Dynamics of the Social Cycle

Based upon the relationship formed by the human mind with the natural and social environment, four different social groupings or behaviors may be identified.  Each group has a different relationship with its environment and therefore develops different mental tendencies.  The first group (the masses) are overwhelmed by the psycho-physical waves of the mundane world.  Unable to contend with it, this group spends its energy simply trying to exist.  The second group (the warriors) commands the psycho-physical reality by physical force.  The third (the intellectuals) commands by psychic (mental) force and the fourth (merchants) commands by controlling the manufacture and exchange of psycho-physical objects.  PROUT's concept of Social Cycle identifies the characteristics and circumstances of and their transformation from one to the other and how such eras and transitions may operate smoothly, minimizing or eliminating characteristic exploitation.  


by Prabhat Sarkar, Founder of PROUT

Primitive human beings had no society and the whole set-up was individualistic.  Even the concept of family was absent.  Life was brute and non-intellectual.  Nature was the direct abode and physical strength ruled the day.  The strong enjoyed at the cost of the weak, who had to surrender before the voracity of the physical giants.  However, the sense of acquisition had not developed in them, and they worked manually, and there was no intellectual exploitation in that age.  Though life was brute, it was not brutal.

From bottom, clockwise, the natural flow
of the social cycle, which repeats.

Blue arrows represents natural flow 

of Social Cycle.  

If laborers (shúdras in Sanskrit) be defined as those who live by manual work or service, this primary stage of nature’s brute laws could be named the Laborer Age, because all were manual workers.  The reliance on physical power gradually led a chosen few to lead the rest by the strength of their muscles.  They were the leaders of the laborers.  

Simultaneously, the family developed.  And the above-mentioned leadership, once based upon the superiority of muscles, passed on from the father to the son or from the mother to the daughter, partly due to the momentum of fear and power commanded, and partly because of superiority of animalic breed.  

Superior strength requires the assistance of other superior strengths in the neighborhood for all to maintain their status.  Generally such superior neighbors belonged to the same parenthood or were related through matrimonial ties.  Gradually the leaders by physical might started a well-knit group, and ultimately formed a class known as the warriors (kśatriyas).  The age when the power to rule, or supremacy in arms, was the only material factor that mattered, was the Warrior Age.  The leaders of the Warrior Age were Herculean, huge giants who depended on the supremacy of personal valor and might, making little or no use of intellect.  

With the development of intellect and skill as a result of physical and psychic clash, physical strength had to lose its dignified position according to the growing intensity of intellectual demand in the warrior-dominated society.  One had also to develop skill in the use of arms, and even for this the physical giant had to sit at the feet of some physically-common men to learn the use of arms and strategy.  A reference to the mythology of any ancient culture reveals numberless instances where the hero of the day had to acquire specific knowledge from teachers.  Subsequently this learning was not confined to the use of arms only but extended to other spheres, such as battle-craft, medicine and forms of organization and administration, so essential for ruling any society.  Thus the dependence on superior intellect increased day by day, and in the course of time real power passed into the hands of such intellectuals.  These intellectuals, as the word implies, justified their existence on intellect only, performed no labour themselves, and were parasites in the sense that they exploited the energy put in by others in society.  This age of domination by intellectual parasites can be called the Intellectual (Vipra) Age.  

Progressive Cyclical Spiral of Social Change through the classes,
repeating on, usually, grander scales each time.

Even though the intellectuals came into the forefront by the use of their marked intellect, it is more difficult than in the case of the warriors to maintain a hereditary superiority of intellect.  In an effort to maintain power among the limited few, they actively tried and prevented others from acquiring the use of the intellect by imposing superstitions and rituals, faiths and beliefs, and even introducing irrational ideas (the caste system of Hindu society is an example) through an appeal to the sentiments of the mass (who collectively cannot be called intellectual).  This was the phase of human society in the Middle Ages in the greater part of the world.  

The continued exploitation by one section of society resulted in the necessity for the collection and transfer of consumable goods.  Even otherwise, need was felt very badly for the transport of food and other necessities of life from surplus parts to deficit parts.  Also, in the case of clan conflicts, the result of the resources of one community or class versus another gained importance.  This aspect was confined not only to the producers but also to those handling the goods at various stages up to the point of consumption.  These people became known as capitalists (vaeshyas), and ingenuity and summed-up production began to enjoy supremacy and importance, till an age was reached when this aspect of life became the most important factor.  These capitalists, therefore, began to enjoy a position of supremacy, and the age dominated by this class is said to be the Age of Capitalists.  

Post-Digestive Hierarchy 
of Trickle-down Economics

Individualistic or laissez-faire sense develops capitalism when the means of production pass into the hands of a few who are more interested in personal exploitation.  At this stage it can be said that the instinct of acquisition has developed tremendously.  The thirst for acquisition instigated them to develop the psychology of complete exploitation of the human race also, and this resulted in a class by itself.  In the race for greed and acquisition not all could survive, and only a few remained to dominate the society in general and the economic set-up in particular by their capital.  The great majority were either duped into believing that they would be allowed to share such resources, or were neglected and left uncared-for for want of strength and did not survive the race.  Such people in society ultimately occupy the place of exploited slaves of the capitalists.  They are slaves because they have no option other than to serve the capitalists as laborers to earn the means of subsistence.  

We may recall the definition of laborers as persons who live by manual work or labor hard for their livelihood.  This age of capitalism is the age when the large majority of society turn into such laborers.  This develops into dejection and dissatisfaction on a large scale because of an internal clash in the mind, because the psychology of society is essentially dynamic in nature and the mind itself exists as a result of constant clash.  These conditions are necessary and sufficient for laborers, whether manual or mental, to organize and stand up against the unnatural impositions in life.  This may be termed “laborer revolution”.  The leaders of this revolution, also, are people physically and mentally better-equipped and more capable essentially of overthrowing the capitalistic structure by force.  In other words, they are also warriors.  So, after a period of chaos and catastrophe, once more the same cycle – Laborer Age to Warrior to Intellectual, and so on – recommences.  

In this cycle of civilization one age changes into another.  This gradual change should be called “evolution” or kránti.  The period of transition from one age to another can be said to be yuga saḿkránti – “transitional age”.  One complete cycle from the Laboer Age evolving through the other three ages is called parikránti.  

Social Cycle, and Reversal, as played out
through Egypt's recent history.

Sometimes the social cycle (samája cakra) is reversed by the application of physical or psychic force by a group of people inspired by a negative theory.  Such a change is, therefore, counter-evolution – that is, against the cycle of civilization.  This may be termed vikránti.  But if this reversal of the social cycle takes place, due to political pressure or any other brute force, within a short span of time, the change thus brought about is prativiplava, or “counter-revolution”.  It is just like the devolution of the Cycle of Creation (Brahmacakra).  Thus the progress and march of civilization can be represented as points of position and as the speed of approaching the Supreme, respectively, by a collective body in the Cycle of Creation.

The world is a transitory phase or changing phenomenon within the scope of the Cosmic Mind. It is going in eternal motion, and such a motion is the law of nature and the law of life. Stagnancy means death.  Hence no power can check the social cycle of evolution.  Any force, external or internal, can only retard or accelerate the speed of transition, but cannot prevent it from moving.  Therefore progressive humanity should cast off all skeletons of the past. Human beings should go on accelerating the speed of progress for the good of humanity in general.  

Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous

when Economic Democracy is established.  

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE  

How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE

What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE  

http://gplus.to/ProgressiveSustainability

Social Psychology And Theory Of History

Mark Engler - October 21, 2011

A month after it began with a few hundred people marching on Wall Street, the #Occupy movement has grown to include tens of thousands of participants throughout the country and has captured headlines around the world. If it has not yet succeeded beyond its wildest dreams, that’s only because its participants have dreamed big: imagining a sustained popular uprising that could force fundamental changes in our political and economic system—ones that could end corporate dominance and promote real democracy. 

The movement can, in fact, propel significant changes. But #OccupyWallStreet and its allied occupations still have a ways to go before realizing their potential. The two issues most pressing as they chart their next steps: solidarity and escalation. 

 “Co-optation” or Flattery? 

Despite great success in capturing the public eye, the actual number of people camped out at the various occupations around the country remains relatively small. While there are several hundred people camping in hubs such as New York City and Los Angeles, overnight participants in smaller cities number in the dozens. What bolsters the power of these encampments is that they are representative of a much wider discontent. Far greater numbers of sympathizers turn out for mass meetings, marches, and online shows of support. And, importantly, more established political bodies—unions, advocacy organizations, and community groups representing large constituencies—have offered endorsements of the growing #Occupy effort. 

As more have signed on, some activists have been wary of outside expressions of support. Particularly as Democratic Party officials (including President Obama and Vice President Biden) have said positive things about the movement, some have voiced concerns about “cooptation.” They have argued that outside liberals, “while pretending to advance the goals of the Occupy Movement,” could instead “undermine it from within.” 

How big of a danger “cooptation” actually represents is a matter of dispute. In a recent interview, Chris Maisano asked veteran social movement theorist Frances Fox Piven about this issue. (Piven is author, among many other books, of the landmark Poor People’s Movements and has considered the issue of cooptation at length in her work.) I believe she struck the right tone in her response: 

Maisano: [As] recent comments by even the president and vice-president have showed, a lot of the more institutionalized forces on the left like the unions and MoveOn and the Van Jones American Dream Movement are trying to latch on to the protests and turn them into what some people have called a liberal version of the Tea Party. How do you think their involvement will effect the movement? How should the activists at the core of the movement relate to them?  

Piven: They should be friendly. They should ask them to do things; they should give them assignments. And not adopt the insignia of these groups as their own. In other words they should maintain considerable autonomy, but nevertheless they should treat these groups as allies, as they treated the unions as allies. But they shouldn’t ever let unions tell them what to do, they shouldn’t let Van Jones tell them what to do. Partly because they seem to know better, really. 

So I don’t think that’s their biggest problem, how to deal with their erstwhile supporters.

The danger of cooptation should be put in context. There have been some clearly opportunistic instances of Democrats trying to capitalize on the movement, such as the none-too-radical Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attempting to build its mailing list through a “I Stand with #OccupyWallStreet” petition. But is it really possible that the Democratic Party would somehow swoop in and “take control” of the #Occupy movement? It doesn’t seem like even a remote possibility. 

 Moreover, Peter Drier has made the important point that, when it comes to social change, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The fact that mainstream figures attempt to co-opt and advance watered-down versions of movement demands (as they did with once-impossibly-radical calls for “a progressive income tax, the eight-hour day, the direct election of Senators, old age insurance, and voting rights for African Americans”) is not a defeat, but a sign of victory. Of course, if activists use this as an excuse to call it a day, that is a problem. But if we treat it as an occasion to push for even greater changes, it is a very positive thing. 

 Joining Forces, Gaining Power 

One problem with the rhetoric of “cooptation” is that it casts the need to expand the movement’s reach in a negative light. It leads figures such as Chris Hedges, in a more-radical-than-thou cri de coeur, to adopt right-wing talking points denouncing allies as “union bosses,” rather than to approach coalition-building in a constructive manner. This is unfortunate. For, while cooptation is something to be avoided, a much more pressing and ongoing need for the #Occupy movement is fostering solidarity. 

Before #OccupyWallStreet ever existed, there were lots of people working to fight banks, reverse foreclosures, and challenge corporate power. The problem was that their efforts were isolated and almost universally ignored by the media. The #Occupy movement has created a great opportunity for many of these campaigns to see themselves as part of a unified fight and to receive an added jolt of energy. In return, the more groups that sign on and see themselves as part of the #Occupy effort, the more that movement is able to sustain its status as a growing and dynamic force. It gains greater numbers of participants, more diversity, and heightened credibility. 

Many actions that different local occupations have embraced have grown out of solidarity with groups that were already organizing to advance the interests of the 99 percent. As just one of many examples, #OccupyLA joined up with an anti-foreclosure action against several banks and successfully compelled the reversal of at least one foreclosure decision. This action—wonderfully militant and effective—did not emerge out of the occupation itself. Instead, it had already been organized by the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), an LA community organization. But the fact that the #Occupy movement joined in solidarity was a great boon to all involved. It added a ton of energy to ACCE’s direct action. And, for the #Occupy folks, the positive media attention created by the action generated greater excitement about the City Hall encampment and helped bring a wider range of people to the occupation’s assemblies. 

 When Piven argued that cooptation is not the #Occupy movement’s biggest problem her interviewer replied, “What do you think their biggest problem is?” 

Piven gave a prescient answer: “Spreading the movement. Thinking of second, third, fourth, fifth phases. Other forms of disruptive protest that are punchier than occupying a square.” 

She is right. If the #Occupy movement is to remain in the media spotlight and continue gaining momentum, it must escalate. That could involve many steps, including occupying banks, continuing to use direct action against foreclosures, and embracing further international days of action. Solidarity will be an important part of all of these. 

Within the call of “We Are the 99 Percent” is the idea that, while no one can take over the movement—no single individual or group can declare it over or announce that its ambitions have been satisfied—the coalition of those invited to take part is vast. The movement draws power from its reach. And that is no small part of its brilliance.

Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous when Economic Democracy is established.   Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE   How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE  http://gplus.to/ProgressiveSustainability