this universe belongs to any particular individual; everything is the common patrimony of all, and the Father of all is Brahma. All living beings can enjoy their rightful share of this property, like members of a joint family in the Dáyabhága system.'' Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). ''Problem of the Day''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref> PROUT extends this system by viewing the entire universe as the [[:wikipedia:Property|property]] of a cosmic [[:wikipedia:Creator deity|Creator]]. Accordingly, the created beings (''children'' of a living cosmic ''parent'') cannot own anything – they can only utilize things, individually and collectively.{{#tag:ref|[[:wikipedia:Karl Marx|Karl Marx]] and [[:wikipedia:Friedrich Engels|Friedrich Engels]] describe such a system as [[:wikipedia:Primitive communism|primitive communism]]<ref>Scott, John; Marshall, Gordon (2007). ''A Dictionary of Sociology''. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860987-2.</ref> in that it is common to early [[:wikipedia:Hunter-gatherer society|hunter-gatherer societies]]. It may be argued that their analysis was incomplete or erroneous. They conceived of such a system operating only at a subsistence level (the basic requirements of life). PROUT, on the other hand, also takes into account the need for a regulated distribution of [[#Amenities|amenities]].|group="nb"}} PROUT asserts that the extent of any [[:wikipedia:Usufruct|usufruct]] should be determined by [[#Society|society]], which acts ''[[:wikipedia:In loco parentis|in loco parentis]]''. Excessive accumulation of wealth tends to restrict the happiness and welfare of others. Hence, that is deemed to be "flagrantly antisocial".<ref>[[Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar|Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii]] (1962). ''Ananda Sutram'', Sutra 5:12. [[Ananda Marga Publications]]. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.</ref> | The position of PROUT on property rights is modeled on the [[:wikipedia:Dāyabhāga|Dáyabhága]] system of inheritance in [[:wikipedia:Bengal|Bengal]].<ref>''None of the movable or immovable property of this universe belongs to any particular individual; everything is the common patrimony of all, and the Father of all is Brahma. All living beings can enjoy their rightful share of this property, like members of a joint family in the Dáyabhága system.'' Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan (1959). ''Problem of the Day''. [[Ananda Marga Publications]].</ref> PROUT extends this system by viewing the entire universe as the [[:wikipedia:Property|property]] of a cosmic [[:wikipedia:Creator deity|Creator]]. Accordingly, the created beings (''children'' of a living cosmic ''parent'') cannot own anything – they can only utilize things, individually and collectively.{{#tag:ref|[[:wikipedia:Karl Marx|Karl Marx]] and [[:wikipedia:Friedrich Engels|Friedrich Engels]] describe such a system as [[:wikipedia:Primitive communism|primitive communism]]<ref>Scott, John; Marshall, Gordon (2007). ''A Dictionary of Sociology''. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860987-2.</ref> in that it is common to early [[:wikipedia:Hunter-gatherer society|hunter-gatherer societies]]. It may be argued that their analysis was incomplete or erroneous. They conceived of such a system operating only at a subsistence level (the basic requirements of life). PROUT, on the other hand, also takes into account the need for a regulated distribution of [[#Amenities|amenities]].|group="nb"}} PROUT asserts that the extent of any [[:wikipedia:Usufruct|usufruct]] should be determined by [[#Society|society]], which acts ''[[:wikipedia:In loco parentis|in loco parentis]]''. Excessive accumulation of wealth tends to restrict the happiness and welfare of others. Hence, that is deemed to be "flagrantly antisocial".<ref>[[Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar|Anandamurti, Shrii Shrii]] (1962). ''Ananda Sutram'', Sutra 5:12. [[Ananda Marga Publications]]. ISBN 81–7252–027–1.</ref> | ||
=== Revolution === | === Revolution === | ||