Welcome to another edition of PROUT Gems. Again this issues looks at vital progressive principles that reflect the higher development of human consciousness and its impact on social structures and policies while also contrasting to those lower tendencies that are stifling human progress. Dharma -- Neohumanist Perspectives on World Peace by Ac. Vimalananda Avadhuta The attainment of world peace challenges human talent and ingenuity but is not an impossible or utopian dream. World peace is attainable; it may even be imminent. Consider two events that caught humanity by surprise: the fall of the Berlin wall on November 9, 1989 and the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. The vulnerability of the mightiest nations on earth have drastically altered world perception, and the world is still changing, especially politically. An ideological confusion prevails and humanity once again searches for an ideology. Let us affirm humanity's smooth transition into a new era. Indeed, "humanity has already crossed the threshold of a new era," claimed P.R. Sarkar in His New Year's message in 1987-88. Despite our advancements in various fields, we have yet to overcome psychological complexes that interfere with social harmony. Social psychology is guided by a combination of sentiments and complexes, which affects our towering world leaders as much as common people. The world has witnessed devastating wars and conflicts brought on by geo-patriotic sentiments, socio-sentiments, feelings of racial supremacy, etc. We were all thankful when the cold war came to a rapid, bloodless end. The ideologies that guide people in their personal lives also guide them in formulating social constructs and attitudes. Ideologies may be matter-centered, self-centered, dogma-centered or spirit-centered. Let us look at socio-political systems born from these ideological types. The Marxist doctrine is essentially matter-centered. Nevertheless, it failed to reliably deliver even potatoes and milk to its infants and people after its 72-year-long experimentation behind a iron and concrete curtain. People rejected Marxism and tore down the infamous Berlin wall. Today people live in a prevailing ideological vacuum in the erstwhile communist states. Capitalism is self-centered and mirrors the lopsided Darwinian law of evolution where only the strong have the right to prosper. A capitalist social structure works on the illusory ethos of mutual exploitation. "I am free to exploit you and you are free to exploit me." In reality, the power to exploit remains concentrated in the hands of the privileged. For the majority, life in self-centered social structures degenerates into an endless struggle for existence amidst plenty. It becomes insecure and artificial, full of contradictions and uncertainties. One is forced to question the glory of a prosperity that excludes so many. Religious power structures are based on dogma-centered ideologies, which are purposefully devoid of human rationality. Such structures use fear to coerce support from the people, yet are incapable of meeting the basic needs of their subjects. Dogma-centered social structures have never been self-sufficient, but survive as parasites on socio-economic systems guided by the other two ideologies. While matter-, self-, and dogma- centered systems have come and gone, no attempt has yet been made to create a social structure based on Spirit-centered, universal, neohumanistic, and cardinal values. The Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar outlines such a possibility in his discourses on Progressive Utilisation Theory (ie PROUT). Sarkar claims that humans are inherently universal and spirit-centered by nature. While recognising that humans have a lower nature due to the process of evolution, he recognises that human beings are evolving and that evolution is always towards their higher nature. However, throughout our history of collective living, our leadership often promoted self-centered, dogma-centered and matter-centered ideas. We must now move on to higher vistas. No doubt, many are reluctant to sacrifice their political egos for cardinal human values. Ignoring the most noble human wisdoms, they continue to push their self-centered agendas. But it's too late for their games: individually and socially we have reached a critical point on the curve of social evolution. At this juncture, there may be only two options left: change our value system or perish as a civilization. What is Sarkar's Neohumanism, and how does he envision a spirit-centered neohumanistic social structure? First, let us look at what it is not. Neohumanism is free from the following three major shortcomings of the prevailing political ideologies: 1. Geo-sentiment (nationalism, geo-patriotism); 2. Socio-sentiment, which promotes social inequality via, lets call it (i) leftist matter-centered ideologies as these fail largely to take account of the higher human nature and all subtle concepts associated with consciousness, the denial of which will ultimately crudify humanity and lead to inequity, and (ii) hatred related to largely right-wing, dogma-centered philosophies including religious hatreds as well as racial, ethnic and gender-based inequality; 3. Pseudo-humanistic sentiment, an essentially self-centered outlook used to justify the continued plunder and degradation of the environment. This can be seen as a type of warfare against other species and the planet itself. In contrast, Neohumanism is a happy blending of spirituality and rationality, a move beyond left and right ideologies. Religious leaders who forgo rationality invent dogmas and capture the allegiance of people by infusing them with inferiority complexes and fear. Progressive rationality without spirituality is dry and heartless. It creates matter-centered structures, such as communism, which enslave and tortures humanity. Neohumanism acknowledges the need for an approach that recognizes both the spirit and the intellect. Leftist thinking is today tending towards the same self-centredness systemic to capitalism, eg feminism is being demoted to looking good in the corporate world and getting up the ladder at the cost of the others. Political ideologies throughout the ages have changed little, although the collective psychology of humanity is yearning for an altogether new social structure. Political ideologies are still polarized, amongst the masses and within the leadership, at both local and global levels. Just recollect the "balance of power" theory of the Cold War era. The polarization or multi-polarization comes about due to the concept of competition and advantage. All this leads to is a continual roundabout of ideas without a direction that is necessarily elevating to human consciousness and which denies higher human nature and this ultimately leads to internal frustration and lack of self-worth. People then consider conformity to a low level or standard of human existence and values to be the norm in order to cope. Insecurity is the name of the game that is implanted and leads to easy control over others, be it social, economic or political. Only the few question war, poverty, etc. But they do have the power the reawaken the many because elevating intellectual power is stronger than physical power and a benevolent universalistic or spiritual outlook is more powerful than any intellectual tendencies. Although the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, world leaders today are out to validate their own limited outlook, this time along cultural lines, and, perhaps, not so "cold". That could be devastating indeed. Sarkar's neohumanistic world order, based on the following principles, present a positive new approach for obtaining world peace: A. A World Constitution, incorporating the following: 1. A common penal code for all countries of the world, 2. A guarantee that clothes, shelter, medical care, food, and education are available to all people. 3. The preservation of all species of plants and animals in their natural habitats wherever possible. 4. Guaranteed purchasing capacity for basic necessities of life to all citizens. 5. Four universal rights for all citizens on the planet: -The right to spiritual practice commensurate with the elevation of humanity, -The right to cultural legacy for upliftment of community, -The right to education for all round development, and -The right to linguistic expression of one's mother tongue. B. A World Militia - standing army; C. A World Government - with more executive power than the current UN (the only fear of world leaders in this regard is loss of position and facing the challenge of working for one humanity not one's nation alone); D. Neohumanistic education to awaken all human potentialities and put them to proper use, particularly higher human capabilities and ethics. E. Creating social leaders and local guides of high ethical standards, in good number, and at all levels of society. -- Hypocrisy to one's advantage " The art of leadership ... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. " " What luck for rulers that men do not think. " - Adolf Hitler " I want to usher in an era of personal responsibility, and that begins in the Oval Office. As President, I will restore honor and dignity to the White House, and set a new tone of respect and bipartisanship in Washington. " - George W. Bush, Campaign 2000 The hypocrite's psychology works as follows. Hypocrites formulate principles and objectives without the least intention of materialising them. By exploiting the name of a theory they serve their own purpose and that of their group. But without making any effort to materialise their theories, how will they be put into practice? They are obviously only for show. Such hypocrites want to misguide the people by their tall talks alone. They create disease in the minds of the people. Their aim is not to solve society's problems. Rather, they are the chief cause for the downfall, retardation and sad plight of human society. The present crisis in today's civilization is due to them. Their theories are based on the psychology and intellectual extravaganza of the hypocrite. You will certainly encounter many such theories in the social sphere, the economic sphere, and other spheres of life. This is not the problem of a single country, but of the entire intellectual world. The crisis in civilization today is due to the intellectual extravaganza of these hypocrites, these polished satans. The exponents of the theory create a farce and are not interested in implementing it, for their motive is simply to dupe the people. Behind all this works the hypocrite's intellect, one factor responsible for the failure. --- Trade for Regional Self-Reliance by Michael Towsey and Dhanjoo Ghista "It is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few. ... This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying so to speak, the lifeblood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will." Pope Pius XI Encyclical "Quadragesimo Anno." The powerful language used by Pope Pius XI conveys something of the magnitude of the crime that is modern international finance. It was not until the mid 19th century that economists became aware that bank lending resulted in the creation of money (1) and most bankers did not admit the fact until well into the 20th century. The gradual public realisation that the privately owned banking system creates a community's money supply at little cost to itself and reaps handsome rewards in the process, resulted in the birth of numerous monetary reform movements - but never any recognition that it really comes from and belongs to and for community purposes. The present international trading system is also inherently inequitable and requires thorough reform if underdeveloped countries are to escape their plight. Proposals for reform which are compatible with self-reliant regional development are required. There are primarily two kinds of economic exchange between individuals, corporate bodies, or nations -- barter, and the money transaction. In barter, there is direct exchange of physical goods or services. Or a central system can be created whereby multiple parties offer goods or services in exchange for any other party's goods and services and matters are kept track of by way of a debit and credit system. There is no need for money since both parties agree that the quantity of goods or services being exchanged are of the same value. It does not matter if the goods are not exchanged at the same time. The essence of the barter agreement is that goods received will at some agreed time be exchanged for other goods of the same relative value. By comparison, in the money transaction, goods received are exchanged for money. The cash recipient is then free to do whatever. The two traders may never see each other again. There is no agreement to have a later reciprocal transaction. Both forms of trading have advantages and disadvantages. Barter can go ahead without money and there is no chance of being caught with money one can't use. One the other hand, barter is cumbersome in a fast-moving and complex economy. Money transactions are convenient and flexible. Since Bretton Woods and the emphasis on the U.S. dollar, poorer and weaker countries have had to accumulate U.S. dollars so they could have a reserve of money to enable them to engage in international trade because of the emphasis on multilateral trade with money as the means of exchange (re GATT). The only way to do this was to export more goods to the U.S. than were imported. By this arrangement, the U.S. was able to accumulate much physical wealth for as long as the exporting countries were prepared to hold onto U.S. dollars. This would not have occurred with barter trading. Barter trading should be used by countries of the undeveloped and developing worlds as this system prevents one community gaining at the expense of another. It means there is no reliance on U.S. dollar accumulation. There is a proper appropriation and exchange of goods. The further two communities are apart, whether in distance, culture, or politics, the more bilateral trading is the preferred system. This principle should have been used to formulate trade agreements in the reform of international trade. Barter (whether bilateral or multilateral) trade is especially beneficial for underdeveloped countries because it helps to isolate them from the economic cycles (of inflation and depression) which originate in exploitatively developed countries (with excessive wealth concentration). Global inflation and depression spread through multilateral trading networks where money is the means of exchanger rather like a contagious disease. Bangladesh exports raw jute, animal hides, and some manufactured goods. It imports foodstuffs and almost everything else. In the event of a global depression, multilateral trading grinds to a halt and Bangladesh would suffer greatly. By arranging barter trading agreements, Bangladesh could lessen the impact of a global depression. Trade would be dependent on actual goods and services which is really what the people need without the vagaries of money ups and downs (2). Of course, there are administrative difficulties with any system, but where the minimum necessities are paramount, barter offers a more fixed surety that the trade will occur without capitalistic profiteering intervening to upset relationships and there is more immunity from the ups and downs of the international money market. Another principle to consider is that there should be minimal trade of raw materials and only where absolutely necessary. Secondary or processed goods is what should be traded. Local industries should be established to utilise local or primary resources. This benefits local industry, increases economic security, and prevents drainage of capital. Manufactured or secondary goods are less subject to price manipulation and command better prices than raw materials. "Local raw material prices in the export market are subject to manipulation and erratic fluctuations as they are currently traded through speculative commodity markets which are controlled by vested interests." (3) What about the principle that free trade offers the best possibility for regional development. Well what really is 'free trade'. Here it must be noted that what free trade should really mean is the absence of government-imposed import and export duties so that prices of these commodities will benefit the consumers when they reach the market for actual consumption. The ultimate objective is affordability to the consumer. But free trade also importantly means the absence of private speculators controlling international markets. It does not mean unregulated trade. The difference is extremely important. Free trade offers many economic advantages for underdeveloped nations principally because it enables them to dispose of local surplus. Import and export duties, tariffs, and trade restrictions reduce the mutual benefits to be gained by trade. Despite their rhetoric, wealthy western nations practice free trade only when it suits their purpose. "Neither the capitalist nor the communist countries like the free trade system because it is detrimental to their respective self-interests. But there are free trade zones in the world which are very bright examples of the success of this sort of system." (4) Fundamentally lacking is any notion of mutual co-operation to directly enhance the undeveloped and developing countries. So long as the capitalist system prevails the competitive and profiteering objective with all its economic inefficiencies will thwart the undeveloped and developing countries benefiting noticeably right down to the village level with the current concept of free trade which, as with capitalism in general, depends on the religious notion of the 'invisible hand', ie mere superstition. In formulating a trade policy, each economic unit should make a distinction between raw materials and manufactured commodities and between essential commodities and luxuries. The export of unprocessed raw materials is an indicator of economic ill health. Rather, such commodities should be converted into manufactured goods at the place of origin of the raw materials. Manufactured commodities invariably command better prices than raw materials. In the case of perishable agricultural commodities, excess production depresses world prices, which benefits only the First World. But canned and processed foods allow possibility of better prices. Research into product diversification is another means to dispose of a surplus. (5) Similarly, the import of essential requirements is a sign of economic ill-health. While the free trade of semi-essential and non-essential commodities is to be encouraged, the trade of essential commodities should be regulated on a global basis to ensure that every citizen in the world has the minimum essentials of life. References 1. J.Pen, Modern Economics, Pelican, UK, 1980. 2. P.R. Sarkar, Prout in a Nutshell, Vol. XIII, Ananda Marga Publications, Calcutta, 1987, p,.54 3. ibid. p.38 4. ibid. p.56 5. ibid. p.57 -- What Is a Cooperative? Cooperatives are formed when a group of like-minded individuals join together to accomplish something that each acting alone would never be able to achieve. Successful coops have to grow from the energy and commitment of the local people themselves. Coops are different to traditional private and public sector enterprises. They represent a third way that integrates economic and social objectives. Unlike the private sector, which tends to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few, coops spread wealth and power to each member equally. Unlike government, which tends to be remote and unresponsive to the communities it is supposed to serve, coops are driven by their members and reflect their needs. Cooperatives have a tremendous advantage over both private enterprises and public enterprises: coop members have a personal interest in their coop's success. The members own the coop, so they are more likely to buy the coop's goods or use its services. Shares in cooperatives are not publicly traded because the shares are owned by the members. The members themselves decide how to spend the coop's profits and how to transfer their shares or bring in new shareholders.